A. Overly simplistic, and you're confusing to some degree what is Keynesian. A central tenant of Keynesian economics is counter-cyclical budget deficits. When there's a recession, the government should run deficits, and the larger the recession, the larger the corresponding deficit. That's been a non-stop, although admittedly abused, government policy since the Depression. Also, Keynesian economics had components in it for monetary policy as well. Keynes advocated for lower interest rates during times of recession along with increasing the monetary supply. Yes, he did believe that during more severe recessions that monetary measures would not be enough, but he nevertheless advocated for the various monetary policies. These align up with most recessions as far as what the gov't did from the Great Depression on. Just because Keynesian policies disappointed during the 1970's, the ideas were not altogether abandoned ever since. The simple fact of the matter is aside from 2007, there hadn't been a particularly severe recession since the 1970s, so it's reasonable to assume that direct employment wasn't deemed necessary, not that it was seen as bad policy in all cases.

B. It happened to me by the hand of Microsoft. I'm pretty sure they didn't have flunky MBAs. ;-)

C. There are a lot of similar issues involved. My point was only that you can't just tie requirements to it, and that's that. There are a huge myriad of issues that would come hand in hand with stipulations to unemployment. Your idea is still something I'd be onboard with if those devils in the details were addressed. I do see as an example that some people become unemployed because of structural changes to the economy that causes their jobs to never come back. As a case in point, textile factory workers who lose their jobs due to offshoring are suddenly in a position where market forces have no remedy. They lack the skills to get jobs in areas of growth such as more in depth computer skills, and likely lack the financial resources to get the education and training to get said skills because they're unemployed. This is a perfect example in my opinion where the market and free trade fail from time to time, and some force, likely the gov't, needs to step in for the good of everyone. These people would benefit from retraining, so they can get a good job, business owners benefit from increasing numbers of workers who can do the jobs they're needing people to do, and it becomes a win win situation.

D. The last time we tried no deposit insurance, it failed miserably. Banks lent money for people to buy goods and services they couldn't afford, and stocks on the margin. People stuck their money in banks anyway. The only difference is when fear hit the market after the crash, a lot of people, many irrationally, pulled their money from banks, causing a collapse in the banking system, which tanked the entire economy even further.

People lack the time and/or motivation to stay informed on all kinds of issues from local politics, to PTA meetings. I don't see how they could begin to assess what loans their banks were making as far as riskiness. And the typical American when it comes to finances? Yikes! Next to no savings, can't understand how much they should be regularly investing, etc. And it's not just the stupid people. Most Americans don't even know what a mutual fund actually is. How could they possibly make intelligent decisions about the riskiness of their banks' portfolios? I consider myself smarter than the average bear, but even I'd be paralyzed with fear selecting a bank based what little info I could find of their portfolios. Instead, I make sure they're FDIC insured, because that in and of itself entails objective benchmarks to even get that insurance.

And honestly, I don't see many people making decisions about their banks based on rates alone. As a case in point, very few people I know put money in online high yield savings accounts instead of the local credit union, bank, or large megabank, despite the fact that in most cases online savings account providers such as ING Direct pay 2-3 times the interest. I don't believe that's what caused the madness in the banking industry at all. At the very least, there's a massive list of causes well above FDIC insurance, and even if FDIC insurance did play a role in causing the crisis, it also served well in preventing runs on the banks in general that would have compounded the crisis further.

>> ^bmacs27:

@heropsycho
A. Because we've been leaning on monetary policy as our intervention of choice. Direct employment has been called socialism for 30 years. That doesn't suggest a dominant Keynesian ideology. Really it's been this mix of monetarism and supply-side economics which morphed into some mutilated crony-capitalism.
B. I suppose it could happen, but it would take a rough business climate, or some flunky MBAs. In that situation I'd try to increase my business (i.e. make $200,000).
C. That's why we have food stamps. It isn't a perfect solution, but the kid starves if her folks spend the whole check on smokes too. Vices aren't the kind of "demand side" stimulus I'd like to see (one flaw in the Keynesian argument given the current living conditions of the American poor).
D. I really do believe that if the FDIC didn't exist, "the market" would not have allowed deposits to be leveraged by banks investing in exotic financial instruments. Like you said, even the bankers didn't know what the hell they were doing! Without the FDIC people would very quickly ask, "what the hell you doin' with my money?" Rather, since their money is backed by the government they ask, "what sorts of rates are you offering?" It's that pressure from the distorted marketplace that pushed banks into more and more leverage to stay competitive. Those rates were realized by making massively leveraged bets that were only possible by hedging with exotic instruments. Once upon a time people knew their banker. I think that's the best FDIC there could be. There might be some legal patchwork of the Glass-Steagall flavor that might make it work, but chasing down all the unintended consequences would be a challenge. Certainly figuring out how to unwind all the securitized mortgages that already exist makes that sort of policy direction seemingly prohibitive.
F-. Dude, Peter Schiff is a quack.

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.



So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.

The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.

Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.

Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.

And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

Here is an article that has a picture of her at 21 and one at 26.

Doctors say it may have been the long-term use of traditional medicines that caused the condition as they are often spiked with corticoids. These steroids speed up the effects of the unregulated remedies but could also have triggered the rare skin disease mastocytosis, where the body produces too many mast cells.

The difference is quite stunning. It also shows how much we really know about Dermatology.

I'll give you a hint: almost nothing

Agreed. I thought his point was to actually demonstrate what the homeopathic remedy concept entails... its one thing to pay $5 for something in the health-food aisle marketed to treat your health condition and another to see how that $5 box of BS was actually created.

I've notice there is a degree of confusion between 'homeopathy' and 'herbology' or 'natural medicines', as they are often marketed side-by-side as 'alternative medicines'... homeopathy is complete horseshit, while many (certainly not all) natural medicines are basically unprocessed drugs and vitamins.

'Homeopathy' sounds Latin and scientific, but its a scam for the ill-informed who see it as a cheap alternative to actual medicine, or those who confuse it with 'natural medicines' which may well contain salicylic acid (aspirin) or whatever and make you feels somewhat better.

>> ^solecist:

he's absolutely right about homeopathy, but i'm not sure what this video is trying to prove. homeopaths are well aware that most of their active ingredients are poisonous when taken in an undiluted form. upvoting for the sentiment, at least.
ps, a shot of straight bleach would not kill a grown man.

You are truly a moron. I've tried not to say so, but you are. Your conspiracy theory videos and this retarded attack on immunisation just prove it.

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.
—American National Cancer Institute, [22]
(source)

If you're all fine with NOT trying to prevent two thirds of cervical cancer deaths based on a misguided fear of immunisations, then have at it sir, and then don't bitch when any woman you knows dies of it.

Go and look up what immunisation has done for the world, go on...

Children DIED because of the hysteria created around the MMR vaccine by the slime ball Andrew Wakefield. Children who would NOT have died did so because idiots like you made parents incorrectly fear a vaccine, so their children were not immunised, infection rates sky-rocketed, and children DIED.

I mock the fucking shit out of you because you are wrong, and your decisions put the lives of other people at risk too, not just your own. There's no two ways about it, vaccinations are a HUGE benefit to society, a HUGE life saver, a HUGE preventer of pain and suffering.

Do you use homoeopathic remedies to ward off evil do you?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.

There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.
Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.
And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:
Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).
Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source

And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source
But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.
BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

shortly after that he informed us that @blankfist was not wearing any pants and that if he lived closer to @MarineGunrock he'd remedy some things. but noone has screenshots.

I admittedly can't find statistics on this. My google-fu must be tuned to much with finding tech related stuff too much now.

Consumption taxes cost the gov't a lot of money, not businesses per se. Most of what the stats I saw was due to consumption taxes actually being more prone to fraud. Granted, there's plenty of tax evasion with income tax, but it's actually less costly to find relevant info to detect and bust those people. It's easy to pull bank records, payroll info, etc.

If I find this data, I'll PM it to you or post in a relevant area.

If you're looking for a system that fits perfectly with ideals, you'll likely object to a progressive income tax. I'm not interested in what is philosophically ideal as much as I am in a system that works for the economy. I don't really care that I pay for other people's education, health care, etc. I care that as many people as possible are employed, that there's lower crime, that overall everyone is more prosperous on average, etc. That is far more important than me paying a few extra dollars in taxes for maybe even things I disagree with, and don't want to pay for. I didn't go around protesting that my tax dollars were being spent on the most recent Iraqi war, saying that their decision to go to Iraq inhibited my personal freedoms to do what I want with my money. It was for common defense, even if I disagreed with going in.

The individual freedom argument is oversimplifying the issue. Case in point, if a flat tax caused crime to go up, how is it a gain in personal freedom that you don't have to pay more taxes for things you object to if you're more prone to being robbed or murdered? If you're an entrepreneur, how are you more free if you don't have to pay for other people's education, but you can't make your business work because you can't find the skills necessary in your labor force?

It was progress for society to setup compulsory education for all people. You could argue it restricted people's freedom to not go to school, or parents to choose to not educate their kids. But that's frankly a ridiculous argument to say that progress at the cost of individual liberty isn't progress at all. Society progressed because the general population became literate through a compulsory requirement to become educated as children.

The truth is we have and should continue to make decisions like this based on what would benefit society, not what fits an ideology. Ideologies provide frameworks that help come up with new ideas, but those ideas should then be looked at with what the results would be, not lock us into only using ideas from that school of thought. Those discoveries that violate common ideologies eventually end up forcing us to change our ideologies in small ways or completely abandon ideologies altogether because they don't work anymore. But we should never do something only for the sake of ideological consistency.

I can't see how a flat consumption tax would help society. Objectively speaking, one issue our economy is facing right now is there is too much wealth concentration in the hands of the rich, so there's an incredibly weak market for purchasing goods and services business owners are producing. I'm not saying this to proclaim the rich are evil or anything of the sort; I'm just saying pragmatically the economy can't work for business owners nor the poor and middle class if consumers don't have money to buy goods and services the rich are producing. One way to remedy that is progressive taxation.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I don't know where the 98% efficient is coming from. The compliance cost alone I have read is close to 5 billion hours or so. With computers, I would imagine the sales/consumption tax is nearly automatic. Hard to find examples that aren't in someones sphere of influence. As for the "not progressive enough", that isn't really in the spirit of compromise. If I don't want it at all, and you want it all, halfway seems like the only way it will end up. A consumption tax seems easy enough halfway point. If you find it lacking, then join a charity that subsidies it out of your own pocket. Stop trying to be fair with other peoples money. Maybe I don't want to give every single useless tom dick and harry a leg up in life, I only want to help people I know and trust. Unless we are trying to make being a reclusive shut in completely against the law now. Progress at the cost of individual liberty isn't really progress at all.
Edit: Here is a less new, but more exhaustive link on costs.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr138.pdf
Last edit I swear:
I know you might not trust this, but this is a little blurb from the "Fair Tax" http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers
It is progressive, which I don't like, but it is the best compromise I can find around. Seems reasonable enough.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

@chilaxe I like how you ignore the central point I make, and just respond to random phrases out of context.

For the most part, I think you're wanting to focus on specifics largely based on the extant paradigm, while I'm making more of a statement about a desired ideal that would require a paradigm shift.

I don't deny the reality that education requires resources, and that it will need some mechanism of economic support, I'm just saying I don't think education should be denied to students who for whatever reason don't have the money to pay for it.

I also don't see why education should always be looked at as an economic investment. I happen to excel in subjects that apply well to a certain class of professional type of work, but I am interested in all sorts of topics for which I have no practical use.

I guess I am confused about your focus on people getting "pointless" degrees. I guess on one level my response is "pointless to whom?" Pointless to employers, or pointless to the person who wanted to study the topic? Why should employers get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?

On another level, like I said before, I our educational system could stand to be a bit more paternalistic in shepherding adolescents through the transition from a purely academic experience into a career path that suits some mix of their preferences and talents. But I guess I feel like schools (of all types) are largely interested in exposing children to purely academic pursuits, while justifying it in some vague sense as some form of mundane job training.

But I've never taken, nor seen offered, a college course I thought was "pointless". Certainly there's stuff I'm not interested in, stuff that would be remedial, and plenty that doesn't pose any obvious use in the job market (philosophy comes to mind), but in terms of helping people realize their full potential as human beings, all of it seems quite worthwhile.

>> ^rychan:

Yeah it does seem harsh. In Olympic track and field don't you get one "free" false start before being disqualified?


As I remember it...one person jumps and then the entire field is docked. The next person even if it's not the same person is disqualified.

EDIT: To remedy this I think they should hold multiple races...not just heats but like a tournament of races. It would be a lot more exciting and it would put a premium on being consistent rather than getting lucky on a good start.

In the end, I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's accurate that the debt crisis is resolved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Tax increase would obviously help, but it won't solve it alone.

The debt crisis was born of a few factors:

-Stimulus package (temp, self-correcting since it's ending)
-Massive increase in federal spending in the 2000's bread by two wars, homeland security, senior drug benefit, medicare, medicaid
-Tax revenue declines due to Bush tax cuts
-Sudden sharp declines in income and capital gains tax revenues due to economic collapse

We can't solve the whole thing by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. In fact, I would argue the first step in resolving it is get the economy back on track to increase income tax revenues naturally as the unemployment rate would fall, and pay would increase. I would also argue that we're gonna have to massively cut defense spending at some point. This could be done many different ways, such as pulling out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, etc. But it's gonna have to be done at some point, although it maybe difficult to do in the short run. That leaves us with what is currently being debated by Congress and the President. I'm actually pretty perplexed that they're prioritizing the debt issue without first remedying the economy. I think the debt is a very important issue, but I also don't believe it will be resolved until unemployment returns to more normal rates, unless we're refusing to acknowledge what leaders may already know - it ain't gonna get better for a long long time regardless of what the gov't does, so we might as well stop adding to the debt.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
What we really need is a law that says no member of congress shall be allowed to receive any money from any lobbying firm, business or individual who is a high-level employee (board member type guys) of any large company worth over "x" amount of dollars. Loopholes need to be closed, but social programs also need to be cut or seriously re-vamped. What REALLY needs to happen is to close behemoth and redundant federal offices that are better left to states or that sates already have.

Well, I'd definitely love to see some sort of reform aimed at the outright bribery we see going on in government. I'm not sure how we get that to happen, though.
As far as the debt goes, my opinion is that all the Congress can do in 2011 is set the budget for 2011 and 2012. Come 2013, it'll be a new Congress, and possibly a new President. There will be another new Congress in 2015, and another in 2017, plus a definite non-Obama President in the White House.
A little mentioned fact about this debt "crisis" is that all we need to do to balance the budget is for Congress to do nothing. No more Doc fixes, no more AMT patches, no more extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. If we just let current law play out as it was written, the budget problem will no longer be an issue.
Even if congress doesn't do that, fixing our health care system has always been the real problem with the long-term budget. If we could get our medical costs down to just the level of the second-most expensive country in the world (Germany), then we'd be seeing big budget surpluses year after year. Maybe the HCR bill passed will do that once it's all in effect (in 2017!), but it's way too early to be putting those into the budget estimates. Maybe by 2020 we'll find out that we've actually put ourselves on track to be cheaper than Germany, and our budget picture will look really awesome.
I say we just focus on getting people back to work right now, and worry about the long-term debt in the long-term, especially since it might not actually be a problem in the long-term.

I agree with everything you just wrote.

The only thing that I would point out is the media is biased as Jon Stewart put it to be lazy, and to generate conflict, but it will spin what is going on in society either conservative or liberal to get out of real reporting, and to be sensational. Anything they can do to get people to consume said media is fair game. That laziness falls on both sides of the political spectrum media wide. And it doesn't help when society tunes out when the story isn't something that elicits an emotional response, or doesn't have a simple lesson or solution. Nuance and complexity is something most Americans abhor.

Case in point, when is the last time you saw something on the news that showed how many IT jobs are given to people with work visas, and compare that to how many people are graduating college with computer science degrees to illustrate that portion of outsourcing? I don't think I've ever seen that presented in the news. That point is very hard to pin as conservative or liberal because solutions to remedy it could come from both parties. And there's no easily identified villian, either. So instead, let's paint the big bad evil corporations for outsourcing in general because that's easy to report on, throw some basic generalized stats up about number of jobs outsourced, show corporate profits increasing, and do people love to consume that kind of story. I see that left and right in IT. I know friends who see it left and right in other sections of the economy like bioengineering, etc. But it never gets reported on. These are the jobs and sectors that will be growing in the modern economy, and we as a nation are doing a poor job preparing the next generations to succeed in them, no question about it.

Or conversely, if you love you some Fox News, let's focus on the fact that there's this agency called Planned Parenthood, that is in part funded by federal tax dollars, and it performs abortions! OMG! This must be this huge problem! Only, if you're a sane individual, you'd normally then want to know how much of this is going on, and you quickly realize the number of abortions that are performed in these facilities is under 100 annually nationwide, and it's dubious at best if federal dollars actually paid for any of those procedures. But finding those statistics is either purposefully omitted to sensationalize and stir up conflict, or done so out of sheer laziness. But conservative Americans eat that stuff up, because it's easy for them to follow, clearly identifiable villians, and fits their ideological narrative of the US crumbling from disregarding "traditional values". The facts of course clearly show this isn't a significant problem.

Back to the housing crisis, etc, the truth is there's blame to go around with the banks, government, and consumers. I also have a friend who took on a mortgage he shouldn't have. Got an 80/20, he's a single income earner, wife is in the process of getting a degree in nursing, they have two kids. In 2006, they got this big massive house in a brand new neighborhood. It's the American dream. Now, it's not like this guy is dumb. He took out $400,000 mortgages (80/20), very high interest, etc. on a single income, knowing full well his wife was going to school, and he didn't have an emergency fund to speak of.

I don't care what he was told by the lenders and real estate agent - he had no one to blame but himself in the end. He had a perfectly good house in a good neighborhood already. He just bought a new car as well. He had credit card debt. He wasn't putting much money away for retirement either. There's nothing anyone can say but "it's your fault" when the economy tanked in 2008, we both worked for the same company, and they cut our salaries to avoid layoffs. I'd have been sympathetic if he were doing the basics right, had a good emergency fund, could put a good 20% down for the mortgage, had no credit card debt, etc., then got caught later despite his best efforts, or lacked the mental capability to know he was walking into a potential economic deathtrap. But he wasn't putting forth anywhere close to a best effort financially speaking. When the same thing happened to me, I cut back on paying my mortgage off early, and sat on a six months emergency fund if the layoff ever came, and increased my retirement contributions when the market tanked to jumpstart it when the market would inevitably rebounded. There was never a sleepless night.

He's in better shape now, we got our salaries put back, and what did he do? Took that several year "postponed" trip to Disneyworld with the wife and kids, put off contributing to the reinstituted 401k, never has started an IRA for him or his wife, no college fund for the kids, only has one month emergency fund, although he has reduced his credit card balances.

I wouldn't pretend to know which is worse in the US - predatory lending and other abuses by businesses against consumers, or a complete lack of personal responsibility. But I know this - there's plenty of both, but you certainly don't hear it's both from pretty much any media outlet.