lynks66

I am not a fan of FDR; not even close. I used to think FDR was almost as close to Satan as a human being could be (well not really, but I really didn't like his policies). But as I've read more about FDR and the circumstances he was dealing with at the time, my feelings toward him have tempered (somewhat). Some of the legislation pushed by FDR was not near as far to the left as a lot of people at the time advocated for. Take Social Security for example. There was large support for other retirement type plans that were much farther to the left, such as the Townsend Plan. The Townsend plan would have been one hundred percent funded by the govt (in other words, tax revenues). The Townsend plan would not have required beneficiaries to have even worked and would have required immediate benefits. FDR resisted the push in his party for the Townsend Plan and advocated a retirement plan (Social Security) funded in part by employers and in part by employees. In other words, a beneficiary actually had to work to eventually receive benefits. FDR's willingness to go with an employer/employee funded retirement system was a pretty big swing from retirement being funded solely by the govt which was being pushed strongly by a very strong and liberal Congress. As such, his position supporting Social Security could definitely be considered a moderate/centrist one. Heck, those supporting the Townsend Plan probably thought FDR's was a very conservative position.

 

Read the attached about FDR: The New Deal or Radical Change

I agree with a lot of what you say and find myself with similar feelings about FDR over the past few years. I didn't read all of the link you posted, but one quote jumped out at me. "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, demands bold persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it freely and try another. But above all else, try something !" I can get behind the idea of this quote, however, it seems that most government programs that are started and end up "failing" to some degree are rarely scrapped and started over. They just become bigger and bigger. That is my biggest concern when government says we have to "try something".

Keep in mind that today buying requires a good down payment which means that money is not available for investments. It also prevents you from having cash available for other purchases or hobbies.

I believe there are still loans available for zero down payment or very little.

They proved they can lose to anybody last night too. They are running out of time to make a run this year, it has to start now if they are going to. If they lose 3 games or more they may likely be at home in March.

That was a bad loss last night.

Kyle Macy brought up an interesting point before the game that they have played 5 of their first 6 (or something like that) on the road in the SEC. Their schedule gets a little easier finishing up especially in the Home to road ratio. I say they make the dance, but just barely.

I trust Obama more than I trust a word that comes out of his mouth. And I told trust Obama at all.

Fair enough.

If Republicans are stupid enough to nominate Newt they deserve 4 more years of Obama, and I'll do my part to make sure they get it.

What are some of the things you dislike about Mr. Gingrich?

Probably won't start for another month or so. Pretty lengthly process. I personally do all I can to ensure I do not receive a "refund". I feel that with the thousands of dollars that I pay every year in taxes that the government can survive without the added benefit of an interest free loan from me.

I don't know. Assuming you're correct, in any "normal population" there are somewhere between 15 and 16 percent that fall at least one standard deviation below the mean. IQ under 85. Less than a "C" average. Etc., etc.

 

Now, don't take that as a blanket statement that anyone with an IQ of 84 or less cannot succeed in college. But it is tougher. Add varying degrees of other issues separate and apart from income level (mental illness, for example), and you have a significant segment of the population that simply are not going to have a great chance of successfully completing a college degree. It has been my experience that local subsidized housing is full of these folks.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying? Are you saying IQ levels prevented many from low income levels from going to college?

I was under the impression that anyone who was below the poverty level could have a huge chunk of their post-secondary education paid for if not all of it. I know there would be other hurdles to overcome other than cost, but I would think in most cases that would be the largest hurdle.

Thanks for sharing your insight.

]Most of the folks I know in Section 8 housing (and I know plenty) didn't have the luxury of attending college.[/b]

And I do hear you on the student loans. I heard a quote not long ago stating that as a nation, our student loan debt has exceeded our credit card debt. That's a sobering thought - young people who should be saving money for THEIR childrens' college education can't because they start adulthood behind the 8-ball.

Aren't most people who are in school below the poverty level able to go to college for free through grants and scholarships etc....? Assuming they qualify with GPA and ACT scores?

Something wasn't reported to him. A 10 year old being RAPED by a former assistant, in his locker room was reported to him. And he reported it to his boss, and then did nothing else.

Do we know exactly what information was passed on to JoPa and exactly what he forwarded on? Is there a link out there to anything specific? Was he actually told that a rape had occurred?

See blue above.

In regard to the 49%, what would be their fair share in your opinion?

I agree with the majority of what you posted. Replies are in blue below.

 

 

 

In conclusion, let me state again that I am a capitalist and believe 100% in the American system. I believe those who make their way to the top deserve to be rewarded. I believe their rewards have gone too far in our current structure and it is harming EVERYONE not in that top 1%. Anyone making $500,000 a year plus can live a great life and be very thankful they live in America. They should not squawk because they have to pay $50,000 more in taxes. That is the price they pay to support the system that enabled them to earn that $500k.

So do you feel it is the government's responsibility to redistribute money from higher earners to lower earners?

For anyone interested, here is a declaration from them, kind of all over the place:

 

“As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

 

As one people, formerly… divided by the color of our skin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or lack thereof, political party and cultural background, we acknowledge the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

 

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give CEO’s exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace.

They have poisoned the food supply, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have continuously sought to end the rights of workers to negotiate their pay and make complaints about the safety of their workplace.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty book keeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

They have participated in a directly racist action by accepting the contract from the State of Georgia to murder Troy Davis.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

To the people of the world: We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

 

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy: We offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

 

Join us and make your voices heard!”

Where did you get this?

The biggest mistake people make (and I'm not saying you are) is to look at a stock price as a raw number and say "too expensive for me because I can't buy many shares."

 

Wrong way to look at it. You don't pay future bills with shares. You pay with money. If you've only got $3,000 to invest buy $3,000 worth of a stock you like IF you think it's a good investment.

Wise words.

Definitely true. It would take a heck of a human being to be a republican for me to have faith in them to do great for my interests, beliefs and overall satisfaction. I'd probably have to personally know them or something along those lines. Or just an overall bad candidate like John Kerry was. Didn't vote for him. I can admit that. I voted for Bush because it was his responsibility to fix the mess he created. Too bad Al Gore lost.

Can you clarify the bolded? You voted for him because he created "the mess" and he should/would fix it?

No. With a trial after conviction. Only known terrorists that are on the US assassination list should be murdered without a trial.[/quote/]

How does one get on the US assassination list?

I was actually referring to the former US citizen we recently killed who was in al-Queda. I forgot his name already. But yeah, child killers and child molesters can be put to death also. Doesn't bother me any.

Without a trial?

Looks like AP and yahoo are already on it.

Again, I only saw half the debate, but he got really rankled when they talked about health care & essentially everyone was given an opportunity to answer except him. When he did get his next question (non-health care related), he let the mods have it since he is a physician. Then he threw in some barbs at Perry, specifically over the HPV executive order deal in Texas.

 

With Paul, it's not always his one-liners that get to me; it's his overall demeanor and facial expressions. :lol:

Paul, IMO easily makes the most sense of all of the candidates. His only downfall is that he comes off as just a little bit crazy. IMO

This is where the full transcript would come in handy as I can't speak for Warren Buffet. My own view is that their are two levels to the argument. First, the government does a lot of things - from the necessary to the negligible, depending on your view - thus when we discuss deficits and debt we have to decide which of those things the government should quit doing or find ways to pay for it. On the second level, if you wanted to donate money to help victims of domestic violence, for instance, your best option is to find an organization that is doing a good job servicing domestic violence victims or working to prevent it and giving them the money. Giving that money to the government would only help the deficit (imperceptibly at best) which wouldn't do anything to help domestic violence, even assuming the government is both doing something to alleviate the problem and you agreed with the specific policies. So, we can have discussions about which policies should or shouldn't exist as well as to how to fund the government and at what level and I think Warren Buffet is simply talking about the latter. I think the government does some things well and some things poorly and it does things we agree with and things we don't agree with, but if we only paid for the things we liked individually none of it would work.

I may have missed your response to this questions earlier, so if so, I apologize. What are some of the things you feel the government does well?

This is where the full transcript would come in handy as I can't speak for Warren Buffet. My own view is that their are two levels to the argument. First, the government does a lot of things - from the necessary to the negligible, depending on your view - thus when we discuss deficits and debt we have to decide which of those things the government should quit doing or find ways to pay for it. On the second level, if you wanted to donate money to help victims of domestic violence, for instance, your best option is to find an organization that is doing a good job servicing domestic violence victims or working to prevent it and giving them the money. Giving that money to the government would only help the deficit (imperceptibly at best) which wouldn't do anything to help domestic violence, even assuming the government is both doing something to alleviate the problem and you agreed with the specific policies. So, we can have discussions about which policies should or shouldn't exist as well as to how to fund the government and at what level and I think Warren Buffet is simply talking about the latter. I think the government does some things well and some things poorly and it does things we agree with and things we don't agree with, but if we only paid for the things we liked individually none of it would work.

Just out of curiousity, what things would you say the government does well?

I wonder if any of the founding fathers even knew what a trillion was?

Part of me gets this writing. It sucks to pay taxes. As a sub in Carter County (or if you teach in Carter Co.) you get paid once per month. That kills you in taxes and retirement, and I hate getting paid like that.

 

But taxes go towards more than just welfare and things like that. Alot of that goes back into things that the public can use. Don't get me wrong it makes me sick when people abuse the systems put in place to help people out in America, but what is the alternative?

 

On the other end of the spectrum without government regulations very few of us would have much of anything. Venture back to the industrial revolution, where people like me and probably the most of this board would be working long hours for little pay. My point is that conservative fiscal policy (if you want to call it that) set the tone for America & the rest of the free world to be great places to live, but the addition of liberal fiscal policies made that world possible. Without the government having the capability to place restrictions on businesses in this country, most of us would be getting exploited because people over the history of time have proven to be greedy. Does our government take it too far now? I don't know. I do know that they do not in comparison to the rest of the free world which would make our most liberal politicians seem like Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly. I think you need a mixture of both the left and the right in this country, and there will never be a perfect balance. I do think that anyone that cannot see the necessity of the other side's contributions to an effective capitalistic society is severely uniformed.

How does getting paid once per month kill you in regard to taxes and retirement?

In my years at the mental health center, I was often involved in negotiating health insurance policies/premium.

 

A 12 percent increase was modest.

12% per year was modest?

I admired President Obama's campaign promises to deliver change in Washington. However, as most probably could have guessed, that is much easier said than done. Some questions: Has the President changed the climate inside the beltway? If not, what would a President have to do in order to change the way things are typically done and is it even possible?

I don't want to. I have taken a extended sub job. A new teacher only lasted 3 weeks and quite. She took the teaching job because she wanted a easy 8-3 job with nights and weekends free......:lol: she soon found out that wasn't the case. Begged for her job back at the Lexington Hearld and she went back working for them. I filled in the rest of the semester till they could get a qualified person. I will only sub at GRC, as that is where I taught.

 

I retired with only 27 years and wasn't 55 yet....I did so because my dad was sick and I wanted to spend time with my parents. Both are still living, and being retired gives me the time to go visit them anytime I want.

Thanks. It sounds like you are a very good person to step into the long-term sub role. Also, anybody that can spend extra time with their family I am very jealous. I haven't spent nearly enough time with my parents lately.

Out of curiousity, if you decided that you did want to return to teaching full-time could you do so or would that jeopardize your retirement? Thanks again.