He passes a budget each and every year, so discounting his first year in office, he is as much responsible for the debt as anyone. He can also heavily influence tax policy, so I'm not sure what your point is except to excuse Obama from his responsiblity.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do?
I disagreed with the 15% statement of the GP. However, if "what I can and can't do" involves taking money from others to pay for education, than the gov't surely has a stake in determining who gets the money. Right now, academic performance has no bearing in you getting an award for college, only economic need. This is insane. I would certainly expect that there be some type of demonstration of capability and desire before one gets aid. Other countries do it, and I wish the US did as well.
I agree with you 100%. In the US, if we didn't have George Bush running up Trillions in debt we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Obama has also spent far above what is needed to the tune of $6T debt in 4 years.
The question I have is how do we change our US system to restrict this kind of spending. Clearly leaving the power in the hands of President/Congress hasn't worked. Balanced budget proposals have failed. How do we change the system to control ourselves better? I can't beleive we are doomed to an endess boom/bust cycle like we've seen around the world for centuries.
Yes. This is a good thing. Basically they have recognized that there are a few core items that you cannot cut just to meet short-term needs or desires. I would not expect education spending to grow dramatically above inflation.
Absolutely correct. Probably about 15% of the population has the intelligence and initiative to make use of a college education.
I absolutely disagree with the 15% number, it is much higher. But it certainly is not 100%. And there are a significant number of people that would benefit from a vocational education who are forced into a university setting because those in business/academia turn their noses up at those without a college degree.
I'm glad you agree. One thing I want to be clear on, however, is that I'd like to see at least as much money spent on 'disavantaged children' as is spent today if not more. I just want it targeted better to those who will benefit.
I am confused by your statement "I don't understand austerity". From my viewpoint, it is simple: pay for the programs you implement, don't leave it to your grandkids to pay for. In my country, we have Social Security. I like Social Security, it is a good idea. yet we ahve this notion that seniors have paid for their benefits. The reality is that the current generation of recipients paid between 50-70 cents on the dollar for the benefit they are receiving. My generation will likely be in the 70-75 percent range. At some point, someone has to pay for the shortfall, and it will likely be my kids and grandkids. That is a horrible sign of selfishness and immaturity.
I am a huge proponent of R&D. However, I will not agree with spending more than we bring in over an extended period of time. The 'resession" we went through was mild, and some deficit spending may have been a good idea. But 12 years and nearly 10 Trillion in deficit spending will hobble us for a long time to come.
Believe it or not, the US spends more per capita on student education than France. I tend to think part of the US problem is that we do not target our money well, instead spending a disproportionate amount on those who don't want to learn. I do think we need to help those in lower income brackets, but I think it would be better to spend the money inside of that bracket on those families clearly trying to improve their situation.
My wife teaches in inner city schools and there are programs that focus on high achieving students. But programs for those with disciplinary problems, behavioral issues or developmental problems seem to get funded much better. One program, for example, for children with severe disabilities is really just a day care program with a teacher and an aide for 6 children. The ratio is so low because the kids need constant care to keep them from hurting themselves. Is this a role for an educational system or for a welfare program? I want these kids to be safe, but I also want our educational system focusing on those who will lead our future. Do we really need Master's degree teachers in a role that is probably better suited to nursing. These kids will never learn what four plus four is yet we spend money on a teacher that could be used elsewhere in the inner city.
Seriously? Is this really a problem anymore? I know in the 80's you could experience issues like that, I'm not sure I even had problems in the 90's. I am asking honestly and without sarcasm, are compatability issues still an issue today?
I wasn't aware that there was a Presidential review and only one location made the cut. Any location can do this, but ultimately I think it works better in a more populated area that already has a draw. I can't see flying to Idaho just to ride this (even if I weren't deathly afraid of Ferris wheels) and to get some potatos.
This would scare the crap out of me. I can do any ride in an amusement park. Tallest, fastest, upside down... doesn't matter. Put me on a Ferris wheet and I'm grabbing the bar with white knuckles. I think it is the fact that I just have time to look out at the world and wonder about the minimum wage carnie who maintains the machine. That and the person sitting next to me can decide to start rocking the damn thing...
No, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'd rather be on the 70mph dragster than on a small Ferris wheel.
Yeah, I did some research on Slashdot ID by year a couple weeks back. I looked at December 31st stories from each year to get an idea of the ID ranges posting. I read a few posts from each year and found that really the quality of posts really hadn't changed appreciably. Slashdot myth proved to be unfounded.
I did find that we have had a crap flood of bogus account creating in the last 12-18 months however.
One of those questions: why in the hell do we need to spend $190M on a plane to fight a war that we'd never get in if we didn't have jackasses running our country that only get in these fights because they have the biggest stick.
If he is a jerk to the extent that the article is talking about (causing problems within the organization meeting its goals) then he is not brilliant. If he is simply cut throat with competitors and vendors, he would not meet the definition of jerk being used in the article.
"So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can"
First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.
Second, his positive contribution will stay stead, but his negative contribution will grow proportionally to the size of your company and the number of people he works with.
Third, the longer he stays the bigger headache it will be to get rid of him.
Fourth, be sure he realy is a jerk and cannot be reasoned with.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a cute neighbor...
He passes a budget each and every year, so discounting his first year in office, he is as much responsible for the debt as anyone. He can also heavily influence tax policy, so I'm not sure what your point is except to excuse Obama from his responsiblity.
Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do?
I disagreed with the 15% statement of the GP. However, if "what I can and can't do" involves taking money from others to pay for education, than the gov't surely has a stake in determining who gets the money. Right now, academic performance has no bearing in you getting an award for college, only economic need. This is insane. I would certainly expect that there be some type of demonstration of capability and desire before one gets aid. Other countries do it, and I wish the US did as well.
I agree with you 100%. In the US, if we didn't have George Bush running up Trillions in debt we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. Obama has also spent far above what is needed to the tune of $6T debt in 4 years.
The question I have is how do we change our US system to restrict this kind of spending. Clearly leaving the power in the hands of President/Congress hasn't worked. Balanced budget proposals have failed. How do we change the system to control ourselves better? I can't beleive we are doomed to an endess boom/bust cycle like we've seen around the world for centuries.
Yes. This is a good thing. Basically they have recognized that there are a few core items that you cannot cut just to meet short-term needs or desires. I would not expect education spending to grow dramatically above inflation.
Absolutely correct. Probably about 15% of the population has the intelligence and initiative to make use of a college education.
I absolutely disagree with the 15% number, it is much higher. But it certainly is not 100%. And there are a significant number of people that would benefit from a vocational education who are forced into a university setting because those in business/academia turn their noses up at those without a college degree.
I'm glad you agree. One thing I want to be clear on, however, is that I'd like to see at least as much money spent on 'disavantaged children' as is spent today if not more. I just want it targeted better to those who will benefit.
I would agree with this one too, however I've never seen a good accountint on the breakdown. If you have any sources, I'd be grateful.
I am confused by your statement "I don't understand austerity". From my viewpoint, it is simple: pay for the programs you implement, don't leave it to your grandkids to pay for. In my country, we have Social Security. I like Social Security, it is a good idea. yet we ahve this notion that seniors have paid for their benefits. The reality is that the current generation of recipients paid between 50-70 cents on the dollar for the benefit they are receiving. My generation will likely be in the 70-75 percent range. At some point, someone has to pay for the shortfall, and it will likely be my kids and grandkids. That is a horrible sign of selfishness and immaturity.
I am a huge proponent of R&D. However, I will not agree with spending more than we bring in over an extended period of time. The 'resession" we went through was mild, and some deficit spending may have been a good idea. But 12 years and nearly 10 Trillion in deficit spending will hobble us for a long time to come.
Believe it or not, the US spends more per capita on student education than France. I tend to think part of the US problem is that we do not target our money well, instead spending a disproportionate amount on those who don't want to learn. I do think we need to help those in lower income brackets, but I think it would be better to spend the money inside of that bracket on those families clearly trying to improve their situation.
My wife teaches in inner city schools and there are programs that focus on high achieving students. But programs for those with disciplinary problems, behavioral issues or developmental problems seem to get funded much better. One program, for example, for children with severe disabilities is really just a day care program with a teacher and an aide for 6 children. The ratio is so low because the kids need constant care to keep them from hurting themselves. Is this a role for an educational system or for a welfare program? I want these kids to be safe, but I also want our educational system focusing on those who will lead our future. Do we really need Master's degree teachers in a role that is probably better suited to nursing. These kids will never learn what four plus four is yet we spend money on a teacher that could be used elsewhere in the inner city.
Five are in the first
Seven are in the second
Five are in the third
Seriously? Is this really a problem anymore? I know in the 80's you could experience issues like that, I'm not sure I even had problems in the 90's. I am asking honestly and without sarcasm, are compatability issues still an issue today?
I've heard carnival workers referring to each other with this term. I had no idea it was offensive nor was any offense meant.
I've never seen a mobile loading platform. That sounds like a wonderful idea!
I wasn't aware that there was a Presidential review and only one location made the cut. Any location can do this, but ultimately I think it works better in a more populated area that already has a draw. I can't see flying to Idaho just to ride this (even if I weren't deathly afraid of Ferris wheels) and to get some potatos.
This would scare the crap out of me. I can do any ride in an amusement park. Tallest, fastest, upside down... doesn't matter. Put me on a Ferris wheet and I'm grabbing the bar with white knuckles. I think it is the fact that I just have time to look out at the world and wonder about the minimum wage carnie who maintains the machine. That and the person sitting next to me can decide to start rocking the damn thing...
No, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but I'd rather be on the 70mph dragster than on a small Ferris wheel.
Thanks for the kind words. It isn't perfect, but I included links for those who might want to refine the numbers.
A "solution" for you and me is a "problem to be avoided" for those in power.
Yeah, I did some research on Slashdot ID by year a couple weeks back. I looked at December 31st stories from each year to get an idea of the ID ranges posting. I read a few posts from each year and found that really the quality of posts really hadn't changed appreciably. Slashdot myth proved to be unfounded.
I did find that we have had a crap flood of bogus account creating in the last 12-18 months however.
My sig points to some research I did to answer this question.
EDIT: For those of you not logged in, the sig says http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
One of those questions: why in the hell do we need to spend $190M on a plane to fight a war that we'd never get in if we didn't have jackasses running our country that only get in these fights because they have the biggest stick.
I think I answered my own question.
If he is a jerk to the extent that the article is talking about (causing problems within the organization meeting its goals) then he is not brilliant. If he is simply cut throat with competitors and vendors, he would not meet the definition of jerk being used in the article.
RFTA. The jerk in question sure wasn't introverted.
The article has it right
"So what’s the right answer? Get rid of the Brilliant Jerk as fast as you possibly can"
First, the brilliant jerk isn't as brilliant as he or others think he is. Often, it is right after your superstar leaves that people covering his work find out about the shortcuts he took.
Second, his positive contribution will stay stead, but his negative contribution will grow proportionally to the size of your company and the number of people he works with.
Third, the longer he stays the bigger headache it will be to get rid of him.
Fourth, be sure he realy is a jerk and cannot be reasoned with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
Considered by some to be one one of the top ten English-language novels of the 20th century.