PDA

View Full Version : So this country teeters on the edge of the abyss so...



theonedru
07-11-2011, 08:57 PM
I keep hearing how if this debt ceiling thing and if it's not addressed that the United States could return to a recession.

My question is simple

When did the recession end because I haven't seen any real signs of it doing so. if the debt is not properly addressed we will not enter into a recession since we are still in one we will hit a depression. Some examples of solutions they are throwing around

1. Raise taxes make the poor and middle class pay

2. raise the debt ceiling

This just goes how much the gov't just doesn't care they either want the poor and middle class to pay for their ignorance or raise the limits for a debt they already cannot handle.

What are your logical solutions and explain why you think it would work?

THIS THREAD WILL NOT TURN INTO A LIB/DEM OR OBAMA THIS BUSH THAT BASHING THREAD. LOGICAL REASONING ONLY.

OnePimpTiger
07-11-2011, 09:44 PM
There is only one logical solution...cut government spending. Any other solution is a temporary fix that puts in the same situation whenever that debt ceiling is hit or those taxes don't provide enough any more or more people require entitlement payouts or all of the above. If spending is not decreased, we will always come to a point where we are in the same spot....it's not rocket science.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-11-2011, 09:45 PM
This country takes in enough money (2 trillion) a year in taxes to meet its debt obligations . Any one that says we will default on our debt is just using scare tatics no matter what side of the isle, and Tim Gietner knows that , To claim we will drop to a third world country is simply not true . How many times have we heard if we dont do this or that we will collapse . We dont have a tax revenue problem ,we have a spending problem that must stop or we will be in trouble . When we take in 2 trillion a year and are spending 3-4 trillion yr. that's were that problems lie . Even if they get the tax increases they are wanting it will just cover 9 days of spending , My question is If they get there Tax increases on the rich what happens when it proves to not be enough to match the spending .The president even said last year he would not raise taxes until 2013-14 so why is now such a big deal ?

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 10:00 AM
There is only one logical solution...cut government spending. Any other solution is a temporary fix that puts in the same situation whenever that debt ceiling is hit or those taxes don't provide enough any more or more people require entitlement payouts or all of the above. If spending is not decreased, we will always come to a point where we are in the same spot....it's not rocket science.

I agree 100%. They already get enough cash to run the country. They just need to spend within that limit. Spend what you get or even better... spend less than you get. I know that's a novel idea to not spend everything you take in. These guys should know how to balance a budget. If you don't bring in enough money cover your expenses then there are going to be some things you can't afford. It's time they stop viewing the public as their private piggy banks that they can dip into when they want to buy more things.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 10:36 AM
We need more than a balanced budget. We need a budget surplus to dig out of the hole that we are in. It will only be achieved by a combination of substantive tax reform and slashing entitlement spending. Anything else is just sticking a band-aid on a hemorrhaging economy.

theonedru
07-12-2011, 06:16 PM
So what logically can we cut to save $? I thought they should have shut down NADA decades ago, it is a huge waste of $ to "explore the stars" when things on the ground are as bad as they are.

Cut government wages is a good start and retirement funds for them are ridiculous

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 06:23 PM
So what logically can we cut to save $? I thought they should have shut down NADA decades ago, it is a huge waste of $ to "explore the stars" when things on the ground are as bad as they are.

Cut government wages is a good start and retirement funds for them are ridiculous

Are they rediculous? For what grade level are they rediculous? for GS what to what or WG ? Or are you talking about Congress. And ya lets cut gov wages that for 90% of the jobs are at or below civilain wage levels, so then Gov workers can go on food stamps and WIC. I love how some of you think there needs to be this "parity" that becasue someone choose the to go into the civilan workforce that was offering higher wages, bonuses, 401K's ect VS someone who went to work for the Gov which has lower wages, less bonuses but more job stability, that Gov workers now need to feel your pain to. To bad so sad for you. If you wanted long term stability you shoulda got a Gov job.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 06:32 PM
So what logically can we cut to save $? I thought they should have shut down NADA decades ago, it is a huge waste of $ to "explore the stars" when things on the ground are as bad as they are.

Cut government wages is a good start and retirement funds for them are ridiculous

Most think that social security and medicare need to be slashed. I would also do away with defined benefit pension plans for government employees. Require them to have 401(k)s like everyone else.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 06:54 PM
a GS 6 under FERS with a high 3 of 45k would only have an annual annutity of 1500 a month... really federal retirment is just breaking the bank...

theonedru
07-12-2011, 08:15 PM
Are they rediculous? For what grade level are they rediculous? for GS what to what or WG ? Or are you talking about Congress. And ya lets cut gov wages that for 90% of the jobs are at or below civilain wage levels, so then Gov workers can go on food stamps and WIC. I love how some of you think there needs to be this "parity" that becasue someone choose the to go into the civilan workforce that was offering higher wages, bonuses, 401K's ect VS someone who went to work for the Gov which has lower wages, less bonuses but more job stability, that Gov workers now need to feel your pain to. To bad so sad for you. If you wanted long term stability you shoulda got a Gov job.

I was referring to congress and other high level politicians, not your everyday run of the mill government employee and please lets stick to not ranting and raving, we will keep this thread somewhat civil

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 10:02 PM
So what logically can we cut to save $? I thought they should have shut down NADA decades ago, it is a huge waste of $ to "explore the stars" when things on the ground are as bad as they are.

Cut government wages is a good start and retirement funds for them are ridiculous

I think government wages and/or benefits as a whole need to be cut, specifically retirement funds. Maybe it's just me, but a "public servant" should not be making more than their private industry counterpart...and in 8 out of 10 jobs in America, that is the case.

Congress should not be able to vote itself a pay raise, that should be voted on by the people and up for review based on performance. In ever other industry, your pay is determined by your performance...you hardly get to vote for a pay raise for yourself.

Social Security should be privatized. As I've said til I'm blue in the face, the Constitution does not say "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and retirement." It is not the government's responsibility to provide a retirement fund for its citizens. Even if you don't agree with that, how well is the government managing its money? I'd rather take my chances on my own.

All other entitlements need major reform. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but everything we have is at least a little broke.

Reform how government contracts are handed out. Efficiency and cost effectiveness is ignored, as with everything in government.

Until the budget is back in some semblance of order, drastically cut or eliminate all the non-essential, superfluous grants and programs. I'm sorry, but when we're running a $1.3 trillion deficit, arts programs, beautification programs, upgrades, iPads to fed agencies, re-decorations of offices, huge expense accounts, etc, etc, etc need to be put on hold.

The A-#1 thing that needs to be done is get some people in office who actually have experience running a business. You wouldn't think it would be so hard to understand spending $1.3 trillion more than you make isn't good for anyone, but apparently that's Hebrew to these people. And not as much as Dems obviously, but that goes for Republicans too.

duane1969
07-12-2011, 11:34 PM
I think government wages and/or benefits as a whole need to be cut, specifically retirement funds. Maybe it's just me, but a "public servant" should not be making more than their private industry counterpart...and in 8 out of 10 jobs in America, that is the case.



What public servants make more their private sector counterparts?

A good example of why I ask. My wife is an elementary principal making less than $60k a year. She was offered a job by a textbook company starting at $200k a year. That is more than she will ever be making as a principal.

Technology is the same. Private sector techs easily make $100k a year and up. I just applied for an entry level private sector tech job making $80k+ yet I am making less than $50k working for a government entity doing the exact same job.

sanfran22
07-13-2011, 09:14 AM
What public servants make more their private sector counterparts?

A good example of why I ask. My wife is an elementary principal making less than $60k a year. She was offered a job by a textbook company starting at $200k a year. That is more than she will ever be making as a principal.

Technology is the same. Private sector techs easily make $100k a year and up. I just applied for an entry level private sector tech job making $80k+ yet I am making less than $50k working for a government entity doing the exact same job.
Public school teachers vs private school teachers is one I could think of off the cuff.....

Job comparison
Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:

http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/ipr/grey.gifhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

pghin08
07-13-2011, 10:37 AM
I think government wages and/or benefits as a whole need to be cut, specifically retirement funds. Maybe it's just me, but a "public servant" should not be making more than their private industry counterpart...and in 8 out of 10 jobs in America, that is the case.

Congress should not be able to vote itself a pay raise, that should be voted on by the people and up for review based on performance. In ever other industry, your pay is determined by your performance...you hardly get to vote for a pay raise for yourself.

Social Security should be privatized. As I've said til I'm blue in the face, the Constitution does not say "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and retirement." It is not the government's responsibility to provide a retirement fund for its citizens. Even if you don't agree with that, how well is the government managing its money? I'd rather take my chances on my own.

All other entitlements need major reform. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but everything we have is at least a little broke.

Reform how government contracts are handed out. Efficiency and cost effectiveness is ignored, as with everything in government.

Until the budget is back in some semblance of order, drastically cut or eliminate all the non-essential, superfluous grants and programs. I'm sorry, but when we're running a $1.3 trillion deficit, arts programs, beautification programs, upgrades, iPads to fed agencies, re-decorations of offices, huge expense accounts, etc, etc, etc need to be put on hold.

The A-#1 thing that needs to be done is get some people in office who actually have experience running a business. You wouldn't think it would be so hard to understand spending $1.3 trillion more than you make isn't good for anyone, but apparently that's Hebrew to these people. And not as much as Dems obviously, but that goes for Republicans too.


1000% agree with what I've bolded.

AUTaxMan
07-13-2011, 10:42 AM
1000% agree with what I've bolded.

I would also like the option to opt out of social security and take my own chances with my money. The fact that they will not let you do that and that we know that we will not see close to what we paid into the system in terms of SS just goes to show you how much of a ponzi scheme it really is.

Star_Cards
07-13-2011, 11:05 AM
I think government wages and/or benefits as a whole need to be cut, specifically retirement funds. Maybe it's just me, but a "public servant" should not be making more than their private industry counterpart...and in 8 out of 10 jobs in America, that is the case.

Congress should not be able to vote itself a pay raise, that should be voted on by the people and up for review based on performance. In ever other industry, your pay is determined by your performance...you hardly get to vote for a pay raise for yourself.

Social Security should be privatized. As I've said til I'm blue in the face, the Constitution does not say "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and retirement." It is not the government's responsibility to provide a retirement fund for its citizens. Even if you don't agree with that, how well is the government managing its money? I'd rather take my chances on my own.

All other entitlements need major reform. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...but everything we have is at least a little broke.

Reform how government contracts are handed out. Efficiency and cost effectiveness is ignored, as with everything in government.

Until the budget is back in some semblance of order, drastically cut or eliminate all the non-essential, superfluous grants and programs. I'm sorry, but when we're running a $1.3 trillion deficit, arts programs, beautification programs, upgrades, iPads to fed agencies, re-decorations of offices, huge expense accounts, etc, etc, etc need to be put on hold.

The A-#1 thing that needs to be done is get some people in office who actually have experience running a business. You wouldn't think it would be so hard to understand spending $1.3 trillion more than you make isn't good for anyone, but apparently that's Hebrew to these people. And not as much as Dems obviously, but that goes for Republicans too.

These all sound logical to me. The congress voting themselves a pay raise is just ridiculous.

I look at the amount of cash I pay into Soc Sec and would love to have that in my account. Heck, I would love to have even a percentage of it. I honestly don't have an issue with having some of my tax dollars going to help others, but paying into a system that seems like it won't be a workable solution in the near future is a bit disheartening. If you're going to have the system at least have it set up to work.

The gov contracts I believe is one of the major reasons why there is a balancing issue. It seems like it's a big "good ole boys" club and politicians seem to use these to grease the wheels of their elections. I wonder if campaign fundraising caps would have any effect on this. People would still be wanting to grease the wheels but "buying" favors for campaign donations would be less of a factor. I also think that term limits for congress would help a lot too. I think if they know they can only be in that office for less than a decade they may be more willing to make some big changes. I hate that guys get into a seat and sit there for 20-30 years. I think new blood every so often will do some good.

The business running experience isn't a bad idea, but budgeting money isn't really that difficult of an idea to grasp. By the time politicians get to that point you would think they could figure it out.

Star_Cards
07-13-2011, 11:07 AM
1000% agree with what I've bolded.

There was talk about privatizing Soc Sec during the 2000 primaries. I can't remember if Bush ever took any action once in office, but that was one of the reasons I voted for him in 2000. I liked the idea of banking at least some of my soc security taxes being taken from my check.

duane1969
07-13-2011, 11:20 AM
Public school teachers vs private school teachers is one I could think of off the cuff.....

Job comparison
Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations. A sampling of average annnual salaries in 2008, the most recent data:

http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_images/ipr/grey.gifhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

The Catch22 in that is that many "private schools" are simply church run schools that do not require a teaching license. The largest church run school in my area just had to close their K-5 portion because some law somewhere required them to have a certain number of licensed teachers and they didn't want to have to pay the higher salaries of professionals instead of the cheaper salaries of their "school approved" teachers.

(NOTE: "School approved teacher" means some kid's mommy wants to teach reading and she is more than willing to do it for $20k a year since she has no formal education herself and the pay is better than WalMart or the grocery store.)

The term "private school" can be midleading.

sanfran22
07-13-2011, 11:27 AM
There was talk about privatizing Soc Sec during the 2000 primaries. I can't remember if Bush ever took any action once in office, but that was one of the reasons I voted for him in 2000. I liked the idea of banking at least some of my soc security taxes being taken from my check.
He tried, but he kept hitting roadblocks......

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 11:29 AM
I wonder if any of you can imagine what the country would look like in 50 years if SS was privatized. How many seniors would be living on the streets? What would happen to the mortality rate in the US? What kind of a strain would it put on the charity organizations?

sanfran22
07-13-2011, 11:30 AM
The Catch22 in that is that many "private schools" are simply church run schools that do not require a teaching license. The largest church run school in my area just had to close their K-5 portion because some law somewhere required them to have a certain number of licensed teachers and they didn't want to have to pay the higher salaries of professionals instead of the cheaper salaries of their "school approved" teachers.

(NOTE: "School approved teacher" means some kid's mommy wants to teach reading and she is more than willing to do it for $20k a year since she has no formal education herself and the pay is better than WalMart or the grocery store.)

The term "private school" can be midleading.
The other catch 22 is that these uncertified teachers are most of the time turning out a better student....hmmmmm.


ďSome of the worst teachers Iíve ever seen are highly certified. Look at our public schools. Theyíre full of certified teachers. What kind of magic is that accomplishing? But I can take you to the best teachers Iíve ever seen, and most of them are uncertified.... We donít have evidence at all that what we do in schools of education makes much difference in teacher competence.Ē1 (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000214.asp#1)


óDr. Donald Ericksen, UCLA

Star_Cards
07-13-2011, 12:09 PM
I wonder if any of you can imagine what the country would look like in 50 years if SS was privatized. How many seniors would be living on the streets? What would happen to the mortality rate in the US? What kind of a strain would it put on the charity organizations?

that's my one hang up about what to do. They'd have to probably have two systems until you get everyone into one. It's a huge issue when the new workers need to fund the retirees. When they are doing that there's not really a good way for them to also fund their own retirements. Definitely tricky, but if the system does just run out there will be a lot of out like that.

AUTaxMan
07-13-2011, 12:11 PM
I wonder if any of you can imagine what the country would look like in 50 years if SS was privatized. How many seniors would be living on the streets? What would happen to the mortality rate in the US? What kind of a strain would it put on the charity organizations?

Good questions. What are your answers?

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 12:21 PM
that's my one hang up about what to do. They'd have to probably have two systems until you get everyone into one. It's a huge issue when the new workers need to fund the retirees. When they are doing that there's not really a good way for them to also fund their own retirements. Definitely tricky, but if the system does just run out there will be a lot of out like that.

The system definitely needs to be fixed in some way. The current demographics just were not anticipated when the system was initiated. No one thought that the population growth would slow as much as it has in the past 30 years. My problem with a fully privatized system is that people will not contribute enough voluntarily. Too many people living paycheque to paycheque will be skipping payments or dipping into what they have already saved to get by in hard times. The reality is present day life takes priority over concerns for future needs.

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 12:27 PM
Good questions. What are your answers?

I won't even attempt to provide answers on this messageboard. I will just say this, I am Canadian. We have a completely different (socialist, if you like) way of thinking. My answers would not be well received.

sanfran22
07-13-2011, 12:27 PM
The system definitely needs to be fixed in some way. The current demographics just were not anticipated when the system was initiated. No one thought that the population growth would slow as much as it has in the past 30 years. My problem with a fully privatized system is that people will not contribute enough voluntarily. Too many people living paycheque to paycheque will be skipping payments or dipping into what they have already saved to get by in hard times. The reality is present day life takes priority over concerns for future needs.
I don't think that is the way it's was going to work. You had to invest a portion of your current fico tax into a private account. It wasn't voluntary. It also wasn't the whole amount. 5 or 10% I think. There were a few plans floating out there though. One had 1/3 of the tax going into an account and you could opt in or out.
I would argue it's not so much the population growth as maybe the amount of people that don't pay into the system for one reason or another.....

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 12:31 PM
I don't think that is the way it's was going to work. You had to invest a portion of your current fico tax into a private account. It wasn't voluntary. It also wasn't the whole amount. 5 or 10% I think.
I would argue it's not so much the population growth as maybe the amount of people that don't pay into the system for one reason or another.....

That may be as well. And again, something that was probably not anticipated when the system was first conceived.

AUTaxMan
07-13-2011, 12:43 PM
I won't even attempt to provide answers on this messageboard. I will just say this, I am Canadian. We have a completely different (socialist, if you like) way of thinking. My answers would not be well received.

Well why make the comment in the first place?

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 01:04 PM
Well why make the comment in the first place?

So people may contemplate the possible consequences of a privatized system.:confused0024:

Star_Cards
07-13-2011, 01:43 PM
The system definitely needs to be fixed in some way. The current demographics just were not anticipated when the system was initiated. No one thought that the population growth would slow as much as it has in the past 30 years. My problem with a fully privatized system is that people will not contribute enough voluntarily. Too many people living paycheque to paycheque will be skipping payments or dipping into what they have already saved to get by in hard times. The reality is present day life takes priority over concerns for future needs.

Is it wrong if a new system isn't voluntary? Part of me says if people don't plan for their retirement themselves then that's their right, but the other part knows that lots of people won't and then will need help via tax dollars later in life. Maybe they still take the money out of your check but them it just goes into your own account. I'm not sure. I guess there are a lot of things that would need to be worked out from there. I just know that I'd rather be able to look at an account that had al of my Soc Sec taxes in it even if it is still taken out of my check involuntarily.

Star_Cards
07-13-2011, 01:46 PM
I won't even attempt to provide answers on this messageboard. I will just say this, I am Canadian. We have a completely different (socialist, if you like) way of thinking. My answers would not be well received.

How do they work it in Canada.

<side note> the whole socialist chatter since obama came into office is ridiculous. we've had socialist programs for decades. people just use that word because it makes people think of evil leaders of the past and want to drum up some fear amongst the US citizens.

habsheaven
07-13-2011, 02:02 PM
Our CPP is similar I think. The government takes 4.95&#37; up to a maximum earning of $43,700 for 2010. If you are self-employed you have to contribute at the time you submit your tax return. At age 60 you can start to collect CPP at a reduced rate, or wait until 65 to receive the full rate. The amount you receive is based on your income over the last 10 years you worked and contributed.

Oh, we also receive OAS (old age security) at age 65. And if those two are not enough, you can apply for GIS (guaranteed income supplement). That will get your income up to a little over 20K a year.

duane1969
07-13-2011, 02:13 PM
The other catch 22 is that these uncertified teachers are most of the time turning out a better student....hmmmmm.


ďSome of the worst teachers Iíve ever seen are highly certified. Look at our public schools. Theyíre full of certified teachers. What kind of magic is that accomplishing? But I can take you to the best teachers Iíve ever seen, and most of them are uncertified.... We donít have evidence at all that what we do in schools of education makes much difference in teacher competence.Ē1 (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000214.asp#1)


óDr. Donald Ericksen, UCLA

The data doesn't support that. While students in private Christian schools may score comparatively on elementary subjects there is no way that they can produce comparable scores in advanced core subject work if the person teaching them doesn't know the curriculum. High-end private schools will draw the best teachers because they pay more but those jobs are limited in quantity.

I would be interested to meet Dr. Ericksen's uncertified teachers that are better than all certified teachers. For every great teacher that is not certified there are 100 that are certified.


How do they work it in Canada.

<side note> the whole socialist chatter since obama came into office is ridiculous. we've had socialist programs for decades. people just use that word because it makes people think of evil leaders of the past and want to drum up some fear amongst the US citizens.

sanfran22
07-13-2011, 02:21 PM
The data doesn't support that. While students in private Christian schools may score comparatively on elementary subjects there is no way that they can produce comparable scores in advanced core subject work if the person teaching them doesn't know the curriculum. High-end private schools will draw the best teachers because they pay more but those jobs are limited in quantity.

I would be interested to meet Dr. Ericksen's uncertified teachers that are better than all certified teachers. For every great teacher that is not certified there are 100 that are certified.
The data doesn't go against it either. It's not like these teachers are all rolling off the street to teach.
I get what you are saying, but someone who was a chemist in life, but doesn't have his teaching "certificate" could possibly be better then the college grad that got his certificate. I wouldn't discount those that don't have the paper to go with it.
It's kinda like apprenticeships to me. They don't really exist like they used to. We have a bunch of fancy college/trade school degrees for alot of the stuff now. But theres probably no substitute for the hands on process. I'd probably rather hire someone in the field for 4-5 years then someone who just got out of school with their degree in the same area.

pghin08
07-13-2011, 04:06 PM
I would also like the option to opt out of social security and take my own chances with my money. The fact that they will not let you do that and that we know that we will not see close to what we paid into the system in terms of SS just goes to show you how much of a ponzi scheme it really is.

We have this discussion around the office. Like you, we don't feel as if "ponzi scheme" is too harsh of a definition for social security.

OnePimpTiger
07-13-2011, 09:50 PM
What public servants make more their private sector counterparts?

A good example of why I ask. My wife is an elementary principal making less than $60k a year. She was offered a job by a textbook company starting at $200k a year. That is more than she will ever be making as a principal.

Technology is the same. Private sector techs easily make $100k a year and up. I just applied for an entry level private sector tech job making $80k+ yet I am making less than $50k working for a government entity doing the exact same job.

That's hardly comparing apples to apples. Here's where I got that stat:

Federal pay ahead of private industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm)


Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

CHART: Federal salaries compared to private-sector

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.


I wonder if any of you can imagine what the country would look like in 50 years if SS was privatized. How many seniors would be living on the streets? What would happen to the mortality rate in the US? What kind of a strain would it put on the charity organizations?

No doubt, there will be people left out in the cold, but it's a lesson that has to be learned. If you don't want to work until you die, you need to take that into account from the day you enter the work field. It's not the government's place to babysit and make sure you eat your vegetables, you have to take responsibility for your own future.

I wonder if you can imagine what the country will look like in 50 years if SS continues as it is...and no longer exists for anyone. When it goes under, entire generations will have lost everything paid in.

Tivo32
07-13-2011, 09:57 PM
That's hardly comparing apples to apples. Here's where I got that stat:

Federal pay ahead of private industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm)

I would agree with you. At least in Massachusetts. My sister was a public school music teacher and because of pending cut backs she switched to a private school and is making almost 2/3 less than what she was making in the public school system.

*censored*
07-15-2011, 08:47 PM
When did the recession end because I haven't seen any real signs of it doing so.

A recession is a decrease in GDP for two quarters in a row. That being said, in the fourth quarter of 2010, there was a 3.1&#37; increase in GDP. The first quarter of 2011 saw a 1.9% increase. There have been other increases before those, but to answer your question, we are not in a recession or depression or whatever the anti-Obama Chicken Littles of the world want to claim. Obviously unemployment is still up but that's not the determining factor of what is and is not a recession-- GDP is. We are not in a recession.

The latest recession lasted December 2007 through June 2009.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-15-2011, 09:39 PM
We are in an Obamanation , It's worst than a depression or a recession .

sanfran22
07-15-2011, 10:34 PM
A recession is a decrease in GDP for two quarters in a row. That being said, in the fourth quarter of 2010, there was a 3.1&#37; increase in GDP. The first quarter of 2011 saw a 1.9% increase. There have been other increases before those, but to answer your question, we are not in a recession or depression or whatever the anti-Obama Chicken Littles of the world want to claim. Obviously unemployment is still up but that's not the determining factor of what is and is not a recession-- GDP is. We are not in a recession.

The latest recession lasted December 2007 through June 2009.
Your definition is one definition. Other's say this is a recession as well....

"Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months."

"The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. For more information, see the latest announcement from the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee, dated 9/20/10."

duane1969
07-16-2011, 11:46 AM
The data doesn't go against it either. It's not like these teachers are all rolling off the street to teach.
I get what you are saying, but someone who was a chemist in life, but doesn't have his teaching "certificate" could possibly be better then the college grad that got his certificate. I wouldn't discount those that don't have the paper to go with it.
It's kinda like apprenticeships to me. They don't really exist like they used to. We have a bunch of fancy college/trade school degrees for alot of the stuff now. But theres probably no substitute for the hands on process. I'd probably rather hire someone in the field for 4-5 years then someone who just got out of school with their degree in the same area.

Actually it does. I realize that I have access to certain local data that other people may not, but there is data that supports the concept that private schools, as a whole, are not turning out students that are as educationally competitivw as public schools.

There are certainly exceptions in both categories but the simple fact is that state qualifications are there for a reason. Requiring a minimal amount of knowledge and an ability to transfer that knowledge to others is just good business.


A recession is a decrease in GDP for two quarters in a row. That being said, in the fourth quarter of 2010, there was a 3.1% increase in GDP. The first quarter of 2011 saw a 1.9% increase. There have been other increases before those, but to answer your question, we are not in a recession or depression or whatever the anti-Obama Chicken Littles of the world want to claim. Obviously unemployment is still up but that's not the determining factor of what is and is not a recession-- GDP is. We are not in a recession.

The latest recession lasted December 2007 through June 2009.

GDP, by itself, is not the only factor as to what a recession is. Other aspects such as unemployment, the housing market and the stock market are factors.

Theodor Madison
07-16-2011, 12:41 PM
The problem is most, especially those in politics and unions. I have always believed you get what you have earned. I can understand in cases where you may be handicapped etc, but when you have, pensions that seem so outrages. Bailouts in which Ceos , just kill. Unions, that seem to hold the country hostage. On and ON and ON.:rant::rant::rant:

sanfran22
07-16-2011, 01:12 PM
Actually it does. I realize that I have access to certain local data that other people may not, but there is data that supports the concept that private schools, as a whole, are not turning out students that are as educationally competitivw as public schools.

There are certainly exceptions in both categories but the simple fact is that state qualifications are there for a reason. Requiring a minimal amount of knowledge and an ability to transfer that knowledge to others is just good business.



GDP, by itself, is not the only factor as to what a recession is. Other aspects such as unemployment, the housing market and the stock market are factors.
I'd be interested in seeing your info. It doesn't seem to be that way with what I've read in ohio. Just because they are not state certified doesn't mean they are not qualified IMO.

theonedru
07-18-2011, 08:45 PM
What do you guys think of this, there are some good ideas in it

Coburn proposes $9 trillion deficit cut measure

http://news.yahoo.com/coburn-proposes-9-trillion-deficit-cut-measure-192145582.html

INTIMADATOR2007
07-23-2011, 01:20 AM
Today the senate has tabeled the cut,cap and balance bill that passed in the house ,they are not going to vote on the bill . Obama keeps saying the house repubs. need to come up with a plan and they do and it gets tabled in the senate and not even brought up for a vote ,while no body on the democrat side has come up with anything including a budget for almost 900 days . And Obama gets on tv crying the blues claming nobody has come up with anything , Its you Mr. President who has come up with no plan at all , The plan he purposed got voted down 97 to nothing a couple months ago , whos the one without a plan , Unless your plan is to Bankrupt our country .

I like the Coburn plan also cutting 9 trillion , But if they wont vote on the cut,cap and balance plan in the senate there's no chance of the Coburn bill getting thru either.

theonedru
07-23-2011, 11:58 AM
Its crazy how retarded politicians are, here in Seattle they are like " We have a billion shortfall but we have 30 million set aside for road work.." If your a billion in the hole you dont have $ for squat people. if thi is how politicians think we are in huge huge trouble.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION before its too late people

duane1969
07-23-2011, 09:43 PM
I'd be interested in seeing your info. It doesn't seem to be that way with what I've read in ohio. Just because they are not state certified doesn't mean they are not qualified IMO.

The data that I have access to is not something that I can share and keep my job.

I agree, state qualification does not, by itself, indicate a good teacher. It indicates an understanding of the concepts of cross-curriculum teaching, learning styles, learning disabilities and how to teach children with learning disabilities, how to develop a lesson plan that addresses different learning styles while still adhering to teaching standards, understanding development stages and behavioral aspects (Piaget vs. Vygotsky vs. BF Skinner, etc.) and how that impacts a child's ability to learn...not to mention an in-depth knowledge of the curriculum itself.

Being knowledgable about a subject does not equate to being a good teacher. There is a lot more that goes into being a teacher than just knowing biology or math. Things like methodology, lesson development, learning concepts and understanding how to effectively implement technology into the classroom are things that the average lay-person simply can not "just know" and content knowledge can not replace that.

duane1969
07-23-2011, 09:46 PM
Its crazy how retarded politicians are, here in Seattle they are like " We have a billion shortfall but we have 30 million set aside for road work.." If your a billion in the hole you dont have $ for squat people. if thi is how politicians think we are in huge huge trouble.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION before its too late people

Unfortunately politicians do not see a lack of money as a good reason to quit spending it. Common sense and logic are removed at all political swearing in ceremonies...