No offense, but if you are worried about a $20k difference in your children's schooling then you are working in a level where you don't see where the "real" money is made. It isn't about "keeping employed". You are totally missing my point. My point is it matters when it comes to making "real" money. And I am not talking about some $150k/year job. I guarantee your Bosses boss cares about what school his hires are coming from.
Obviously you are part of the 1% if $20K doesn't matter and Ivy League is on your bucket list. Have at it, spend your cash anyway you want. And Just so you understand, you won't go to an Ivy League school for $20k more than what I pay for my kids. Maybe 10X more would do it, but only if your little angles have the SAT scores and High School academic reputation to get in, but I'd doubt you have kids in that class, even if you have the $300-400K to spend on their education.
It's like I care to be lectured by some poser on Slashdot about how to make "real money". I really am happy with my two bit state school diploma, it's served me just fine for 25+ years now and would be enough for pretty much everybody but you reading Slashdot. The state school diplomas my kids will get will serve them just fine, just like the majority of STEM diplomas earned at accredited schools that nobody knows by name.
Besides, to make "real money" you need to not be working for somebody else but for yourself. The richest guy I know owns his own business and DOESN'T have a STEM degree of any kind. He's an accountant, with an MBA from a no-named school in West Texas, who used to run a business that managed retirement funds for small to medium sized businesses. He's make his money and passed the business on to his three kids, who are now making THEIR money doing the same thing. It's not education that did this, it's his work ethic and business smarts coupled with a bit of wise investing. To make real money, you need drive, ambition and an idea that works, not some piece of paper from a college.
"As long as your school is accredited, it will do nicely, forget spending $20K more, just get the degree."
Nope. As I have said before: in America perception is more important than value. Employers definitely look at the school you are coming from based on perceived value and adjust the offers accordingly. It is illogical, but that is how life works in the West. In the UK it is even more pronounced. The "right" people go to the "right" schools. If you are looking for a return on investment it is better to spend the $20k to go to the "right" school. Personally I don't care about money enough to make a decision based on money. You should choose your education on getting educated, not based on cost or ROI.
I'm telling you that your perception is wrong and I've worked in a lot of places who don't care where you graduated from as long as it's accredited. I've only worked in ONE place where the question of where you may have gotten your degree even came up and it was more of a "we don't need any more graduates from Iowa State" when I worked for Rockwell Collins. For 99.999% of job positions out there, all that is required is a degree from an accredited school, not even your GPA matters past your first job...
Now I agree that the "name brand" schools that everybody has heard of do get more attention on a resume but it's hardly worth the investment of the extra cost. HOWEVER, unless you are the cream of the crop or you have somebody willing to pay for a building on campus to get you in, you are not going to one of them anyway, so why keep bringing them up? Chances are you and your kids are not getting in, even if you could pay. They have nothing to do with the vast majority of college graduates nor do they matter to the vast majority of employers. An accredited school is all you need, and nobody really cares where you went after a few years anyway. I've got a degree from an OK school, it's not a great school, but it's accredited. I've NEVER had an issue getting a job that required a BS degree because I have 25+ years of work history. Yea, It might have been easier to get that first job with a engineering degree from MIT, but now that I have experience and good performance reviews, I'm not having any problems keeping employed.
"There is no need to spend $60K or more and certainly no need to borrow all of that..."
Um, yes it can be. What if you can't live at home? Sounds like you don't understand at all. If your kids were not living at home you would be spending $60k or more, even with your numbers. What is the difference if you pay $40k vs $60k? You would be better off spending the extra $20k now if it means you can go to a better school.
I disagree with you on the last point. As long as your school is accredited, it will do nicely, forget spending $20K more, just get the degree. Unless you are talking "ivy league" schools, where just having gone there opens doors for you, why spend more? It literally WILL NOT matter after 2-4 years of employment. Nobody looks at your GPA or cares what school you went to once you have a professional work history. Sure, it might be an interview conversation starter, but it literally doesn't matter which school you went to, unless it's someplace with huge name recognition, like Cal Tech, or something. There is no advantage, don't spend the $20K if you don't have to.
Again, my kids are lucky. The school they will graduate from is in the top 50 for each of their degrees, but let's be honest, even that won't matter one bit once they have kept their first professional job for a few years. I seriously doubt that extra $20K is worth it, but look at the numbers to prove it to yourself. As long as the local schools is accredited, chances are staying local is the best cost/benefit you can have.
"Now I understand that not everybody has $23K burring a hole in their pocket, and not every one has quality schools within driving distance,"
Sounds like you DON'T understand that. WTF. I'll never understand people like you. Not everyone is in the same circumstances. And $60k isn't much more than $25k anyway when it comes to something as important as education. A STEM degree from a better university will net you much much more than the difference.
Just so you know... I was saying that where I paid this outright as I had the resources, others may need to borrow this. PLUS, I was also allowing that living at home may not be possible for some, so additional housing costs may be required. So my kids are lucky, they will emerge from college debt free. Worst case should be about $30-40K of debt, which with a STEM degree isn't that much debt to retire, given it's the cost of a nice car these days.
However, the exceptions should not be the rule and borrowing $30K for a STEM degree should be well within reach for anybody and easy enough to pay off in a year or two of work, most of us live near reasonable community colleges which are inexpensive places to start, and transferring to a state school as a resident student isn't that expensive if you shop around. All you need is motivation and a bit of financial discipline including working when you can to defray living expenses so you don't have to borrow them and applying for as many scholarships as you can will usually bear some fruit too. There is no need to spend $60K or more and certainly no need to borrow all of that...
Now if your kids are not as lucky as mine, then I suggest you do what my father did and pay to get your kids though college making the deal that they pass the free education on to your grand kids. My dad didn't have a college degree, but he worked hard to put every one of his 5 kids though college and I'm paying the debt I owe him by sending my kids though school too. Pass it on to the next generation...
My kids will cost me a whole lot less than 60K each though their BS degrees, one in mathematics and the other in Computer Science. How's this possible?
1. They attended a community college for their first two years, followed by a very good local 4 year college which is known for it's STEM programs.
2. They both are living at home while they go to school.
3. They are both working during the summer months and applying for as many scholarships as they can find.
The community college is about $2,000 a year when you throw in books, and the 4 year school lists at $12,500 a year, so my full cost, no scholarships included is $30K each. After Scholarships, that dropped to about $23K each.
Now I understand that not everybody has $23K burring a hole in their pocket, and not every one has quality schools within driving distance, but I simply do not understand why anybody thinks spending $60K for a BS in a STEM subject is necessary. You CAN do it for less than you may think, and get a great education if you shop around and consider your options carefully.
Which is a FAR cry from what MY college education cost my father. I went to a state school which cost about $4K/year and had to pay for my lodging. I worked full time at home during the summer and part time during school to defray living expenses and was able to keep Dad's outlay down to under about 5K/year. His total cost was less than $36K in the late 80's. We could have done it cheaper too, had I wished to live at home and commute like my kids.
Is it worth it? Sure is.. But things are a bit different here in the USA...
Exacty. And this is precisely why we need to impeach and get Hillary in for the last 18 months. Pelosi will nominate her.
LOL.. How many folks will we have to burn though to get to Hillary in the presidential succession rules? Let's see, the VP all of congress, all of the cabinet and a pile of federal employees... I think I'm in line before Hillary...
And I'm saying that if they didn't make him, they cannot unmake him.
The problem here is the Trump defies the conventional political logic in almost every way. He never should have won the nomination, never should have won the presidency. The media was biased away from him from the start, INCLUDING Fox. I remember many times where the Fox punditry was proclaiming that Trump was done, washed up, fading away, could never win throughout the campaign. Conventional wisdom says he would lose, and lose badly.
But he didn't lose. Why? The media didn't make him. If they didn't have a hand in making him, how can they unmake him? Haven't they been trying to scuttle him for 2 years now? Why have they not succeeded? Because they are not why he won or lost, they are powerless over him.
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.
A long way to what?
First, the military is one of the few actually mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Of all the things the Fed does, this "provide for the mutual defense" of the states should be a priority.
Second, the money spent on the military is actually necessary, unless you want to advocate we depend on an isolationist foreign policy. The US military is a huge force for good around the world, we keep evil forces and countries intent on domination in check. I remember throwing Iraq out of Kuwait back in the 80's, I understand that our forces in South Korea keep a tin pot dictator intent on conquest at bay. I also know that our forces in Europe keeps the Russian's at bay. There are many historical examples of the US military doing great things for the world.
Third, like it or not, military force is what keeps us free and productive. Keeping the conflicts of the world "over there" has huge economic benefits for us here at home.
From my perspective, the military is worth every penny they spend and every dime they waste.
Then there is the whole "How much does the military actually get?" argument. It's what? About 20% ? You won't be able to make up the deficit even if you deleted the whole military part. $600 Billion just doesn't go that far these days where we have $1 Trillion deficits.
Under Clinton the accounting rules where changed and SS was taken OFF budget. So, the deficit due to SS spending was moved from the federal budget to off the official books. Clinton benefited because SS was a net loss, removing the SS payments from his budget deficient. So Clinton basically did a accounting slight of hand and you guys some how think he was a miracle worker with the budget deficit.
This was roughly the same as you simply deciding to pay the mortgage but not including the cost in your budget. Oh yea, your budget deficit looks good on paper, it went down, but you are borrowing more money than ever before.
What we need to be looking at is total government debt as a % of GDP. In which case, Clinton didn't improve anything and Obama would rate at the bottom of the list of administrations for doubling the already huge national debt.
Trump isn't doing all the much better, but with GDP growth above 3.5% it's not as bad as Obama's anemic sub %2 growth rate. Like it or not Trump is at least headed in the right direction with the total debt as a % of GDP by slowing the rate of growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but if we can sustain 4% GDP growth and keep the budget growth under 3%, eventually, we will lower the national debt as a % of GDP. If we can do this w/o too much inflation, even better, but I doubt we can avoid that given we have pretty much reached total employment now and GDP growth will be driven by productivity gains from now on.
So Trump was made by Hannity now? Give me a break... Not even Rush Limbaugh has that amount of influence. Trump made Trump...
Your confirmation bias is showing. You keep insisting things are true which are not in evidence.
Trump's approval ratings are not that bad, RPC has them at about %44 which isn't all that out of whack if you think Obama's ratings at this time in his first term where nearly identical. Also, Obama lost how many house AND Senate seats his first midterm election? Trump's midterm loss was only a fraction of Obama's. Trump isn't being supported by Fox news, quite the opposite, they are perhaps not as biased away from Trump as others, but they didn't make Trump, they don't have the influence or power to do that.
The media didn't make Trump so it cannot break him, lord knows they've tried and tried. Hannity didn't make Trump and if Hannity leaves the fray it won't unmake Trump. Trump is what he is, the media (fox included) doesn't have enough power and influence to change this. Trump is who he is, he got elected as a novice running his first election in the face of a media that first used him as a whipping boy, as a clown and now as an enemy of their livelihood, they have utterly failed to change Trump or alter in any appreciable way his support as a populist.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Where you complaining about this when Obama was in office? I doubt it.
Where I agree that deficits are a serious issue, I openly wonder if you really care about them and how much you are willing to do about them...
AND are you willing to discuss the national debt in total, and forget this deficit only canard. Because until we are willing to actually look at the whole picture, including entitlements and social programs, I'm going to just sit here and watch as you point fingers for political reasons.
I'd welcome a discussion about limiting the federal government's budget. I actually think that if we simply STOPPED baseline budgeting, by setting the baseline to 0% increase across the board, we could balance the budget and start retiring the debt before the end of the decade. But I'll bet that your side of the isle would bellyache and ballyhoo about all the budget "cuts" we where making and we'd hear about starving children and tossing grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.
For unemployment, one needs to look at the labor participation rate, the number of people working vrs the ones not working. The headline number is only the people drawing unemployment, which doesn't last very long. We've been putting more people to work for the last 18 months with an increasing labor participation rate and pulling folks off of welfare and other public assistance programs.
What's more, average hourly wages are also increasing. More people are working more hours and getting paid more.
Let me get this correct.. You are talking about Obama right?
The guy who said that 3% GDP growth was never going to happen and we needed to get used to less?
The guy who campaigned for Hillary claiming Trump would kill the economic recovery?
The guy who pretty much blamed Bush for all his economic troubles, who's party had control of the House, Senate AND the Whitehouse for 2 full years yet couldn't fix anything?
THAT Obama ?
Let's see.. GDP growth ABOVE 3% with every indicator that it's sustained growth for the last 18 months? Record unemployment numbers for a number of demographics, including reducing welfare roles and getting more and more people working than thought possible?
I think Obama is wrong.... No, I KNOW he is... He was wrong about many things, he's unsurprisingly wrong about this too.
At the very least there is obstruction.
Trump has admitted as much.
What? Obstruction? By doing what exactly?
The firing of Comey wasn't evidence of that. Asking Comey to not investigate Flynn doesn't rise to obstruction, as Comey didn't obey or object to the statement... And, most importantly, we have no official records of what was actually said from an independent third party. It's a He said, he said, situation where there is no clear winner. Trump can effectively spin what ever he said to Comey any way he wishes, and Comey's testimony doesn't override Trump's.
Also, Mueller doesn't have the mandate to investigate this unless his scope was widened. Given that this change in scope would literally require an act of congress (or an improper widening by Rosenstein) I don't think Mueller has anything to do with this.
If I am misinformed, you are engaging in class envy/warfare. There is nothing wrong with being rich.
IF your ideal is that everybody has the same amount of stuff, then you long for socialism and communist government.
I contend that this only makes EVERYBODY but the political elite poor and history is rife with examples of what I mean. The most recent example is just the other side of the gulf of Mexico. Venezuela was once a rich capitalistic society which had rich natural resources. It's been totally devastated by socialism, to the point that in less than two decades it is a total mess, mass starvation runs wild and only the political elite *have* anything. Robbing the rich to give to the poor doesn't work, never has, never will. You will always have poor people no mater what you do with taxes.
So what is your ideal? What does such a society look like? I dare say that unless you are actually honest and thinking, your ideas are unworkable and history proves it, or you are able to accept capitalist ideas actually accrue to the betterment of more people than any other option.
I seriously doubt any portion of the media has anything to do with Trump's appeal, including Fox News. The vast majority of the media have been gunning to bring down Trump since he announced he was running. They have failed... I doubt Fox News is single handedly responsible for making Trump. I'm also convinced that the media, INCLUDEING Fox cannot unmake him.
The reason? The media cannot undo that which they didn't first do. They don't have the power or influence to make or unmake Trump, which is why they generally detest him.
Seriously? You think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to convict?
The Clinton impeachment was for lying under oath and they had him dead to rights on that charge. But, if you look at the Senate votes, no democrat voted to convict, not even one. In fact, even in the most egregious of cases impeachment, rarely did any Senator vote to convict a president from his or her own party. If history is any guide, you won't be able to turn enough republicans.
Think of the implications for the republicans, from a political prospective. It makes no sense to convict Trump, as it will sink the party's next election for sure to do so. Also, for *most* Senators with an "R" after their name, voting to convict is a sure fire way to lose the primary next time around. They are literally doubly damned if they do.
So public opinion is going to need to sway a very long way away from Trump, which means what ever the charge happens to be it's going to need to be significantly more damning than anything that's come up so far. I'm personally at a loss as to what that could possibly be? Russian Collusion is all Mueller is looking into (supposedly) and maybe this surfaces some finance irregularities with Trump's business? I don't think that's enough, do you?
Think about it.. Trump survived the "Billy Bush Tapes", "Stormy Daniels", and his lawyer's getting sent to jail. What else could there be? His tax returns?
I think this the democrats strategy is awash in wishful thinking and impeachment is political malpractice unless the charges rise above the political fray in a very big way. We will have to see some kind of incontrovertible evidence of seriously despicable crimes to make impeachment stick. I'm talking stuff that simply has no defense, no way to spin out of, no political perspective or posturing possible. I don't think Trump has done anything remotely like that and I don't think tax evasion or paying kickbacks or any number of possible things rise to the level needed. I also think that if the democrats don't succeed in their impeachment efforts and get the conviction, they will be hurt in a bad way in 2020.
So, my best guess here is that the democrats will keep taking impeachment for as long as they possibly can, but they will bury it. They will find nothing of note on Trump (because they'd already have it out in the open if it existed). IF they do choose to impeach, it will be after December 2019, even as late as summer in a vain effort to tie up Trump and keep him off the campaign trail. IF they impeach, they will get creamed in 2020 again, lose the house and even more Senate seats because it will clearly be partisan politics being played and I think the country is growing tired of this kind of thing.
Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
Mueller is not your savior. You will have to defeat Trump at the ballot box if you want him out of office. Impeachment is a non-starter unless you are trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. Hear me out on this..
The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or anything having to do with Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. Maybe he's just keeping his powder dry? Maybe he has nothing? You don't know, nor do I, we have to wait for the report, but unless Mueller is actively trying to avoid charging anybody in the administration, I don't see how we get to this point without at least SOME charges related to his original mandate...
But let's assume the democrats come up with something though their house investigations, (Or perhaps Mueller was holding out on us) and they proceed with impeachment. What's going to happen?
Well, the political firestorm will only sink congress' approval rating further. Partisanship will run amok with absolutely NOTHING getting done. With the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump won't have to worry about conviction unless the "crime" he's accused of is universally condemned. I dare say the Mueller investigation does not have evidence of such a crime or we'd have more smoke from him by now, but for Republicans to vote to convict it will have to be *serious*. Remember it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, that's turning a LOT of Republicans.
So Trump, if impeached, will not be convicted and you and I know he won't resign, but will likely start swinging at his political foes with renewed vigor. You can bet gridlock will rule the day, Trump will play the martyr in 2020, run on his accomplishments and the democrats LACK of accomplishments. A heavily divided democrat party will likely nominate a radical left leaning "get Trump" progressive that makes Bernie Sanders look like a right wing radical. Trump will win his primary handily, will cast himself as a centrist throughout his campaign and trample the leftist democrat again by capturing the middle, like he did with Hillary. Both sides will be hugely motivated to vote, turn out will be higher than ever before but the middle will fall for Trump, who will win another 4 years.
It's your choice, but I'd recommend you tread carefully with this impeachment thing... It's alright to make a show of doing it, head fake all you want, but if you actually paint yourself into that corner and impeach Trump, you will seal your fate in 2020. You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
Americans drink tea. The stuff we threw into Boston Harbor was in fact tea, but it wasn't thrown overboard because it was tea, but because it was being taxed.
You see, the issue wasn't we liked coffee better, but that we liked not paying taxes and coffee was not subject to crazy tax rates by the crown...So, in true social justice fashion, it became un-patriotic to drink tea in the colonies. It was seen as spitting in George's eye, the guy in charge who didn't seem to care one wit about his subjects on this side of the pond. So the loyalists drank tea, and rebels drank coffee.
Once coffee got a foot hold, folks acquired a taste for the tax free stuff and the rest is history, starting with a a bunch of tea drinkers hoping on boats and leaving the colonies.
So we get the grammar police AND a "you are dumb" argument together?
My point is that planets like Earth are rare, at least as far as we can tell by observing our galactic neighborhood. There are specific characteristics which are unusual, including the amount of water, the size of our moon, the magnetic field strength, our distance to our star in relation to it's size, and even the size of the planet are all keys in developing and sustaining life as we know it.
How rare is this? We simply do not know for sure, but we can be pretty sure it's nowhere near 1 in 8 but many order of magnitudes less likely. 1 in a million? 1 in a trillion? Maybe even totally unique. The issue here is we cannot directly observe "earth like" planets much less tell if there is life there and this fact isn't changing anytime soon. Any "estimates" here are pure supposition at this point.
So, yes, earth is "pretty unique"... By which I mean, could possibly be unique, or possibly not. I know folks make claims both ways, I'm just not ready to make such a determination based on the evidence we currently have..
Water is probably the most common molecule in the universe. Finding planets with water is easy. Finding one without any toxic chemical that plants can't stand is much harder.
Well, apart from the relative abundance of H2O vrs H2..... Finding planets with water is fairly easy, but finding planets with abundant LIQUID surface water, that seems to be quite a bit more difficult.
Earth is pretty unique among planets. Possibly one of a kind, perhaps not. But it's clear that rocky wet planets which are not too hot, not too cold and have the right amount of gravity, atmosphere etc, are not in every solar system.
This can't run Java, it's in the same "toy" class as the Arduino and C/C++ toy project boards.
All you need for Java is a few cores, preferable i3 or better, a few GB of ram, [at least 8 ] , and a few 100GB of disk space for helper libraries and classes.
for "hello world" type programs, this is the way to go. Anything beyond that, it's useless.
Ah, patience grasshopper... One must use the right tool for the job. Java is a resource hog that gives you platform independence, while C/C++ is where one gets performance... Who in their right mind runs Java on anything in this class of computer and expects to get performance? Code in C/C++ young one, it won't hurt you, unless it is a tool you do not have in your tool box, then you must suffer.
Wise developers obtain many tools, and use the right one for the job at hand. What job are you trying to do? Which is the right tool? Consider carefully.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but if you are worried about a $20k difference in your children's schooling then you are working in a level where you don't see where the "real" money is made. It isn't about "keeping employed". You are totally missing my point. My point is it matters when it comes to making "real" money. And I am not talking about some $150k/year job. I guarantee your Bosses boss cares about what school his hires are coming from.
Obviously you are part of the 1% if $20K doesn't matter and Ivy League is on your bucket list. Have at it, spend your cash anyway you want. And Just so you understand, you won't go to an Ivy League school for $20k more than what I pay for my kids. Maybe 10X more would do it, but only if your little angles have the SAT scores and High School academic reputation to get in, but I'd doubt you have kids in that class, even if you have the $300-400K to spend on their education.
It's like I care to be lectured by some poser on Slashdot about how to make "real money". I really am happy with my two bit state school diploma, it's served me just fine for 25+ years now and would be enough for pretty much everybody but you reading Slashdot. The state school diplomas my kids will get will serve them just fine, just like the majority of STEM diplomas earned at accredited schools that nobody knows by name.
Besides, to make "real money" you need to not be working for somebody else but for yourself. The richest guy I know owns his own business and DOESN'T have a STEM degree of any kind. He's an accountant, with an MBA from a no-named school in West Texas, who used to run a business that managed retirement funds for small to medium sized businesses. He's make his money and passed the business on to his three kids, who are now making THEIR money doing the same thing. It's not education that did this, it's his work ethic and business smarts coupled with a bit of wise investing. To make real money, you need drive, ambition and an idea that works, not some piece of paper from a college.
"As long as your school is accredited, it will do nicely, forget spending $20K more, just get the degree." Nope. As I have said before: in America perception is more important than value. Employers definitely look at the school you are coming from based on perceived value and adjust the offers accordingly. It is illogical, but that is how life works in the West. In the UK it is even more pronounced. The "right" people go to the "right" schools. If you are looking for a return on investment it is better to spend the $20k to go to the "right" school. Personally I don't care about money enough to make a decision based on money. You should choose your education on getting educated, not based on cost or ROI.
I'm telling you that your perception is wrong and I've worked in a lot of places who don't care where you graduated from as long as it's accredited. I've only worked in ONE place where the question of where you may have gotten your degree even came up and it was more of a "we don't need any more graduates from Iowa State" when I worked for Rockwell Collins. For 99.999% of job positions out there, all that is required is a degree from an accredited school, not even your GPA matters past your first job...
Now I agree that the "name brand" schools that everybody has heard of do get more attention on a resume but it's hardly worth the investment of the extra cost. HOWEVER, unless you are the cream of the crop or you have somebody willing to pay for a building on campus to get you in, you are not going to one of them anyway, so why keep bringing them up? Chances are you and your kids are not getting in, even if you could pay. They have nothing to do with the vast majority of college graduates nor do they matter to the vast majority of employers. An accredited school is all you need, and nobody really cares where you went after a few years anyway. I've got a degree from an OK school, it's not a great school, but it's accredited. I've NEVER had an issue getting a job that required a BS degree because I have 25+ years of work history. Yea, It might have been easier to get that first job with a engineering degree from MIT, but now that I have experience and good performance reviews, I'm not having any problems keeping employed.
"There is no need to spend $60K or more and certainly no need to borrow all of that..." Um, yes it can be. What if you can't live at home? Sounds like you don't understand at all. If your kids were not living at home you would be spending $60k or more, even with your numbers. What is the difference if you pay $40k vs $60k? You would be better off spending the extra $20k now if it means you can go to a better school.
I disagree with you on the last point. As long as your school is accredited, it will do nicely, forget spending $20K more, just get the degree. Unless you are talking "ivy league" schools, where just having gone there opens doors for you, why spend more? It literally WILL NOT matter after 2-4 years of employment. Nobody looks at your GPA or cares what school you went to once you have a professional work history. Sure, it might be an interview conversation starter, but it literally doesn't matter which school you went to, unless it's someplace with huge name recognition, like Cal Tech, or something. There is no advantage, don't spend the $20K if you don't have to.
Again, my kids are lucky. The school they will graduate from is in the top 50 for each of their degrees, but let's be honest, even that won't matter one bit once they have kept their first professional job for a few years. I seriously doubt that extra $20K is worth it, but look at the numbers to prove it to yourself. As long as the local schools is accredited, chances are staying local is the best cost/benefit you can have.
"Now I understand that not everybody has $23K burring a hole in their pocket, and not every one has quality schools within driving distance," Sounds like you DON'T understand that. WTF. I'll never understand people like you. Not everyone is in the same circumstances. And $60k isn't much more than $25k anyway when it comes to something as important as education. A STEM degree from a better university will net you much much more than the difference.
Just so you know... I was saying that where I paid this outright as I had the resources, others may need to borrow this. PLUS, I was also allowing that living at home may not be possible for some, so additional housing costs may be required. So my kids are lucky, they will emerge from college debt free. Worst case should be about $30-40K of debt, which with a STEM degree isn't that much debt to retire, given it's the cost of a nice car these days.
However, the exceptions should not be the rule and borrowing $30K for a STEM degree should be well within reach for anybody and easy enough to pay off in a year or two of work, most of us live near reasonable community colleges which are inexpensive places to start, and transferring to a state school as a resident student isn't that expensive if you shop around. All you need is motivation and a bit of financial discipline including working when you can to defray living expenses so you don't have to borrow them and applying for as many scholarships as you can will usually bear some fruit too. There is no need to spend $60K or more and certainly no need to borrow all of that...
Now if your kids are not as lucky as mine, then I suggest you do what my father did and pay to get your kids though college making the deal that they pass the free education on to your grand kids. My dad didn't have a college degree, but he worked hard to put every one of his 5 kids though college and I'm paying the debt I owe him by sending my kids though school too. Pass it on to the next generation...
My kids will cost me a whole lot less than 60K each though their BS degrees, one in mathematics and the other in Computer Science. How's this possible?
1. They attended a community college for their first two years, followed by a very good local 4 year college which is known for it's STEM programs.
2. They both are living at home while they go to school.
3. They are both working during the summer months and applying for as many scholarships as they can find.
The community college is about $2,000 a year when you throw in books, and the 4 year school lists at $12,500 a year, so my full cost, no scholarships included is $30K each. After Scholarships, that dropped to about $23K each.
Now I understand that not everybody has $23K burring a hole in their pocket, and not every one has quality schools within driving distance, but I simply do not understand why anybody thinks spending $60K for a BS in a STEM subject is necessary. You CAN do it for less than you may think, and get a great education if you shop around and consider your options carefully.
Which is a FAR cry from what MY college education cost my father. I went to a state school which cost about $4K/year and had to pay for my lodging. I worked full time at home during the summer and part time during school to defray living expenses and was able to keep Dad's outlay down to under about 5K/year. His total cost was less than $36K in the late 80's. We could have done it cheaper too, had I wished to live at home and commute like my kids.
Is it worth it? Sure is.. But things are a bit different here in the USA...
Exacty. And this is precisely why we need to impeach and get Hillary in for the last 18 months. Pelosi will nominate her.
LOL.. How many folks will we have to burn though to get to Hillary in the presidential succession rules? Let's see, the VP all of congress, all of the cabinet and a pile of federal employees... I think I'm in line before Hillary...
And I'm saying that if they didn't make him, they cannot unmake him.
The problem here is the Trump defies the conventional political logic in almost every way. He never should have won the nomination, never should have won the presidency. The media was biased away from him from the start, INCLUDING Fox. I remember many times where the Fox punditry was proclaiming that Trump was done, washed up, fading away, could never win throughout the campaign. Conventional wisdom says he would lose, and lose badly.
But he didn't lose. Why? The media didn't make him. If they didn't have a hand in making him, how can they unmake him? Haven't they been trying to scuttle him for 2 years now? Why have they not succeeded? Because they are not why he won or lost, they are powerless over him.
We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.
The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile
Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.
A long way to what?
First, the military is one of the few actually mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Of all the things the Fed does, this "provide for the mutual defense" of the states should be a priority.
Second, the money spent on the military is actually necessary, unless you want to advocate we depend on an isolationist foreign policy. The US military is a huge force for good around the world, we keep evil forces and countries intent on domination in check. I remember throwing Iraq out of Kuwait back in the 80's, I understand that our forces in South Korea keep a tin pot dictator intent on conquest at bay. I also know that our forces in Europe keeps the Russian's at bay. There are many historical examples of the US military doing great things for the world.
Third, like it or not, military force is what keeps us free and productive. Keeping the conflicts of the world "over there" has huge economic benefits for us here at home.
From my perspective, the military is worth every penny they spend and every dime they waste.
Then there is the whole "How much does the military actually get?" argument. It's what? About 20% ? You won't be able to make up the deficit even if you deleted the whole military part. $600 Billion just doesn't go that far these days where we have $1 Trillion deficits.
I'll shovel that pile back if I where you..
Under Clinton the accounting rules where changed and SS was taken OFF budget. So, the deficit due to SS spending was moved from the federal budget to off the official books. Clinton benefited because SS was a net loss, removing the SS payments from his budget deficient. So Clinton basically did a accounting slight of hand and you guys some how think he was a miracle worker with the budget deficit.
This was roughly the same as you simply deciding to pay the mortgage but not including the cost in your budget. Oh yea, your budget deficit looks good on paper, it went down, but you are borrowing more money than ever before.
What we need to be looking at is total government debt as a % of GDP. In which case, Clinton didn't improve anything and Obama would rate at the bottom of the list of administrations for doubling the already huge national debt.
Trump isn't doing all the much better, but with GDP growth above 3.5% it's not as bad as Obama's anemic sub %2 growth rate. Like it or not Trump is at least headed in the right direction with the total debt as a % of GDP by slowing the rate of growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but if we can sustain 4% GDP growth and keep the budget growth under 3%, eventually, we will lower the national debt as a % of GDP. If we can do this w/o too much inflation, even better, but I doubt we can avoid that given we have pretty much reached total employment now and GDP growth will be driven by productivity gains from now on.
So Trump was made by Hannity now? Give me a break... Not even Rush Limbaugh has that amount of influence. Trump made Trump...
Your confirmation bias is showing. You keep insisting things are true which are not in evidence.
Trump's approval ratings are not that bad, RPC has them at about %44 which isn't all that out of whack if you think Obama's ratings at this time in his first term where nearly identical. Also, Obama lost how many house AND Senate seats his first midterm election? Trump's midterm loss was only a fraction of Obama's. Trump isn't being supported by Fox news, quite the opposite, they are perhaps not as biased away from Trump as others, but they didn't make Trump, they don't have the influence or power to do that.
The media didn't make Trump so it cannot break him, lord knows they've tried and tried. Hannity didn't make Trump and if Hannity leaves the fray it won't unmake Trump. Trump is what he is, the media (fox included) doesn't have enough power and influence to change this. Trump is who he is, he got elected as a novice running his first election in the face of a media that first used him as a whipping boy, as a clown and now as an enemy of their livelihood, they have utterly failed to change Trump or alter in any appreciable way his support as a populist.
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Where you complaining about this when Obama was in office? I doubt it.
Where I agree that deficits are a serious issue, I openly wonder if you really care about them and how much you are willing to do about them...
AND are you willing to discuss the national debt in total, and forget this deficit only canard. Because until we are willing to actually look at the whole picture, including entitlements and social programs, I'm going to just sit here and watch as you point fingers for political reasons.
I'd welcome a discussion about limiting the federal government's budget. I actually think that if we simply STOPPED baseline budgeting, by setting the baseline to 0% increase across the board, we could balance the budget and start retiring the debt before the end of the decade. But I'll bet that your side of the isle would bellyache and ballyhoo about all the budget "cuts" we where making and we'd hear about starving children and tossing grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.
For unemployment, one needs to look at the labor participation rate, the number of people working vrs the ones not working. The headline number is only the people drawing unemployment, which doesn't last very long. We've been putting more people to work for the last 18 months with an increasing labor participation rate and pulling folks off of welfare and other public assistance programs.
What's more, average hourly wages are also increasing. More people are working more hours and getting paid more.
Let me get this correct.. You are talking about Obama right?
The guy who said that 3% GDP growth was never going to happen and we needed to get used to less?
The guy who campaigned for Hillary claiming Trump would kill the economic recovery?
The guy who pretty much blamed Bush for all his economic troubles, who's party had control of the House, Senate AND the Whitehouse for 2 full years yet couldn't fix anything?
THAT Obama ?
Let's see.. GDP growth ABOVE 3% with every indicator that it's sustained growth for the last 18 months? Record unemployment numbers for a number of demographics, including reducing welfare roles and getting more and more people working than thought possible?
I think Obama is wrong.... No, I KNOW he is... He was wrong about many things, he's unsurprisingly wrong about this too.
At the very least there is obstruction. Trump has admitted as much.
What? Obstruction? By doing what exactly?
The firing of Comey wasn't evidence of that. Asking Comey to not investigate Flynn doesn't rise to obstruction, as Comey didn't obey or object to the statement... And, most importantly, we have no official records of what was actually said from an independent third party. It's a He said, he said, situation where there is no clear winner. Trump can effectively spin what ever he said to Comey any way he wishes, and Comey's testimony doesn't override Trump's.
Also, Mueller doesn't have the mandate to investigate this unless his scope was widened. Given that this change in scope would literally require an act of congress (or an improper widening by Rosenstein) I don't think Mueller has anything to do with this.
If I am misinformed, you are engaging in class envy/warfare. There is nothing wrong with being rich.
IF your ideal is that everybody has the same amount of stuff, then you long for socialism and communist government.
I contend that this only makes EVERYBODY but the political elite poor and history is rife with examples of what I mean. The most recent example is just the other side of the gulf of Mexico. Venezuela was once a rich capitalistic society which had rich natural resources. It's been totally devastated by socialism, to the point that in less than two decades it is a total mess, mass starvation runs wild and only the political elite *have* anything. Robbing the rich to give to the poor doesn't work, never has, never will. You will always have poor people no mater what you do with taxes.
So what is your ideal? What does such a society look like? I dare say that unless you are actually honest and thinking, your ideas are unworkable and history proves it, or you are able to accept capitalist ideas actually accrue to the betterment of more people than any other option.
So Trump was made by Fox News?
I seriously doubt any portion of the media has anything to do with Trump's appeal, including Fox News. The vast majority of the media have been gunning to bring down Trump since he announced he was running. They have failed... I doubt Fox News is single handedly responsible for making Trump. I'm also convinced that the media, INCLUDEING Fox cannot unmake him.
The reason? The media cannot undo that which they didn't first do. They don't have the power or influence to make or unmake Trump, which is why they generally detest him.
I'm not going to disagree with you. Yep, it's true, his confrontational style and big mouth are not an asset and have done more harm than good..
HOWEVER, that's style and personality. When I vote I'm judging on policy first. Style doesn't override policy in my perspective.
Seriously? You think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to convict?
The Clinton impeachment was for lying under oath and they had him dead to rights on that charge. But, if you look at the Senate votes, no democrat voted to convict, not even one. In fact, even in the most egregious of cases impeachment, rarely did any Senator vote to convict a president from his or her own party. If history is any guide, you won't be able to turn enough republicans.
Think of the implications for the republicans, from a political prospective. It makes no sense to convict Trump, as it will sink the party's next election for sure to do so. Also, for *most* Senators with an "R" after their name, voting to convict is a sure fire way to lose the primary next time around. They are literally doubly damned if they do.
So public opinion is going to need to sway a very long way away from Trump, which means what ever the charge happens to be it's going to need to be significantly more damning than anything that's come up so far. I'm personally at a loss as to what that could possibly be? Russian Collusion is all Mueller is looking into (supposedly) and maybe this surfaces some finance irregularities with Trump's business? I don't think that's enough, do you?
Think about it.. Trump survived the "Billy Bush Tapes", "Stormy Daniels", and his lawyer's getting sent to jail. What else could there be? His tax returns?
I think this the democrats strategy is awash in wishful thinking and impeachment is political malpractice unless the charges rise above the political fray in a very big way. We will have to see some kind of incontrovertible evidence of seriously despicable crimes to make impeachment stick. I'm talking stuff that simply has no defense, no way to spin out of, no political perspective or posturing possible. I don't think Trump has done anything remotely like that and I don't think tax evasion or paying kickbacks or any number of possible things rise to the level needed. I also think that if the democrats don't succeed in their impeachment efforts and get the conviction, they will be hurt in a bad way in 2020.
So, my best guess here is that the democrats will keep taking impeachment for as long as they possibly can, but they will bury it. They will find nothing of note on Trump (because they'd already have it out in the open if it existed). IF they do choose to impeach, it will be after December 2019, even as late as summer in a vain effort to tie up Trump and keep him off the campaign trail. IF they impeach, they will get creamed in 2020 again, lose the house and even more Senate seats because it will clearly be partisan politics being played and I think the country is growing tired of this kind of thing.
Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
Mueller is not your savior. You will have to defeat Trump at the ballot box if you want him out of office. Impeachment is a non-starter unless you are trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. Hear me out on this..
The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or anything having to do with Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. Maybe he's just keeping his powder dry? Maybe he has nothing? You don't know, nor do I, we have to wait for the report, but unless Mueller is actively trying to avoid charging anybody in the administration, I don't see how we get to this point without at least SOME charges related to his original mandate...
But let's assume the democrats come up with something though their house investigations, (Or perhaps Mueller was holding out on us) and they proceed with impeachment. What's going to happen?
Well, the political firestorm will only sink congress' approval rating further. Partisanship will run amok with absolutely NOTHING getting done. With the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump won't have to worry about conviction unless the "crime" he's accused of is universally condemned. I dare say the Mueller investigation does not have evidence of such a crime or we'd have more smoke from him by now, but for Republicans to vote to convict it will have to be *serious*. Remember it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, that's turning a LOT of Republicans.
So Trump, if impeached, will not be convicted and you and I know he won't resign, but will likely start swinging at his political foes with renewed vigor. You can bet gridlock will rule the day, Trump will play the martyr in 2020, run on his accomplishments and the democrats LACK of accomplishments. A heavily divided democrat party will likely nominate a radical left leaning "get Trump" progressive that makes Bernie Sanders look like a right wing radical. Trump will win his primary handily, will cast himself as a centrist throughout his campaign and trample the leftist democrat again by capturing the middle, like he did with Hillary. Both sides will be hugely motivated to vote, turn out will be higher than ever before but the middle will fall for Trump, who will win another 4 years.
It's your choice, but I'd recommend you tread carefully with this impeachment thing... It's alright to make a show of doing it, head fake all you want, but if you actually paint yourself into that corner and impeach Trump, you will seal your fate in 2020. You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and
Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.
THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.
My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.
Americans drink tea. The stuff we threw into Boston Harbor was in fact tea, but it wasn't thrown overboard because it was tea, but because it was being taxed.
You see, the issue wasn't we liked coffee better, but that we liked not paying taxes and coffee was not subject to crazy tax rates by the crown...So, in true social justice fashion, it became un-patriotic to drink tea in the colonies. It was seen as spitting in George's eye, the guy in charge who didn't seem to care one wit about his subjects on this side of the pond. So the loyalists drank tea, and rebels drank coffee.
Once coffee got a foot hold, folks acquired a taste for the tax free stuff and the rest is history, starting with a a bunch of tea drinkers hoping on boats and leaving the colonies.
... the organic momo's that believe they will never die by eating only organic ?
E-Coli is organic.. 100%...
There are plenty of organic things that will kill ya..
So we get the grammar police AND a "you are dumb" argument together?
My point is that planets like Earth are rare, at least as far as we can tell by observing our galactic neighborhood. There are specific characteristics which are unusual, including the amount of water, the size of our moon, the magnetic field strength, our distance to our star in relation to it's size, and even the size of the planet are all keys in developing and sustaining life as we know it.
How rare is this? We simply do not know for sure, but we can be pretty sure it's nowhere near 1 in 8 but many order of magnitudes less likely. 1 in a million? 1 in a trillion? Maybe even totally unique. The issue here is we cannot directly observe "earth like" planets much less tell if there is life there and this fact isn't changing anytime soon. Any "estimates" here are pure supposition at this point.
So, yes, earth is "pretty unique"... By which I mean, could possibly be unique, or possibly not. I know folks make claims both ways, I'm just not ready to make such a determination based on the evidence we currently have..
Water is probably the most common molecule in the universe. Finding planets with water is easy. Finding one without any toxic chemical that plants can't stand is much harder.
Well, apart from the relative abundance of H2O vrs H2..... Finding planets with water is fairly easy, but finding planets with abundant LIQUID surface water, that seems to be quite a bit more difficult.
Earth is pretty unique among planets. Possibly one of a kind, perhaps not. But it's clear that rocky wet planets which are not too hot, not too cold and have the right amount of gravity, atmosphere etc, are not in every solar system.
This can't run Java, it's in the same "toy" class as the Arduino and C/C++ toy project boards.
All you need for Java is a few cores, preferable i3 or better, a few GB of ram, [at least 8 ] , and a few 100GB of disk space for helper libraries and classes.
for "hello world" type programs, this is the way to go. Anything beyond that, it's useless.
Ah, patience grasshopper... One must use the right tool for the job. Java is a resource hog that gives you platform independence, while C/C++ is where one gets performance... Who in their right mind runs Java on anything in this class of computer and expects to get performance? Code in C/C++ young one, it won't hurt you, unless it is a tool you do not have in your tool box, then you must suffer.
Wise developers obtain many tools, and use the right one for the job at hand. What job are you trying to do? Which is the right tool? Consider carefully.