What you say is half true. Low interest rates ("free money", "juiced the economy"), have been notoriously ineffective in this "recovery", due to increased regulation and erratic (and hostile) leadership creating an unfavorable business environment. Early in the low interest rate period the common observation was "pushing on a rope".
Thanks. I noted Frank's guilt above, but your post came before mine. Frank's co-conspirator in the Senate was Christopher Dodd, and no doubt Teddy Kennedy helped.
It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if W. had treated the law as Obama has, and shut down Freddie and Fannie by executive decree. Surely the same people now praising Obama for his actions and claiming the president can do whatever he wants, would have been rioting for impeachment.
The schools are wasting money by the barrel, made possible by outrageous tuition prices.
In 1968, a student could have gone to MIT, and paid room and board and tuition with the proceeds of a job as a full-time cashier, stockboy, or waiter. This is no longer even remotely possible. The additional money is going somewhere, and it's not likely that economy is a high priority.
If a school is wasting money, you should not help it waste money by sending your money to it.
Any school not wasting money should not be charging so much that a single student cannot work his way through school. (Economy and effort is expected of the student also: if he's in bull sessions or drinking beer or partying on weekends, he's not trying hard enough.)
Do you not understand that money is fungible, that there is no difference between a dollar spent on "operating and capital expenses" and a dollar spent on teachers' salaries?
Re:Don't give money to your alma mater.
on
Everyone Hates Harvard
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
I graduated from MIT in 1972 and they'll never get a penny from me.
MIT is the home of Jonathon Gruber, who has publicly proclaimed that
__he created Obamacare
__Obamacare is a fraud
__the American public is stupid for accepting this fraud
Presumably, he's proud of himself for doing this. He's made huge bundles of money for this admitted fraud, billing thousands of consultant hours for work not done.
This is representative of all too many professors at MIT. Don't let your money go there.
an attempt to improve major problems that need reform
It is not enough to (allegedly) attempt to improve major problems that need reform. The problems must be genuinely ameliorated or reduced. Take for example "Common Core" which was supposed to be a set of high educational standards, and became perverted (possibly with Gate's "help") into a program to indoctrinate worker bees.
Charities must be watched continuously, carefully, and intelligently. Charities are just too tempting a target to those wishing to grab money or power.
The people who lend out money to people who had no chance of paying back should be punished, not rewarded.
Their guilt is partial. The root of the problem, deliberate and malicious, goes to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and their accomplices and fellow-travelers, who wrote laws forcing banks to give loans to the incapable. This vote-buying scheme was done in the name of racial and economic equality, and (of course) did the most damage to those it was "intended" to help.
The claim that the "one percenters" is a fixed group, passing wealth from generation to generation, is a fraud. As reported in the Jun 8, 2015 issue of Investor's Business Daily, between 60% and 72% of the Forbes 400 list change over a period of 32 years (not just individuals, families.) The same principle applies to the top 1% as applies to the top 400.
Assuming a person is not manifestly mentally defective, anyone can achieve great wealth and power. People who are noxious, malignant, vicious, underhanded, and not particularly intelligent - like both of the Clintons, and both of the Obamas - can achieve wealth and power through dedication to scum-sucking politics. Good people can achieve wealth through continuous dedication to the goal of creating value and insisting on being paid for it. This fanatical dedication is seldom passed on to progeny: more energetic people replace them at the top.
I haven't needed a doctor's services in 45 years. Forcing me to pay for insurance that I neither want nor need does not save me money, but it does help me believe I'm living in a tyranny.
A president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office in a matter of hours if the men required to do the job were not cowards and villains.
And in the three months between the time we started gathering troops on his border and the time we actually invaded, he shipped the weapons out of Iraq. What was your point again?
The Welfare Reform Act, which you credit to Clinton, was a Republican project only signed by Clinton when presented to him for the third time. It did a great deal to reduce poverty by getting the undeserving poor off their fat, lazy asses.
Benjamin Franklin:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
He may have to pay for Michelle's asswipes, but he doesn't pay when Michelle takes an Air Force jet for a cross-country shopping spree disguised as a speaking engagement.
The phrase "general Welfare of the United States" does not point to giving money to poor individuals, which in most instances degrades the general welfare of the United States. individual - town - county - state - United States --- the individual is 4 layers separated from the U.S.. It is you who has failed to understand the meaning of the written word.
That all laws are (ultimately) enforced at gunpoint has large and significant meaning. It means that no law should be so unimportant that enforcing it at gunpoint is improper.
Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint. Let's say you're caught on camera trampling on the flowers at city hall. You're identified as engaging in this violation of the law, a court date is set and you don't go. A judgement for a fine is made against you and you refuse to pay. After further legal proceedings, an attempt is made to seize your monetary assets, but anticipating this you close all your accounts. At this point, the government may set a lien on your property (if you don't have any, I suppose a warrant for your arrest could be issued, in which case "gunpoint" is achieved). Now you can't sell your property, so you've lost some control over it, all without "gunpoint". Eventually, fines and interest will add up, and the government will decide to sell your property at auction, taking the money it thinks it's owed, returning the rest (if any) to you. If this isn't where you're living, it's done, no gunpoint. However, if you dwell on that property, the new owner can charge you with trespass, which soon becomes criminal trespass. You are then subject to arrest, "gunpoint." ------ The point is that in the case of trivial laws, breaking additional laws may be necessary before government force is involved. The government will not be interested in your claim that pointing a gun at you is the unreasonable, ultimate result of stomping on some flowers
People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity. The government need not be involved.
Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education. All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.
Army and police provided by private industry has severe difficulties from many directions. One is that the level of funding required is difficult to achieve, another is that protections against anti-public abuse are difficult. Yet another is the possibility of inter-corporate warfare. Army and police forces are expected protect a given land area; their funding and control should be tied to their land areas as directly as possible. That means governmental control or some other mechanism very much like governmental control; private industry doesn't qualify.
Slashdot Mirror
Non sequitur. The Bible did not record every time Jesus took a leak; that doesn't mean he never did.
All His emails are on Hillary's server.
What you say is half true. Low interest rates ("free money", "juiced the economy"), have been notoriously ineffective in this "recovery", due to increased regulation and erratic (and hostile) leadership creating an unfavorable business environment. Early in the low interest rate period the common observation was "pushing on a rope".
Thanks. I noted Frank's guilt above, but your post came before mine. Frank's co-conspirator in the Senate was Christopher Dodd, and no doubt Teddy Kennedy helped.
It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if W. had treated the law as Obama has, and shut down Freddie and Fannie by executive decree. Surely the same people now praising Obama for his actions and claiming the president can do whatever he wants, would have been rioting for impeachment.
The schools are wasting money by the barrel, made possible by outrageous tuition prices.
In 1968, a student could have gone to MIT, and paid room and board and tuition with the proceeds of a job as a full-time cashier, stockboy, or waiter. This is no longer even remotely possible. The additional money is going somewhere, and it's not likely that economy is a high priority.
If a school is wasting money, you should not help it waste money by sending your money to it.
Any school not wasting money should not be charging so much that a single student cannot work his way through school. (Economy and effort is expected of the student also: if he's in bull sessions or drinking beer or partying on weekends, he's not trying hard enough.)
Do you not understand that money is fungible, that there is no difference between a dollar spent on "operating and capital expenses" and a dollar spent on teachers' salaries?
I graduated from MIT in 1972 and they'll never get a penny from me.
MIT is the home of Jonathon Gruber, who has publicly proclaimed that
Presumably, he's proud of himself for doing this. He's made huge bundles of money for this admitted fraud, billing thousands of consultant hours for work not done.
This is representative of all too many professors at MIT. Don't let your money go there.
It is not enough to (allegedly) attempt to improve major problems that need reform. The problems must be genuinely ameliorated or reduced. Take for example "Common Core" which was supposed to be a set of high educational standards, and became perverted (possibly with Gate's "help") into a program to indoctrinate worker bees.
Charities must be watched continuously, carefully, and intelligently. Charities are just too tempting a target to those wishing to grab money or power.
Their guilt is partial. The root of the problem, deliberate and malicious, goes to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and their accomplices and fellow-travelers, who wrote laws forcing banks to give loans to the incapable. This vote-buying scheme was done in the name of racial and economic equality, and (of course) did the most damage to those it was "intended" to help.
Ooh, thoughtcrime. You believe that people should be jailed for the contents of their minds.
Your argument is that it's OK to torture your children if there is no law against it.
That you are too lazy to do the research yourself is all the demonstration that's needed to show that you're part of the problem.
The claim that the "one percenters" is a fixed group, passing wealth from generation to generation, is a fraud. As reported in the Jun 8, 2015 issue of Investor's Business Daily, between 60% and 72% of the Forbes 400 list change over a period of 32 years (not just individuals, families.) The same principle applies to the top 1% as applies to the top 400.
Assuming a person is not manifestly mentally defective, anyone can achieve great wealth and power. People who are noxious, malignant, vicious, underhanded, and not particularly intelligent - like both of the Clintons, and both of the Obamas - can achieve wealth and power through dedication to scum-sucking politics. Good people can achieve wealth through continuous dedication to the goal of creating value and insisting on being paid for it. This fanatical dedication is seldom passed on to progeny: more energetic people replace them at the top.
I haven't needed a doctor's services in 45 years. Forcing me to pay for insurance that I neither want nor need does not save me money, but it does help me believe I'm living in a tyranny.
And you're Dorothy's scarecrow, believing that such a thing is possible.
A president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office in a matter of hours if the men required to do the job were not cowards and villains.
Americans will be hating Obama after he is dead for a century, just as hate for Benedict Arnold and John Wilkes Booth and Hitler and Stalin endures.
That happened between 81 and 101 years ago.
Obama's Attorney General has repeatedly refused to bring charges against obvious law breakers who are either black or Democrat.
And in the three months between the time we started gathering troops on his border and the time we actually invaded, he shipped the weapons out of Iraq. What was your point again?
The Welfare Reform Act, which you credit to Clinton, was a Republican project only signed by Clinton when presented to him for the third time. It did a great deal to reduce poverty by getting the undeserving poor off their fat, lazy asses.
Benjamin Franklin:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
He may have to pay for Michelle's asswipes, but he doesn't pay when Michelle takes an Air Force jet for a cross-country shopping spree disguised as a speaking engagement.
1) Cut off nose to spite face.
2) Profit ?
The phrase "general Welfare of the United States" does not point to giving money to poor individuals, which in most instances degrades the general welfare of the United States.
individual - town - county - state - United States --- the individual is 4 layers separated from the U.S.. It is you who has failed to understand the meaning of the written word.
That all laws are (ultimately) enforced at gunpoint has large and significant meaning. It means that no law should be so unimportant that enforcing it at gunpoint is improper.
Although I do not like to follow this train of logic, it's important to point out that some laws are not immediately enforced at gunpoint. Let's say you're caught on camera trampling on the flowers at city hall. You're identified as engaging in this violation of the law, a court date is set and you don't go. A judgement for a fine is made against you and you refuse to pay. After further legal proceedings, an attempt is made to seize your monetary assets, but anticipating this you close all your accounts. At this point, the government may set a lien on your property (if you don't have any, I suppose a warrant for your arrest could be issued, in which case "gunpoint" is achieved). Now you can't sell your property, so you've lost some control over it, all without "gunpoint". Eventually, fines and interest will add up, and the government will decide to sell your property at auction, taking the money it thinks it's owed, returning the rest (if any) to you. If this isn't where you're living, it's done, no gunpoint. However, if you dwell on that property, the new owner can charge you with trespass, which soon becomes criminal trespass. You are then subject to arrest, "gunpoint." ------ The point is that in the case of trivial laws, breaking additional laws may be necessary before government force is involved. The government will not be interested in your claim that pointing a gun at you is the unreasonable, ultimate result of stomping on some flowers
People's food needs in the absence of government coercion are already taken care of by private actions: farming, jobs, and in extreme cases by charity. The government need not be involved.
Education provided by the government is at least 2 to 4 times as costly as it needs to be for a good education. All but the poorest parents can afford to pay for teachers, and private education reduces the likelihood of government indoctrination, whether such indoctrination be Nazi, communist, religious, or whatever.
Army and police provided by private industry has severe difficulties from many directions. One is that the level of funding required is difficult to achieve, another is that protections against anti-public abuse are difficult. Yet another is the possibility of inter-corporate warfare. Army and police forces are expected protect a given land area; their funding and control should be tied to their land areas as directly as possible. That means governmental control or some other mechanism very much like governmental control; private industry doesn't qualify.