BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Topic: RE: TOS to Grambling?

Author

Message

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 1:44:46 PM

Supporting waste = excessive taxation.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 2:40:34 PM

Regarding spending on education, years ago I remember a comparative study being done between public schools in Vermont and public schools in New Hampshire. At the time Vermont was among the top 5 states in the country in spending per capita on public schools, while New Hampshire was in the bottom 5. The states were otherwise very similar, both geographically and ethnically. Thus it provided a unique opportunity to see just what difference there was in outcomes. The study found virtually no difference. Test scores were about the same. Percentages of students who went to college were about the same. The extra money brought nicer classrooms, I suppose, and higher teacher salaries, but made no difference in educational results.

Over the years I have watched as educational spending has risen significantly faster than inflation, in my state and elsewhere. Over the years I have watched as test scores have fallen. The US now scores near the bottom of all industrialized nations in terms of education. I suspect, however, we are near the top of industrialized nations in terms of educational spending.

Does extra spending on education improve the quality of education? I have never seen any results that suggest to me that there is any such relationship. I'm not suggesting wholesale slashing of budgets for education. What I would suggest, however, is healthy skepticism regarding proposals for educational spending.

Here's another study showing little correlation between k-12 spending and educational outcomes. This interesting graph between Federal K-12 spending and educational outcomes also shows no results from increases.

Once you get into higher education spending, the picture is murky because there has been such a massive increase in tuition from the booming Federal loan program.

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 2:57:59 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 3:19:43 PM

The Situation wrote:

...By the way L.C., I really enjoy reading your informative posts on this topic and pretty much everything else you post about.

Thanks. I don't consider myself either a Republican or a Democrat, and I have voted for people in both parties at times, as well as for Libertarians. Mostly I try to post facts, and to stimulate thinking honestly about issues, rather than seeing people falling into the trap of strictly thinking along party lines.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 5:32:37 PM

In terms of education, don't fall into the trap of assuming we score lower than we have in the past compared to other countries. Most of the information listing us as performing below our previous standards is anecdotal, not based on pure data. Actual facts show:

significantly more HS graduate are completed advanced math and science courses at college readiness standards than in 1990.
The average score for 9 year olds in reading on the NAEP in 1971 was 208. In 2008, it was 220. Significant growth. That was growth in all fields. For whites, it went from 214 in 1971 to 228 in 2008. For black students, the growth was 170 to 204. Hispanic students were not categorized until 1975, but growth there was from 183 to 207.
In math, the constant complaint is that in the good old days, kids knew their facts. Now they depend on calculators. Oh, what once was. However, the constant measurement, NAEP, has math scores showing something different. In 1973, 9 year olds scored 219. In 2008, the score was 243. Again, growth throughout. White students, 1973 to 2008: 225 to 250. Black students: 190 to 224. Hispanic students: 202 to 234.
The High School dropout rate is lower today than in 1990, down from about 14% to around 7% for all races. That includes a drop for all races.
How about students with high school degrees or higher in our population? In 1960, that was 41.1%. 1970, 55.2%. 1980, 68.6%. 1990, 77.6%. 2012, 87.6%. As you can imagine, the college numbers look similar (greater than doubled since 1975: 13.9% to 30.9%).

But wait, the guy at the gas station had to use a calculator to figure out the change when I gave him a $20 for $19 in gas. That must mean we're dumber now than before, right? The data just doesn't reflect that. If you compare us to other countries, realize you're comparing apples to oranges. Many countries in Asia do not have full access for all students, thus the testing pool is different than that of America, where every student is offered an education.

Yes, I am biased and passionate as the principal of one of the highest performing schools in Illinois. We do well, but it's not reflective of our test scores (which are exceptionally high). Those tests tell you nothing. The parent that chooses a school based off state test scores is doing their child a disservice. Find out what students are doing, how they are learning, what they're being exposed to, what opportunities there are at the school, how the school connects with the larger community. That's where the value of the school is. That's where the success of a school should be measured.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 7:29:49 PM

It's very difficult to obtain accurate data regarding educational achievement over time, because tests keep gettting changed, and because the pool of people taking the test changes. Thus you get articles like this, showing that the 2012 class had the lowest SAT scores yet.

As far as comparing students in the US to other countries, you have the "Programme for International Student Assessment" (PISA) which began in 2000 and is repeated every 3 years. In 2009 US 15 years olds ranked #31 in Math, below most Industrialized countries, #23 in Science, and #17 in reading.

Then we have the "Trends in International Math and Science Study", originally the "Third International Math and Science Survey" (TIMSS), which has tested 4th, 8th, and 12th graders from various countries, beginning in 1995, and most recently in 2011. US fourth graders have never placed in the top 10 in math, but 8th graders did manage a 9th place finish in 2007 and 2011. In Science, US 4th graders did fairly well, placing 3rd through 8th in various years, but by 8th grade, they no longer did well at all and only managed a 10th place finish in 2011. In fact this is a common problem - the longer they stay in school, the worse they perform. In math, fourth graders were below 46% of other countries, 8th graders were below 68%, and 12th graders were below 90%.

Note - I'm not saying that all schools in the US are bad. I'm just saying that there is substantial evidence that there is a problem. I'm not relying on "anecdotal" evidence, but thoroughly researched studies. For what it's worth, my local school system has the same problem of declining performance. Every year the reports come back the same: 4th graders perform at the 90th percentile of American schools, 8th graders perform at the 70th percentile, and 12th graders perform at the 50% percentile. The good news is that mathematics assures us that somewhere out there there is a school that takes 4th graders at 50% of the nationwide average and turns them into 12th graders at the 90th percentile. Those schools are most likely keeping up on an international basis, too. They need to be identified, and their methods replicated.

As far as the data on high school dropout rates, and high school graduation rates, I don't put much stock in that. We've moved away from holding back people that didn't have a grasp of the material, and moving everyone forward, and giving them a diploma regardless. The real question remains - are they better educated? In math and science, I tend to think not. I recall reading that over half of all the advanced degrees awarded in the US in Math and Science were awarded to non-US citizens. Another bit of data I read was a forecast by R.E. Smalley of Rice, that by 2010 90 percent of all Ph.D. physical scientists and engineers in the world will be Asians living in Asia.

Last Edited: 10/22/2013 7:45:35 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,471

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 8:47:48 PM

We are also the only nation in the world who educates all children, and test all children regardless of ability level or educational track.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:26:47 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:

Nothing about my post that is Distract, Attack, Blame.

Let the record show, my post about non-existent funding for Grambling football led you drop an education debate smokescreen. The only reason you haven't attacked yet is because everyone has responded intelligibly on the subject of education thus far (however it is most definitely the next move of someone who distracts from the original point).

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/22/2013 10:35:46 PM

The education debate is undeveloped. It almost never examines the possibility of human existence without formal education. This is ironic since the main proponents of such a debate consider themselves academics.

The idea that "everyone is a genius in their own way" but "their own way" must simultaneously fit inside the constraints of formal education is a paradox.

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 12:31:32 AM

L.C. wrote:

. . . As a recent example, the recent tanning tax has produced little revenue, but did reduce the number of tanners nationwide by about 50%, which will reduce the number of future skin cancer cases significantly. (On the other hand, if tanning industry claims are correct, it will also mean more incidence of colon and breast cancers from less Vitamin D.) . . .

As most dermatologists will tell you, "There's no such thing as healthy tan." And, the Vitamin D issue is very easily solved by taking a daily Vitamin D pill (800-1000 IUs). Such pills are cheaper than regular tanning sessions and a lot better way to get your Vitamin D. This is particularly important for darker skinned people or those who get very little sunlight. Light-skinned folks (like me) can generate about 30,000 IUs of Vitamin in about 20 minutes of exposure to sunlight, however that also increases the incidence of skin cancer. Current recommendations for supplemental Vitamin D from pills is not to exceed 4,000 IUs per day. In short, stay away from tanning booths, and if you think you're not getting enough Vitamin D from your sunlight exposure take a daily Vitamin D pill.

The only other thing that I want to comment on in this thread at the moment is the interesting graph that BTC posted. Does anyone wonder why Wyoming and North Dakota actually increased spending on education during the recent time period covered? There's a shale oil boom in those states, particularly North Dakota. North Dakota actually has an under employment problem -- more jobs than people to fill those jobs. So, naturally, people are relocating there at a fast rate, hence the need for more schools, more teachers, etc.

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 12:34:03 AM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 1:46:03 AM

Robert Fox wrote:

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Robert, to point out govt waste certainly by inference raises private sector waste--please be intellectually honest. (If it ain't govt, please state the alternative(s).)

I'm not an advoctate of govt programs per se. I just want the bottom 20-40% to have a chance, to have a safety net.

What % of people are qualified/know enough to make well-informed healthcare or investment choices? There's a reason that social security was, and is, a popular program.

What % of people would be in crisis mode if they missed their next paycheck? Why are disability insurance rolls rising?

The answers to these questions are key.

It's sad, but indeniably true (hello catfood for dinner) that people need a base level of support. Private with it's cutting of pensions doesn't seem likely to provide it.

That safety net creates a balancing act: on one side we have a safety net for the down-trodden. On the other, we have a loss of liberty. You can't move one direction without directly affecting the other.

Safety nets come at a price. That price is a nanny state. To a very significant degree, the U.S. is ALREADY a nanny state. The bottom 20-40% certainly DO have a chance and a safety net. Unfortunately, much of the expense for this safety net comes from the middle class, not the wealthy.

(Show me an American who is eating cat food for dinner, and I'll show you someone who is either mentally unstable, or who happens to really like cat food.)

Robert--The highlighted sentence shocks me. If on a limited budget, paying such as rent/mtg, utilities, healthcare etc puts some people to that. Some by prior bad decisions, some by circumstances. There may not be a lot of people on cat food but if you think that there are no sane people that way, then you have another thing coming.

Answer my question: what % of people would be in a financial bind if they didn't receive their next paycheck? (Hint: prob about 80-90%)

The answer illuminates 'why catfood' and explains why it is an unfortunate truth that people need help...protection from themselves...in re healthcare and investing. Do I enjoy that truth? No. Is it true. No doubt.

To the post about the ease of firing in private vs. difficulty of firing in govt...There's an assumption that people have time or the competence to recognize or deal with poor performance in private industry. Often, this is not true. There's a reason that The Peter Principle is recognized (people rise to their level of incompetence and remain there).

I'm surprised that there is so little sympathy here from those affiliated with a university that is hard near Appalachia for the reality that some people have hard times despite their best efforts and that sometimes owners will go entirely for profit and care not a whit for their employees. Again, no one has addressed my point about the pretty much abandonment of retirement plans with significant employer contributions. Sorry; but they didn't build it without their employees and employees are a legitimate constituency as much as owners, customers, vendors, etc.

It's so much part of the private industry way these days: privatize profit, socialize burden (so we all share the cost of, for example, pollution but only owners share profits). Wait--I thought we all share only the burdens of govt. You mean private also imposes costs on all of us?!

Twist the numbers any way that you want but there have never been unfunded (increased taxes to support) wars before 'raq and 'ghanistan. That is why the defict chart spikes during that period. Period. End of story.

Where's the band?!
WHERE"S THE BAND?!

DesignspiritUSA.com
The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags
The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping!

Monroe Slavin
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 1:48:48 AM

By the way, no vitriol here on my part. I just enjoy a vigorous debate.

I do think that some facts and realities are being ignored by 'the other side.' I think that I generally acknowl the realities asserted by the other side...just ask for the same in return.

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:44:31 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

Answer my question: what % of people would be in a financial bind if they didn't receive their next paycheck? (Hint: prob about 80-90%)

Monroe, I appreciate you keeping things civil. This debate, however, is spiraling away from the original debate, which was "is government wasteful?" There were multiple posts to support that claim, and some that, at least originally, seemed to deny that claim.

On the cat food thing, I stand by my comment.

Regarding your underlined question, I have already addressed that comment. That example is just one of a litany of examples you and I could throw out. Ultimately however, you break down this discussion to its most basic form: where does the "safety net" kick in? When considering that question, you must also address how much suffering (as permitted by government) you are willing to tolerate?

The answer to that question will dictate where you would like to place the safety net. Obviously, you and I would answer that question differently.

If you decide you can tolerate zero suffering, then you will have to adopt socialism.
If you decide you can tolerate total suffering, then you will have to adopt some form of dictatorship.

Who is responsible for the care of the down-trodden? Should government be permitted to take from some people and give to others? Is that philosophically acceptable? Or, should society recognize its own shortcomings and stand up for their own? (By the way, the underlined question is for real. How do you answer it?)

To your final point about private industry creating costs to society: I agree private industry impacts resources. However, that impact likely creates a net benefit to society--in product produced, people employed, benefits paid, taxes paid. The net balance is a positive, not a negative. If it is a negative, that company will not last long.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 8:53:47 AM

Monroe Slavin wrote:

...To the post about the ease of firing in private vs. difficulty of firing in govt...There's an assumption that people have time or the competence to recognize or deal with poor performance in private industry. Often, this is not true. There's a reason that The Peter Principle is recognized (people rise to their level of incompetence and remain there)....

There is certainly truth to the fact that inefficiency can hide in a big organization, too. That, perhaps, is why you often see dynamic companies like IBM or Microsoft rise quickly, then stagnate while others catch up. That ability of upstarts to emerge is what refreshes and regenerates capitalism. Yet, that same mechanism is absent from government.

Monroe Slavin wrote:

..... Again, no one has addressed my point about the pretty much abandonment of retirement plans with significant employer contributions. Sorry; but they didn't build it without their employees and employees are a legitimate constituency as much as owners, customers, vendors, etc.

I didn't see your point, but I'll address it. In the free market, employers have to pay a competitive wage, or they don't get employees. Those wages can take a variety of forms. Some common forms are wages, heath benefits, and deferred benefits (like retirement, disability plans, etc). Depending on market conditions, the preference may shift from time to time from one to another. Once upon a time there was a high perceived need for retirement benefits, and thus, those were highly demanded by employees. Over the last few decades, Social Security/medicaid benefits have increased relative to inflation, and most employees feel less need for pensions over and above social security, and are content with less generous retirement plans.

Meanwhile, companies have grown wiser, and those that have survived the earlier overly-generous defined benefit plans, are no longer willing to absorb all the risk of a defined benefit plan. The exception to that is in government plans, where you have the fox guarding the chickens. In that case government employes negotiate with one another to give each other more benefits, and no one watches out for the tax payer. Unfortunately for them, as they are discovering, they can promise themselves so much that the communities can not ever pay it, and those unfunded pension liabilities are coming home to roost.

Monroe Slavin wrote:

...Twist the numbers any way that you want but there have never been unfunded (increased taxes to support) wars before 'raq and 'ghanistan. That is why the defict chart spikes during that period. Period. End of story.

Monroe, that does explain the spike in debt during WWII, but it doesn't even come close to explaining the current deficit. Perhaps believing that gives you comfort because then you don't have to examine all the places the money are really going, but the fact remains that even if there were no wars, the deficit would be huge. In fact, even if you eliminated the entire department of defense, there would still be a deficit.

As we have seen in countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, and Ireland, once the debtors begin to fear for their debt, the interest rate rises dramatically, within days or weeks. When that happens to the US, the day will arrive when the interest on the debt alone will require 100% of all tax receipts, and the US will be forced to eliminate most governmental functions and/or dramatically increase tax receipts. That is what is known as "austerity", and it is imposed on countries from time to time. There is no reason why it can't or won't happen, here. There is only one way to avoid it - and that is for those that want to see a continuation of government spending to show restraint...but...they won't, so the predictable result will be that for those that want government to be able to provide all benefits, they will end up with a government unable to provide any benefits..

Since its a foregone conclusion that the US is headed down the path that Greece has recently taken, the questions then becomes how accurately one can predict when we will arrive there, and how best to survive it.

BTW - Monroe, I also like a good dialogue, and don't take offense at anything here. We both know that at the end of the week, we're looking forward to something we can agree on, the importance of skewering Redhawk.

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 9:00:08 AM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Andrew Ruck
General User

Member Since: 12/22/2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 4,696

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 10:42:01 AM

Just found this thread....I enjoyed the read and don't know why it upsets people that these conversations occur here, especially when we can send them here to Siberia. Lots of good information posted, particularly when facts were presented as opposed to anecdotal diversions.

Andrew Ruck
B.B.A. 2003

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 11:56:47 AM

While I'm not nearly as well versed on matters of economics as L.C., I tend to agree with the general thrust of his remarks. They are generally consistent with what I know from my own experience and observation. I will make one more comment on something I know about first-hand. I grew up in Athens. While there was some poverty in these hills back in the day, it has gotten noticeably worse since Johnson declared his War on Poverty back in the 1960s. Some of the government programs to come out of that effort have done some good -- most notably the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). The most successful ARC program was its road building projects -- think Route 32 and the Route 50 corridor in West Virginia (Corridor D, I believe the highway from Cincy to Clarksburg was called). These highways and other infastructure projects have been helpful, but many of the "safety net" programs have been counterproductive. We now have a government social service structure which is more intent on self-preservation than actually dealing with reducing poverty. This is not to say that some of the employees of these agencies aren't well intended. It's just that the whole government maze tends to work for its own self interest and not the interest of its clients. That's why I personally believe that churches and private philanthropic agencies generally do a much better job of helping the poor. Their mission is to help people improve their situation to the point where they can be as self-sufficient as possible. A good local example of this is Good Works. This homeless shelter is run privately (by a Christian organization) and has been very successful in helping its clients become self-sufficient and many of them now own or rent their own homes.

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 12:06:40 PM

OCF,

I liked your point about increased educational spending and under-employment in North Dakota. The man camps that have sprung up as a result of the boom have the feel of something straight out of the Depression Era.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-12/no-kids-no-bo...

The Situation
General User

Member Since: 7/12/2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Post Count: 957

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 12:13:44 PM

OhioCatFan wrote:

While there was some poverty in these hills back in the day, it has gotten noticeably worse since Johnson declared his War on Poverty back in the 1960s.

I don't have a background in Economics but I do know you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

Subsidize the poor, and you get what you pay for. (More poor people)

(Supported by L.C.'s post about the lack of incentive to make a dollar more than the poverty line.)

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 12:25:04 PM

Agreed about the civil discussion...and this is a discussion that this nation HAS TO HAVE. The problem is when the factual discussion turns into demagoguery (i.e., Tea Party members fully endorse slavery).

With that being said, nits to pick:

Monroe Slavin wrote:

What % of people are qualified/know enough to make well-informed healthcare ... choices?

I don't have specific numbers, but I would guess less than 5%. Notwithstanding a handful of radical cash-based clinics in the nation, health care costs are not disclosed to consumers before the services are performed. I am going to go out on a limb and argue that it is impossible to be "well-informed" about any purchase decision if you aren't aware of the cost to purchase. And so long as the checks are written by third-party payors (insurance companies, government, etc.), there isn't going to be any incentive to explain costs to consumers.

Monroe Slavin wrote:

What % of people are qualified/know enough to make well-informed ... investment choices?

It is unfair to compare Social Security to investment plans. Social Security is NOT a lockbox, and it is NOT a personal retirement savings account. Payroll taxes come in, Social Security payments go out. If the actual Social Security "trust fund" assets were protected, there would be no legitimate risk that Social Security couldn't be paid in a government shutdown. Also, because Social Security is limited to "investing" "trust fund" assets in U.S. government debt securities, it amounts to the government lending itself money. That isn't investing, it's creative accounting.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 12:52:53 PM

The Ghost of C Money wrote:

I agree. If the country as a whole was engaging in legitimate discussions, I'd have a much better feeling that we could solve the problem. I don't see that happening, unfortunately. I see instead partisan politics as usual, and the Tea Party being vilified by both sides for wanting more. In the end, no one program of government is critical. What is critical is that government live within it's means. For us to end up like Greece, after seeing what happens when you go there, would be inexcusable.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 3:59:16 PM

The Situation wrote:

...I don't have a background in Economics but I do know you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

Subsidize the poor, and you get what you pay for. (More poor people)

That is certainly possible, and even likely in an ill-conceived system that is made up of a bunch of different programs and the local, state, and federal level that don't work together, and which aren't designed with an over-riding plan. The only presidential candidate that I ever recall who addressed this was McGovern, whose plan of integrating all welfare plans in the form of a single negative income tax was widely ridiculed.

What do I think we need to do with welfare? We obviously need a single integrated system that works together, and which provides people at all income levels an incentive to improve their own lot. There are lots of ways you can deal do that. Here are a couple possibilities, but they are by no means the only ones you could come up with:
1. Income tax solution - First, all benefits should flow though a single location program, not 200 separate ones, at state and local levels. Next, we need to set some level that we deem to be the bare minimum to live on. From that point onward, every dollar earned, the recipient should lose, say, 50% of that amount in benefits. Suppose we deem the minimum to be $30,000. Now at $60,000 the benefits vanish, and above that they become net tax payers.

With this system, each person has an incentive at all times to earn more. Every dollar they earn makes them better off. Thus, even though you are providing benefits to those in need, they still have an incentive to reduce their need, rather than an incentive to become dependent.

2. Consumption tax system - Start out every taxpayer in the US with a $40,000 payment from the government, but then place a hefty tax on consumption, say an average tax of 100%. Make the consumption tax progressive, with no tax on 'healthy' food items, like fruits and vegetables, or on medicines, but a higher tax on junk food, and a higher tax still on "luxury" items, like boats, planes, jewelry, electronics, etc. The person at the bottom starts with $40,000, and perhaps pays $10,000 of it in consumption based taxes, getting the same $30,000 benefit as in example 1. As they earn more, they keep all of it, but they consume more items with higher tax rates, so their effective tax rate rises.

Meanwhile a person with $100,000 income starts with $140,000, but pays $70,000 in consumption taxes, and really is able to consume $70,000 in goods. Note, however, that if he is thrifty, he pays less taxes, whereas if he is profligate, he pays more. Borrowing to consume becomes even more expensive in this system because it strongly encourages thrift.

Note that the consumption tax system also has the advantage of taxing economic activity that escapes tax now. The drug dealer ends up paying taxes when he consumes. The contractor that works for cash only has to pay the tax when he consumes. The small businessman with fingers in his own till pays can't avoid tax, either. Conversely it has the disadvantage that it encourages sales of goods on a "black market".

My point here is that we can come up with a system that encourages people to lift themselves out of poverty, yet which also helps them that truly need it. We don't need to stick to the roach-motel system we have now that traps them at the bottom.

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 4:01:42 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 4:22:07 PM

L.C. wrote:

The Situation wrote:

...I don't have a background in Economics but I do know you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.

Subsidize the poor, and you get what you pay for. (More poor people)

Interesting, LC, but you'll have to further explain the $40,000 payment concept. Not sure I'm following you there.

OUs LONG Driver
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Copley, OH
Post Count: 653

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 4:22:16 PM

The problem with most political ideas is that they sound swell, but no one provides any specific details on how they will execute these grandiose ideas. This applies to all political parties not just the Tea Party.

The Tea Party wants to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce the deficit. That sounds great. The problem is (to my knowledge) they have not provided any detailed plan on how they plan to do just that. To cut taxes and reduce the deficit the spending cuts would have to be HUGE. How would that affect every day lives (and not just mine)? What programs or departments will see these cuts? Will our safety be jeopardized? Would a certain demographic of the population suffer more than others?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but how can I take it seriously without knowing real details. Show me the fine print and then I (we) will be able to make a more informed decision.

I do my best to consider more than my own personal situation when considering a variety of political topics, it's not easily done. Looking out for thy neighbor, in my opinion, is also important.

For full disclosure I consider myself staunchly independent but tend to lean left on the majority of (but not all) issues. I've voted for individuals of both the major parties previously. I've also worked in both the public and private sector.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 4:45:10 PM

OUs LONG Driver wrote:

...The Tea Party wants to reduce spending, reduce taxes, and reduce the deficit. That sounds great. The problem is (to my knowledge) they have not provided any detailed plan on how they plan to do just that. To cut taxes and reduce the deficit the spending cuts would have to be HUGE. How would that affect every day lives (and not just mine)? What programs or departments will see these cuts? Will our safety be jeopardized? Would a certain demographic of the population suffer more than others?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but how can I take it seriously without knowing real details. Show me the fine print and then I (we) will be able to make a more informed decision....

My take is that Tea Party members, while mostly conservative, also include liberals and independents. As a bottom up organization, I don't think they have specific plans, nor do I think they ever could have plans. I think the goal is more to get some serious dialogue started than to enact any serious legislation. The problem is that neither Republicans nor Democrats have any interest in serious dialogue about budget cuts.

In short, I don't think most Tea Party members care whether spending is cut from social or military spending. I don't think they care whether it is an across the board cut, or whole departments are eliminated. I don't think they'd even care if the Federal Board of Tea Appeals was eliminated (oh wait, they were already eliminated in 1996, sort of).

It is true that if the Tea Party ever became big enough, they would have to develop their own plan of cuts, and implement that. I expect that they will stay a small group, and never actually be in a position to do that. If, however, they can get the major parties to actually do something to significantly reduce the deficit, they will have accomplished their goal. I don't know that their methods are the best way to accomplish their goal, but I have a hard time being critical of them for the simple reason that a reduction in the deficit is clearly important to preserve our country.

Edit - inserted italicized text

Last Edited: 10/23/2013 5:52:10 PM by L.C.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,065

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 4:57:42 PM

Robert Fox wrote:

Interesting, LC, but you'll have to further explain the $40,000 payment concept. Not sure I'm following you there.

Most people are used to thinking of taxes as starting from $0=$0 taxes. A line doesn't have to go through the point 0,0, thought. It can start at -40000,0. In essence, it already does, actually. People with no income already get the rough equivalent of $40,000 in benefits, and as their income rises the benefits decrease, until at some point, they become net taxpayers. I'm just proposing integrating it all into a single, comprehensive system.

On the consumption tax, the negative start was necessary to make the system progressive. With a consumption tax, everyone, starting at $0, would have to pay tax. Starting with a negative credit, and then offsetting that with a higher tax rate, allows it to be progressive.

A similar "crackpot idea" deals with oil and gas consumption. If you want to encourage alternate energy, you could do what we are doing - have the government try to pick winners. They could pick things like corn-based ethanol, or new batteries, or electric cars, and pour money into them. That has worked really well so far. Alternately you could take the approach of discouraging gasoline consumption, and let the free market, and entrepreneurs find and fund alternatives. Thus, suppose you put a $5 a gallon tax on gasoline. People would drive a lot less, and buy more efficient cars, and look for other alternatives, wouldn't they? But, it would suck a lot of money out of people's pockets, and damage the economy. Suppose you tried to make it revenue neutral, to avoid that. You could start everyone with a $3000 credit, but then tax them $5 a gallon on any gas they buy. Well, some people would bike, and keep the $3000. Others would keep driving Hummers, and pay $12,000 in tax. In the end, you'd have a revenue neutral program, yet significantly decrease gasoline usage, and dramatically increase market interest in alternatives. If ethanol turned out to be an economically viable alternative, great. If electric powered cars did, great. In the end, though, the market would choose the winners, not some half billion dollar grant given to a campaign contributor.

�We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.� ― Epictetus

Kevin Finnegan
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 1,084

Status: Offline

RE: TOS to Grambling?

Posted: 10/23/2013 5:25:04 PM

L.C. wrote:

OUs LONG Driver wrote:

I know this is not what is meant here, but it sounds as though they just want something changed but don't really know what it is. 'Their goal', as you state, is to have the major parties do something, no matter what it is. No group can be taken seriously if that is their goal or mission. To think of it in the professional world, if I were to say I want to do something, but I don't really care what it is, as long as it's big makes no sense. There has to be direction, not just derision. Right now, I believe that the voices for the tea party do not seem to have ideas on any major legislation or information, they just seem to be okay with being loud voice opposing things.

Currently, the Tea Party Caucus holds 46 members of the HOR, all of which are Republicans. I believe that claiming tea party members come from both sides of the spectrum is quite a bit of a stretch. I have never yet met a self-described tea party individual who also classifies as having views in line with the Democratic party.

Showing Replies:	76 - 100 of 130 Posts
Jump to Page:	< Previous 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 Next >

View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics

There are 226 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

226 Guests
0 Registered Users

There are no other users looking at this page.