West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(86 posts)

debt ceiling solution

Started 11 months ago by hooper1961
Latest reply from redblack

hooper1961
Member Profile

the US needs to get its fiscal order back and it needs to be done with revenue enhancement (modestly raising taxes say 5% on individuals earning $250,000 or couples earning $500,000 or more a years and at double these earnings add another 5% increase) and reduced spending with a bit of money added to improve infrastructure.

on the spending side reduce military spending, reduce future benefits on social security via a 1% per year across the board benefit payout up to 25% in 25 years. Thus a 50 year old future benefit is reduced by 15% and a 35 year old's by 25%. A 64 year old would only lose 1% and those drawing social security are grandfathered.

medicare cuts would need to be more significant and at what societal cost is it appropriate to extend a 85 year old's life by 2 months.

and I could see spending more on Civil infrastructure that puts construction workers to work rebuilding our streets, sewer and water systems.

and the electrical grid needs to be updated. electrical energy is going to become a greater used energy source as fossil fuel supplies get more expensive to find, extract, refine and supply energy.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Unless, of course, a Democrat is in the White House.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002169.htm

Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse lamented the double-standard at work in the Republicans' posturing on the national debt:

"I understand the point about the debt and the deficit and the spending," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). "But to me, that doesn't have an enormous amount of credibility, because when President Clinton left office, he left an annual surplus... At the end of [George W. Bush's] term, we had $9 trillion in debt."
"We would have none of this if it hadn't been for the Republican debt orgy that they went through," Whitehouse said.
__________________
So WHY in the HE!! should we listen to anybody who supports the R's when it comes to deficits.

Want to argue that Obama is spending to much... Bush went from a dam$ SURPLUS SURPLUS SURPLUS to record deficits... and NOW you want to complain about deficits.

PLEASE SHUT TF UP ABOUT HOW THE R's ARE GOING TO SOLVE THE DEFICIT PROBLEM. Complete and utter BS coming from the right.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

Taxes need to go back to Pre-1980 rates.

http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

"medicare cuts would need to be more significant"

same argument made over and over and over and over since the 1960's... just say you don't want to help the elderly and everyone for themselves instead of hashing the same ole argument, again.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2011/05/medicare-is-going-bankrupt-again.html

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

hoop..
how did i know this would be you?

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

and tell me what is unreasonable, the rich pay more in taxes and everyone less than 65 takes a cut in their future social security and medicare benefits that are slowly incorporated into the future payouts.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

what's unreasonable is your feigned intereest in solving the deficit when its a president you don't like.

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

??????????? this has zero to due with Obama. Both political parties can shove it as far as I am concerned.

Posted 11 months ago #
TDe
Member Profile

Oh please... The rich may pay more MONEY in taxes, but they also have more money left over after taxes than the rest of us. The wealthy of this nation gnerally pay a smaller percentage of their wealth and income in federal taxes than they've paid in decades.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708310/posts
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/01/an-empty-offer-from-the-super-rich.html

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

hooper1961..

when will it occur to you that those who have benefited financially should be picking up the bill for the social mess they created?

all is not fair in love.. or war.. or business.

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

btw hoop...

gotta ask.

how does your scenario anticipate paying for the seniors diverted from medicare ... which controls medical costs ... to emergency care ... which is the most costly form of medical care available?

right now those of us who can still afford to pay for health insurance pay that cost .. and a profit center or two or three along the way.

have you noticed the correlation between the number of uninsured Americans and your healthcare premiums? It's no coincidence.

for once, think like a businessman.

why choose to pay more when you could be paying less?

Posted 11 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

Wait until we start defaulting on the 14 trillion. It can get worse in a hurry soon.

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

no insurance no service provided

Posted 11 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

so if you can't afford insurance at the cost it is now, or they deny you, to effing bad? You're gonna die? I don't think that's what we as Americans are about, do you? Talk about "death panels"..there you go, a self fulfilling prophecy. If you get old and have a limited income, screw you? Geez !

Posted 11 months ago #
Huindekmi
Member Profile

I keep hearing the GOP and right-wing talk about how the U.S.A is a "Christian" nation.

And then the same people propose policies that ignore the elderly, shun the poor, punish the sick, and focus on giving more and more to the wealthy.

How is that Christian?

Posted 11 months ago #
Jiggers
Member Profile

Jan...As Alan Grayson said before, " Don't get sick, and if you do, die fast"

Posted 11 months ago #
Ken
Member Profile

relevant animation:
Supply Side Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

i do not know why i am being vilified, i said to modestly increase taxes on the wealthy and cut back future entitlement spending across the board. in fact my proposal would reduce my future social security to 85% of current law pay-out. 85% is better than zero if the system implodes.

Posted 11 months ago #
dobro
Member Profile

here's why you're being vilified...

"no insurance no service provided"

People with compassion realize that others should not be left to die because they don't have money. You don't seem to get that no matter how many times people say it to you. Folks get tired of your broken record BS...hence, vilification.

Posted 11 months ago #
Genesee Hill
Member Profile

hooper1961:

Nice to hear from you again. I think this is one of your more enlightened proposals, though I think the taxes should go up more than 5% on the wealthiest. I think taxes should go up to pre "W" levels. I also think medicare and Social Security can be tweaked witout substantially altering benefits. Generally, those who can afford to pay more, do so. Just my opinion.

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

i agree with genesee hill. you've obviously put some thought into this, hooper, which is refreshing. and i see some posters in this thread have mischaracterized what you said.

here's where i differ with you: raise marginal tax rates to levels closer to when eisenhower was president, but that reflect the staggering amount of disparity in wealth and income in the u.s.

something like this:

50% - over $1 billion

45% - $100 million to $1 billion

40% - $10 million to $100 million

35% - $1 million to $10 million

30% - $250,000 to $1 million

leave the rest the same.

as it is, the top marginal rate affects incomes over $250,000, which is chump change to the top 5%. their secretaries, butlers, and nannies make that much money.

furthermore, we need a STET tax on all wall street financial transactions of about .25%.

increase the wage cap on the SS payroll tax, and put it in a lockbox, like al gore suggested. don't even think about raising the retirement age.

leave medicare the hell alone - except to extract the insurance industry's tentacles, of course.

obviously, though, none of this will happen. social democracy was a quaint notion for a few minutes in the mid-late 20th century, but the people with money have decided that they've had enough, and that this "country" - loose confederation of marketing demographics is a more accurate description of what we are as a people - and its government are theirs.

Posted 11 months ago #
waynster
Member Profile

Hmmmm I agree Red hoop has thought this one out and your ideas are good. The sad part is now when congress wants to cut taxes now the right tosses in this tax cuts on business and the rich are new ways to raise taxes so now what to cut and what to increase...?

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

cut the cord...
the umbilical cord that the rich and corporations have to the US treasury...
feeding them is bleeding us dry

Posted 11 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

And, cuts need to be made for Federal programs. You cannot just raise taxes. Even if I play your raise taxes game, there still needs to be cuts in budgets.

I slightly disagree with some of your assessments. Here is a presentation put together with easy to understand graphs and charts.

Jamminj, there is one particularly relevant to pre-1980's tax rates.
http://schweikert.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Budget_Presentation.pdf

Yes, almost 50% do not pay federal taxes.

The corporations are not paying the corporate tax rates expected. 16% average is not equitable.

Congress is spending too much and not being accountable to the "average" person.

The Debt and Deficits are going to cause programs which people depend on to go away unless something is done.

So if we raise the debt ceiling, when will the congress and this president start reducing the federal budgets and programs? We don't want our loans to default, but why should the government get bigger when we can't afford it?

Blame whoever but you know this path is not sustainable.

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

HMCRich...

you want to cut federal programs.
which federal programs?

what they are talking about cutting is funding for the entire social safety-net
and the infrastructure we count on to keep our food safe and to report our weather and to repair bridges and hiways and ...

how about all those subsidies we give to agri-business that were designed to keep the small farmer afloat?
what about all those subsidies we give to big oil?
If we took big businesses hands out of the national till there would be plenty left over to pay for essential services to citizens...

no.. this path is not sustainable.
when all you manufacture is money
and you don't tax that money
you have an economy built on speculation

If we want to fix what is wrong with America
we need to return to what made America great
somehow we have forgotten that America's greatest resource is it's people and what they can produce.

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

rich: i want congress to spend money on what you call "entitlements." when that money gets into the hands of people below the poverty line, most of them spend it on things like food and shelter.

when congress gives tax breaks and money to the top 2%, they spend it on buying more government, more lobbyists, and more advertising so that they can keep bleeding me dry - before and after i'm taxed. the reagan tax cuts didn't create one damned job in the united states. never have, never will.

and by the way, that $14 trillion in debt is not mine, and i'm not paying it back for the people who stole it.

sorry, but we watched the welfare queen argument drive america bankrupt for the last 30 years. those who started that meme about half of the population not paying taxes should no longer be dictating economic policy.

furthermore, the bottom 90% have already faced "austerity cuts." and we've been facing them since reagan. what has the top 2% sacrificed? the second it looked like they were going to lose their shirts, hank paulsen held a shotgun to american taxpayers' heads and told us to fork it over. and the effing crooks didn't even succumb to any behavioral or regulatory changes after getting almost a trillion dollars scott free.

enough. let's put more of your tax money into the hands of people with no power. let's see some real wealth redistribution for a change.

i'm not sure which is worse, though: the status quo, or you cheerleading for them.

[edit: i'll admit that it's nice to see you finally acknowledge that even though the u.s. has the highest corporate tax rates in the world, the government isn't even collecting half of what it should from them.]

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

btw, rich, happy father's day.

and one other thing: remember that the poor people who "don't pay any taxes" make less than the standard deduction in yearly income. that's why they don't pay any taxes.

think you could make it on $12,000 per year? walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, and all of that.

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

redback believe it or not the tax rates you layed out (need to be doubled for married people) is not obscene, what i find frustrating is your unwillingness to acknowledge that reduction in future benefits in entitlements must be made. social security was never meant to be a sole source retirement and we cannot afford to pay for every medical procedure for everyone, and we honestly have to look at how the medical dollars are spent and create a better balance of payments made to recipients are more in line with taxes paid during working years versus the current payout that is vastly greater than payments made. $50,000,000,000 to extend elderly lives by a few months or immunize millions of kids against diseases.

and what is wrong with raising the retirement age? people are living longer now than they did in the past.

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

hooper1961..

social security is the sole retirement source for the pilots at Continental and United whose "reorganization" bankruptcies wiped out their pilots pension plans.
social security is the sole retirement source for the employees and many of the stockholders of Enron whose fraudulent activities wiped our their pension plans...
and that's just the short list.
If you have any retirement funds at all you can join the rest of the hard working middle class vainly hoping the the stock market won't siphon off every penny in the captive accounts you don't even get to manage.

This storyline of pensioners living off their social security because they didn't work to fund their retirements is full of hot air.

As is the story that we have to gut the retirement paychecks they earned because we can't afford to pay them.

as for raising the retirement age... those who can are already working long past their social security retirement age.

it's those who can't who will suffer.

i heard recently that 7 out of 10 deckhands is injured every time one of the more successful fishing boats that calls Seattle home goes out.

I am guessing doing that kind of work beyond the retirement age would be out of the question as only the very very lucky survive uninjured to retire at all.

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

what jo said.

and what's wrong with raising the retirement age? i've said this before: it might be okay if you work in an office. but what about operating a tower crane? swinging a hammer? laying bricks? running a heavy loader? landscaping?

aside from how hard on one's body those professions can be, i'm not sure i want to work around septagenarians on a job site. might be a safety issue, don't ya' know.

hooper, when the rich paid more in taxes, we could afford to have "entitlements" without running up massive debts. all of that debt was intentional, so that they could convince you to vote against your own security.

and it worked, didn't it?

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

job and redblack it is time you guys learned to compromise! like i said i believe it is reasonable to raise taxes on the wealthy but i also believe that reducing FUTURE (existing retirees would be grandfathered) entitlement spending across the board is appropriate. raising the retirement age is very reasonable.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

"it is time you guys learned to compromise!"

so NOW we must compromise. There was no compromise when others asked to slow down on the Iraqi war... no compromise when it came to Bush's tax cuts for the rich, no compromise when it came to deregulation....

NOW you ask for compromise.

That is why listening to the 'other' side for any solution is a joke. If you actually believed it, you would have acted on it a decade ago. sorry, your voice is falling on deaf ears.

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

hooper1961...

We have compromised.
Then out leaders compromised some more for us.

we now have a president whose agenda is almost a mirror image of the Reagan agenda
and you think we should compromise some more.

Please pull your head out of the that very dark space you are in and do a reality check.

You want to compromise?
My starting point on healthcare is a single payer system.
My starting point on social security is that we pay the treasury bills in the social security account in full as they become due and we lock box the money so it can't be used for anything other than social security.
my starting point on medicare is that we kick the insurance companies out of medicare and make medications (preventative care for people with chronic illness) a fully covered benefit. We can pay for that by eliminating the donut and allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices and by putting cost basis strings on any drug whose research was funded partly or wholly by federal funds.
My starting point on infrastructure is that we end all subsidies to the oil companies and dedicate that money to the nations transportation system.. including a heavy investment in light rail.

you still want to play compromise with me?

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

absolutely, the social security trust fund is money owed that would have to be borrowed. reducing future promised benefits across the board and raising the retirement age are absolutely reasonable otherwise future workers will be crushed by taxes in a far more competitive world. preventive care makes sense, but there are many people who do not take care of themselves is it fair to the taxpayers to pay more due to bad personal habits? and again at late stage life what is the right amount of extraordinary care is the correct amount?

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

"but there are many people who do not take care of themselves is it fair to the taxpayers to pay more due to bad personal habits? "

so you think we don't currently pay for those who don't take care of themselves????

My initial reaction was to argue and present evidence to counter your stupidity... but you have a NEED of wanting of people to just die because they can't afford what the rest of the world has not problem affording, to fit your idea of debit reduction.

many countries do just fine with single payer... BUT YOUR idea is to let the elderly die because you don't want to pay taxes.. just such a sickening idea.

so my final reaction is...

You deserve no respect, and no response to you asinine requests that we just let the elderly die because they can't afford the insurance prices. I truly do feel sorry for you soul and how you feel about mankind in general.

really, is this the type of person the best we can do??? sickening.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

i have talked with health care professionals and the late stage life health care spending needs to be honestly debated/

Posted 11 months ago #
JoB
Member Profile

hooper1961..

the US treasuries that have been sold to the social security fund will come due and will need to be paid..
just like any other obligation of the US Treasury.

if we are going to designate a portion of the funds that the US treasury needs to borrow to fund it's obligations.. why on earth are we choosing to single out the treasuries debt to it's own people?

Why aren't we talking tough about borrowing money to pay for war profiteers or for the "little" private security army that now equals or exceeds the size of the real armed forces and costs us about 10 times as much?

Why aren't we talking about borrowing money so we can fund Boehner's little private defense of the likely unconsitutional Defense of Marriage Act?

When are we going to talk about borrowing money so we can add to the bottom line of agribusiness or the oil industry or ... ?

We could talk about borrowing money so TARP funds could pad the offshore bank accounts of the scoundrals whose fraudulent mislabeling of mortgage securities nearly collapsed our economy?

but no.. you harp on the debt owed to citizens...

have you forgotten who or what you are?

Posted 11 months ago #
JanS
Member Profile

hey Hoop...who decides who is taking care of themselves as they age and who isn't? Do we separate them into groups, camps, if you will, and tell those who we suspect of not taking care of themselves according to your standards that , oh, to effing bad, you get nothing, you're gonna die? You bitch and bitch and bitch..what are your solutions? I mean in the real word, where people will still need care after the rug is pulled out from under them. 86 and 87 year old bodies that are/have been taken care of still fail..it's called aging...are you really willing to deny them end of life care, and just let them rot?

Posted 11 months ago #
chrisma
Member Profile

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!

Posted 11 months ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Conservatives:
LUV Amerika!!! HATE AMERICANS!
Screw you Hoop. That "being competative with the rest of the world" propanda you have bought into is code for reducing the VAST majority of American workers (and I would quickly bet, that includes you) to the level of third-world sweat-shop slavery. We won't win in THAT race, even as we lose EVERYTHING our Founders and forebears bequethed us.
When we spend our tax dollars domestically, on programs that bennefit all of us (even, disproportionately, the rich), our Nation becomes stronger. We have over THIRTY YEARS of evidence that giving those who already have the most even more, does NOTHING to improve our Nation. They won't create a job where there is NO DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE.
YOU ARE A SUCKER. You want to continue to support the hyper-wealthy who don't have our Nation's best interest at heart?! I'm certain they will happily give you a salary reduction at work. You can then experiment directly with the COMPLETELY disproven theory of supply-side economics.
***
I'm joining in the chorus of those who are telling you to pull your head out of that dark, smelly place, also known as your Fox Hole.

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

hooper: compromise? on the new deal? not gonna happen if i have anything to say about it. gore somebody else's ox. leave mine the hell alone.

those "future benefits" you and the republicans keep talking about?

that's my generation. "won't affect anyone over age 54?" gee, hooper, i'm under age 54. and i've been paying into SS and medicare for over 20 years. now you want to tell me i can't use that money when i get old and infirm? why? because some rich bastard needed a new trust fund for his brood?

fsck that.

"the left" has done nothing but compromise. on wages. on access to health care. on deficits and debt. on tariffs.

tell your masters to compromise. tell them bring back some of the policies that made this country an industrial powerhouse with a healthy middle class and mobility for the lower classes. tell them to stop shipping our jobs overseas just to make their shareholders happy. tell them to give a shit about this country and its future for a change - the country that allowed them to become rich in the first place - not just their own families.

and tell them to pay back the debt they incurred.

class warfare? you bet. they started it, and i'm losing.

no compromise on social spending.

toddle along now.

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

i am not a republican or democrat.

redblack i am saying ss needs to adjust future benefits so that the system does not implode. i would much rather have 80% of the promised benefits versus nothing.

Posted 11 months ago #
DP
Member Profile

redblack: I hear your anger, but can try to be a little more practical? What's the point of just venting?

I wanted to laugh when you said (to Hooper) "tell your masters to compromise." I'm picturing Hooper trembling before Darth Vader on the control deck of the Death Star.

Lord Vader, Commander redblack says it is you who must compromise, not him.

Vader: Commander Hooper, you have disappointed me one too many times . . .

And of course we all know what happens after that . . .

Posted 11 months ago #
redblack
Member Profile

yeah, DP, that's really funny.

until it comes time to retire.

or you lose an arm in an industrial accident.

later edit:

the "point in just venting" is that hooper's rhetoric is bullshinsecki. hooper has regurgitated talking points that are doled out by people who are tired of paying for "the leaches." or "society's bums."

it's sycophancy, it has no place in political dialogue, and it needs to cease.

forthwith.

Posted 11 months ago #
dawsonct
Member Profile

Hoop, you are certainly NOT a Democrat, that's a given, nor are you a progressive or liberal (more like a NEO-liberal, but I KNOW that level of discourse on political science and economic theory is WAY, FAR over your head). You may want to think of yourself as a conservative, but you aren't one of those either, in the classic sense. What you are ALL THE TIME on this forum is a blathering acolite of the Faux News-O-Tainment propaganda that the Corporatist Republican Party wants America to buy into, so they can squeeze the last few drops of equity and freedom out of the American citizenry, for the bennefit of the very, very few.
You may want to pretend you are not a Republican, but if it walks like one, talks like one, and smells like one, I don't have to taste it to know what it is made of.
One honorific which you most certainly can NOT claim, is Patriot.
***
You want people to actually believe you aren't a Republican? Try coming up with an original thought that isn't lifted verbatim from some farreichwing and/or Republican Party talking-point memo.
---
I KNOW you won't answer to any of this, you never do and I don't think it even breaches your secure wall of illogic. I just hope someday, if you ever reproduce and for the sake of your children, that the rest of America wakes up and realizes how the Corporatists and Christianist scolds that have destroyed the Republican Party, are hell-bent on doing the same to the rest of our Nation and stop them before they succeed.

Posted 11 months ago #
jamminj
Member Profile

http://youtu.be/PR8a90KlkoE

Bill Gross is the manager director of PIMCO, the world's largest bond fund, and thus one of the most important bond traders in the world.

“Fiscal balance alone will not likely produce 20 million jobs over the next decade. The move towards it, in fact, if implemented too quickly, could stultify economic growth.”

"“I know of no family,” he writes, “who, after watching the Republican candidates’ debate in New Hampshire, went out the next day and bought themselves a flat screen under the assumption that their Medicare entitlements would be cut in future years and the U.S. budget balanced.” That theory belongs “in the trash bin of theses and research aimed more towards academics than a practical remedy to America’s job crisis.”

“Government must temporarily assume a bigger, not a smaller, role in this economy"

"Cutting deficits tends to destroy jobs. And though the deficit matters in the long run, we need to survive the short run first."

Posted 11 months ago #
hooper1961
Member Profile

i included raising the tax rates on people making $250,000 (couples $500,000) that is not very Republican at all as a part of my proposal!

Posted 11 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Our tax policy is not sound right now. Too big, too many deductions, too many people not paying in, and basically the whole system is not bringing in enough revenue. Corporations paying too little or nothing. Those who can have so many loopholes. Time To Change It. The tax code, not the BS Fareed Zakaria on CNN planted a few days ago.

Also, cuts need to be made. No doubt about it.

What kind of jobs get hurt in cutting deficits? Federal Jobs? Private? Please elaborate.

Obama and Biden said their stimulus plans would boost the economy. Sure, it helped government projects but as has been stated numerous times on this blog, the big corporations are sitting on their money.

Since we are sssllllloooooowwwwwlllllyyyy recovering or in stagflation, does it not behoove the President and Congress to give the private sector some incentives? I have not seen such an adversarial time of public vs private.

But it ain't gonna happen is it.

Also, I truly believe most people want to pay taxes if they are fair. There will always be some that are too greedy, but I still believe in the goodness and fairness of most people.

So what is the end game for Democrats? What is the end game for Republicans. Time to hash it out.

Posted 11 months ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

Jamminj, I cannot totally agree with Mr. Gross but he does bring up some good points. (Ironically, you spouting the word of a very successful capitalist and me not following in lock step, chuckle - general roles reversed!)
Here is a link that relates to what he said: http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/School-Daze-School-Daze-Good-Old-Golden-Rule-Days.aspx
I found it interesting. Although you did leave out a couple of items that might have played better with me.

A balanced budget and lower deficit for me does not translate into job creation. Even he said in the long run this is good for the country.
But PIMCO would not be around if it didn't make a profit and had negative numbers almost every year of the fund. Reality sucks. Whether it be a business or a government, they do have to stay out of the red or make an attempt.

But, I do agree that the University system is out of touch and out of date in many areas. I too believe youth should look hard at finding a trade or picking some sort of higher education. I also know many people do not find jobs that relate to their degree. In fact, I know there are areas that I am deficient in and wish I had been taught more of the "skilled trades" skills for everyday life.

But the administration does not like "for profit" schools and is going after them. If you can get past the first few paragraphs of the right winger slamming the admin and lefties you might find this interesting...pro or con ....http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229689/obama-administration-attacks-profit-colleges/stephen-spruiell

All in all Jamminj. Your post was a good one.
I salute you, and not even with a middle finger.

Posted 11 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^