GeorgiaDon

And you as well. Hope things work out well for your family and they all find the employment they're looking for. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, I don't know what you do but I certainly didn't mean to imply that. If you say you have a career that has required no classroom training beyond high school, I stand corrected and apologize. However I still maintain that the majority of professional careers, such as MD, architect, engineer, scientist, finance, law and on and on require training beyond high school. Even air conditioning repair is taught as a certificate program at technical college. I suspect the day is gone when one could become an electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, and on and on, without taking any classes beyond high school, though in the past one could go straight to an apprenticeship. No dispute from me about that. However, the thread started out talking about the dubious nature of government reporting of unemployment numbers, with its obvious political implications. I read Jimmy's post as saying that everyone 18 and over who doesn't have a job, or who only has a part time job when they want more, should be considered to be unemployed, including full time students. This is reminiscent of an earlier thread about a measurement of "unemployment" where everybody 18 and older who wasn't employed full time was considered to be unemployed, even if they were retired or a full time student. This only serves to inflate the number of "unemployed" to the point where the number is meaningless, for obvious political purposes. Similarly, not counting people who want a job but who haven't applied for a specific job in the last two weeks (for whatever reason), deflates the numbers, likely for equally obvious political purposes. Anyway, full time students are not "unemployed" and it's silly or disingenuous to count them as such. Calling them "unemployed", in the context of a discussion about whether or not the economy is recovering, directly implies that they should be employed, and suggests that going to school is second best to having a job. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Much as I may wish that everyone who goes through higher education could land their "dream career", or even just something that provides a decent return on their investment, your second statement states reality succinctly: there are no guarantees. There is always a competition for good jobs, and appropriate qualifications are just the price of admission to the competition. Do you think the college should also have to find a job for its graduates? Some colleges have students do internships at private companies, but the better internships are highly competitive and those companies will often take several interns and then perhaps offer a job only to one. That's the way things work: employers will take the best applicant they can find, and the rest have to try again elsewhere. Well lets see. How about: Hmmm. Why would I perceive any anger or resentment there? But I'll take your word for it that you have only respect for higher education. It's just the teachers you seem to hold in contempt. Have I got that straight now? Indeed I am a University professor. Let me tell you about my "cushy life". To get to this point, the "price of admission" was a BSc degree (4 years), a Master of Science degree (3 years), a PhD (5 years), and two postdoctoral fellowships (6 years total). The BSc was totally out of pocket, paid for with 2 years of working and saving almost every penny after high school, plus working summer jobs and evenings during theschool year. I did have a teaching assistantship to help out during the MSc and PhD, which paid a grandiose 6-7,000. As a postdoctoral researcher I made a luxurious $20,000/year and worked my ass off (70-80 hrs/week), while also trying to be a real father to my kids. Why? Because I wanted to get a job in my field, and I was quite aware that every applicant for every job would have a PhD and postdoctoral experience, so I knew that I had to be better than those other applicants by having more published papers in better journals, and by having independent research funding. So ultimately I was able to get that job, beating out over 100 other qualified applicants, just a year before turning 40. Of course, I still work about 70 hrs/week, except those weeks where I have to put in 80 hrs. All for a princely 5-figure salary; I'd need a 20% raise to hit 6 figures (before taxes). I pretty much expect to have to work until at least 70, as I wasn't able to really put a lot away towards retirement until I had that first "real job" at 39 years old. So Mr. Tavino, tell me again how cushy my life is. The only thing about it that I can see as "cushy" is that I genuinely enjoy going to work most days, and I feel that I'm doing something worthwhile. I owe my students the best education I can give them in my fields of expertise. I don't have to make their bed, fix them dinner, or find them a job. If they want to be the very best applicant for a job, they should be prepared to: work their ass off in school, even if it means skipping the Friday/Saturday night party scene volunteer, take an unpaid internship, or work minimum wage entry positions to get relevant job experience be prepared to leave friends and family behind and move across the country, or even out of the country, for your career. I can honestly say I did every one of those things. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oops sorry! As I was replying to matthewcline I couldn't see your post, and obviously screwed up. Correction made. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm not aware of any careers that don't require any investment in learning specialized skills. In some cases those skills can be learned "on the job", in the form of an apprenticeship, internship, or entry level low paying position. However the great majority require some time in school beyond high school. It might be two years at a technical college, or it might be a decade or more in the case of a doctor with specialized training, an engineer, a research scientist, etc. Anyway, you nicely avoid commenting on Jimmy Tavino's assertion that "full time student" = "unemployed". If I was to pick nits, I could accuse you of similar disdain for people who pursue careers that require education beyond high school, but I doubt that was the point you were trying to make. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Once again you put your anti-education bias out there for all to see. Why do you so resent those people who choose to spend time and money investing in marketable skills that could potentially result in a real career? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

NPR organized a "third party candidate debate" with Johnson and Stein. Not nearly the same as a national debate with the "big two" candidates, but at least a chance to hear them discuss their policies. For me, both candidates have some policies to like and some to take issue with. Johnson would cut the budget by 1.4 trillion in his first budget, and eliminate all income taxes, replacing them with a flat consumption tax. No mention of how that would essentially wreck the economy and shift an enormous tax burden onto the "middle (and lower) class". Stein would base economic recovery on a massive taxpayer funded investment in green jobs, which would ) it seems to me) drive government deficit spending even higher. Anyway, give it a listen if you're interested. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, we're not really talking about his ability to practice medicine, though, are we? Doctors are basically highly skilled technicians, not scientists. Although some scientists are doctors, most doctors in clinical practice do not do experiments, or publish new knowledge related to the cause or treatment of disease. A doctor could still be skilled at diagnosis and prescribing appropriate treatments, even if they believed the root cause of disease is demonic possession, and dismissed the idea of antibiotics killing pathogenic microbes and instead believed that antibiotics drive out evil spirits. Of course, the treatments would have been developed by real scientists, not by our demonic possession-believing crackpot. US Representative Paul Broun (who is Representative for my district), on the other hand, sits on the Congressional Science and Technology committee, and so is in a position to affect national policy in science, which has the potential to influence US competitiveness and leadership in biotechnology and other sciences. However, he has made it clear that he believes essentially all of modern biology, geology, and astronomy (for starters) is (to use his words) "lies straight from the pit of hell", intended "to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior." Apart from the small personal issue that I don't especially appreciate having my representative to Congress implicitly accusing me of being a Satanist, I think it's inappropriate at best and at worst dangerous for the long term economic health of this country to have national policy made by someone who prefers to turn the clock back to when magic and Bronze-age mythology constituted state-of-the-art explanations for the nature of the world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think the weakness of your analogy is that "cargo cults" were founded on a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect, to the point where supernatural powers were ascribed to things such as airplanes and radios. I will grant you that our understanding of/ability to make predictions in economics often seems no better than guessing at demons and faeries. The problem with your analogy is that you seem to include every possible investment where something is expended now in anticipation of future results as "cargo cultism". The business owner who invests in an advertizing campaign is doing so in the expectation that it will bring more customers in the door. Is that "cargo cultism?" The individual who invests their own time, energy, money, etc in obtaining an education does so in anticipation of a future payoff (career that potentially pays better and/or is more interesting). No one has any guarantee that they will get such a job, but it's pretty much assured that you won't get the job if you haven't spent the time to get the training. I suspect you wouldn't say that person was a practicing "cargo cultist" because they were getting an education (~building a runway) in hope of landing a good job (~getting airplanes to land). Does it somehow become cargo cultism if the investment is done by a community as opposed to individuals? Is it your argument that communities should never invest in resources that could reasonably (but not with any iron-clad guarantee) be expected to attract desirable development/industries? The city/county where I live has long tried to attract biotech industries to the area. We were shortlisted by some such companies, but eventually were passed over; in a few cases the companies chose to locate in the research triangle area of North Carolina. Indications were given that the lack of a sufficient pool of trained workers was a major factor in the decisions of some companies to go elsewhere. As a result, the state and local governments came up with the money to offer a biotechnology program at the local community college. Such programs require a considerable up front investment in state of the art equipment and in highly qualified instructors. Subsequently, one major manufacturer of veterinary drugs decided to stay here and expand their facilities, when they had previously announced an intention to move to another state, and a number of biotech start-ups (birthed from research at the local University) have decided to develop production facilities locally instead of moving elsewhere as they grow. So, was the investment in education opportunities for the local population an example of "cargo cultism", or was it a community investment in a trained work force that is needed to attract investment in the area? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The fact that you would even think that those are the only two options is beyond pathetic. Is your world really that myopic? Must suck big time. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I believe not. The article linked above says that only the US and Eritrea require their citizens to pay tax on entirely foreign income. Also, I recall that once I had no income from Canadian sources I was no longer considered a Canadian resident for purposes of Canadian taxes, and I did not have to file returns in Canada. Even when I did file in Canada (the first couple of years I was in the States) I never had to report my income from non-Canadian sources. I'm a dual citizen, but have had no income or assets in Canada and so haven't filed there in 20 years. However, I'm also not a tax attorney so to be absolutely certain maybe you should ask someone who is. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nanook, thanks for all the informed input. If I recall correctly, one gets to deduct taxes paid in the country where the money is earned from the US taxes. You don't get taxed twice, but if the tax is lower where it is earned than it is in the US you have to pay the difference to the IRS. If that is correct (and don't take my word for it, it's been years since I had any experience with this, and my situation was as a Canadian living in the US but receiving some income from Canada), then the main impact on people with all of their income from wages would be 1) the penalty for non-disclosure, and 2) the cost to hire someone with appropriate expertise to prepare correct tax returns. Since Canadian taxes are higher than they are in the US for most (maybe all) types of income, there should be little or no actual tax owed to the US, but the cost of complying with the reporting requirements might be considerable, in both time and money (accountant/tax attorney fees). On NPR the other day, they had a story about a reporter who was doing an investigation about setting up a foreign bank account as a tax shelter. They initially reported on how they were able to set up an offshore account very easily and cheaply online. When the first story ran, they were contacted by a tax attorney who was concerned that the reporter did not understand the tax implications of what they had done to get the story. It turned out that even though the account was set up only to get information for the story, it never had more than a small amount of money in it, and it was quickly closed after the story ran, the reporter still had to report it on their tax return. The IRS estimate of the time needed to complete the paperwork was 82 hours, and the IRS is well known to underestimate the time needed. I think in the end the reporter had to hire someone with specialized knowledge just to complete all the forms correctly. So, even if no actual tax is owed, just complying with the law can impose a substantial burden on US taxpayers living abroad. I predict that a consequence of this enhanced IRS enforcement will be a huge increase in the number of US citizens renouncing their citizenship. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, do you know if the IRS has any means to actually collect the tax from a delinquent citizen? If they have no assets in the US, can the IRS seize their Canadian (or other) bank accounts, retirement accounts, or real estate? Of course, these people would never be able to return to the US without risk of arrest. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

But then wouldn't everyone think it's coming from you? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As long as the other one works, you should still be OK. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, OK. But then, who is NOT a "special interest group"? Does the term have any meaning of any significance, if it applies to everybody? Why has "special interest group" become a pejorative term, when we all have "special interests"? As far as government is concerned, you can make a case for applying the term if you want to I guess. But the insinuation is that governments want to grow their own power for no other (or better) reason than just to grow their own power. I'd suggest that what really happens is most often people demand that the government provide some service that was not provided before, perhaps in response to some incident or public awareness of a problem. For example, 300 years ago sewage and industrial waste was dumped untreated into rivers, often the same rivers where people got their drinking water. When populations were small, and factories mainly consisted of water wheels to drive sawmills and lathes, "the solution to pollution is dilution" was generally good enough. As cities got bigger, and new industries started to produce toxic wastes (such as mercury from paper bleaching for example), problems from communicable diseases and toxins became more and more frequent. When such problems became severe enough, people demanded laws to prevent dumping sewage and industrial wastes into drinking water supplies. This necessitated a change in the way things are done, compared to previous practice: wastes have to be treated to the point where they are safe, or they have to be captured and disposed of in a safe manner. This costs money, so there is always a temptation to cheat, and laws that are not enforced quickly will come to be ignored. So now we have created a need for some government entity to determine what levels of toxins or wastes are low enough to be safe in water supplies, establish regulations to create a legal obligation to clean waste streams to that standard, and establish a police force to enforce those laws. A whole new government bureaucracy (the EPA in this case) has come into existence, one that would have been almost completely unnecessary when the country was founded. So, why do we have this new bureaucracy? Is it because some megalomaniacs in government positions just wanted to increase their power? Or is it perhaps because people didn't much care for dying of cholera because they were getting a dose of other people's shit in every glass of water? Or maybe because they didn't much relish the idea of their kids being destroyed by Minamata Disease because that pulp and paper plant upstream was dumping mercury into the river? I know you will probably disagree with this, but to me the government is an entity we the people created to enforce our collective will, especially with regard to those things we cannot efficiently do individually, and which do not lend themselves to being provided by for-profit private enterprise. The judicial system is a manifestation of "the people's" desire for a mechanism to enforce laws. A "private enterprise" model wouldn't work, in so far as we don't want a system that has to generate its own revenue and so will be for sale to the highest bidder. As individuals we have no power to dictate the behavior of private industries; any such action would have to reflect the consensus of the people, and it could only be enforced by government, the entity we created to carry out our collective desires. Of course, once any bureaucrat has been charged with responsibility for carrying out some aspect of the will of the people, they will naturally seek to have the tools needed to do the job. Sometimes, conflicts will arise between different desires "the people" may express. For example, it's clear that many of "the people" expect the government to keep them safe from terrorist attacks. Not just "sort of safe", but "absolutely safe". If you demand that the risk of terrorist attack be reduced to zero , that could only be achieved by monitoring everything that every individual says and does. Of course, that creates an unacceptable loss of privacy and intrudes excessively on every aspect of freedom. So now the bureaucrat finds him/herself without the tools to carry out their responsibilities as thoroughly as the public expects, and they know they will still be held to account should any terrorist attack get through. Should we be surprised when our bureaucrat lobbies to get the tools for the task they have been given? People should at least try to recognize that these conflicts exist. When they demand that government services be reduced or eliminated, they should be explicit about the consequences they are willing to bear. If you want to get rid of the EPA, you should be prepared to state that you are willing to accept the consequences of increased pollution of water and air. If you want to get rid of the TSA/Homeland Security, you should be prepared to state that you are willing to live with a certain probability that US citizens will die in terrorist attacks. Instead, what we have is a public (or a segment of the public) that expects all these services (clean water and air, safe food, protection from terrorism, etc etc) but thinks they shouldn't have to pay for them, and complains whenever they are inconvenienced by "government regulation". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

FIFY By the way, you do realize you're talking to yourself, don't you? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It would be interesting if there was a choice of "none of the above" on the ballot, and if a plurality of voters chose that, the election would have be to redone with all new candidates (and ideally a short timeline and much smaller budget. A couple of weeks should be enough to state your policies). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's all too clear now. How does Romney plan to decrease unemployment, boost military spending, and deal with those pesky Arab countries who don't take direction from Washington? He'll just START ANOTHER FUCKING WAR. War is good for the economy, don't you know? Plus another several thousand dead soldiers, well we won't have to worry about long-term employment for them will we. Remind me again about Romney's military service, and that of his kids? Oh yeah, none. Too busy trying to convert those heathen French I guess. Another fucking chicken hawk. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

As is also the case in the US. This cannot explain the difference in cost between the US and Canada. Care to try again? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And you too. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There's your problem: you assume there is a disconnect between what someone is and what they think. No doubt this is because of your often stated disdain for thinking, and your equally often stated preference for gut feeling and deference to tribalism. In your case, there is an obvious difference between "who you are" and "what you think". If we define "thinking" as pondering various courses of action and probable outcomes, questioning the veracity of information, and critically evaluating the basis for one's beliefs, well that's just not part of your makeup (judging by what you post anyway). In the case of this "liberal" (as you have chosen to label me, though you do not know me), you cannot separate "who I am" from "what I think". I am a thinking person. I sincerely hope the major difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is not "thinking" vs "not thinking", though you and a couple of other examples would lead me to that conclusion. Thankfully there are a few others who demonstrate that some conservatives are capable of rational thought. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And we all know how allergic you are to "intellectualism". No need to think things through, just go with what your "gut", or better yet your tribal leaders, tell you to think. Here's a "head's-up" for you, Ron. It's called "delayed gratification". It's called "planning for the future". Some people realize that you have to work hard, and make some sacrifices now, to get something you want down the road. Some of us, for example, spent considerable time obtaining an education, so that later we could have a career that provides for both a decent income and some measure of stimulation/challenge/satisfaction. Others drop out of school to take a low-paying crap job so they can buy a fast car. The idea that you have to put up with some pain in the near term to get a payoff later may be novel to you, Ron, but trust me it works. What I want is a country that is on a sound financial footing, that provides essential services for people, and that facilitates measures that are necessary for long-term competitiveness on a global stage. That would be my payoff for the pain of higher taxes. Politicians in general, but especially Republicans, have for many years been selling snake oil that promises all manner of government-provided goodies, and "someone else" will pay for it. The poor expect the rich to pay, and the rich expect the poor to pay, so the guy in the middle ends up paying some, but mostly nobody pays. Only a moron buys into the mantra that nothing the government does is worthwhile. Only a moron buys into the idea that no-body has to pay for it. Only a moron buys into the idea that the wealthy are overtaxed, and if their burden were only lessened they would use all that money and more to hire more people. Only a moron believes that doing whatever feels good at the moment, without any thought to the long-term future, will automatically lead to the best possible outcome. A habit of going with what "feels good" at the moment, without thought to the longer term, tends to lead to things like addiction. Don't be a moron. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This "messiah" bullshit is crap invented by conservatives because it saves them from having to actually think about real issues and solutions. No-one regards Obama as any sort of "messiah", just someone with somewhat better ideas than "double down on trickle down". If anyone is pretending to be a "messiah" it is Romney, who is offering to perform miracles such as adding 12 million new jobs in his first term but he refuses to say how. His plan to balance the budget by cutting taxes to the wealthy, while increasing military spending and not touching medicare spending, remind me of the "loaves and fishes" story. FFIY All Romney/Ryan have offered is the conservative mantra that if you just cut taxes on the richest people, they would immediately turn around and use that money to create jobs. History and experience indicate otherwise, but for conservatives real-world experience will never be enough to shake their faith in supply-side trickle down. BHO has produced budgets that have a combination of spending cuts and tax increases; I believe both will be necessary to get out of this fiscal hole. Ah yes. Like, the party of "small government" dictating to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies? Or an unseemly desire to punish children for the misdeeds of their parents? Under BHO, I expect my taxes will increase. However, I also think that is necessary to correct the damage done by excessive tax cutting by irresponsible Republicans. I cannot see how Romney/Ryan can even try to balance the budget yet give more tax breaks to the wealthy, increase military spending, and not make any changes to medicare (according to Romney but not Ryan), without closing every other thing the government does, and even that won't be enough to balance revenues and spending. The Romney/Ryan plan will destroy every measure of public health and safety (CDC, food inspections, pollution enforcement, etc), and exclude millions from access to education at a time when the rest of the world is investing in the education of their population, thereby ensuring that the US will become an economic backwater devoted almost entirely to the military. What I get from supporting BHO is some measure of hope that the country will pull out of this mess, which was largely due to Republic-led misadventures including deregulation of the financial industry and unfunded wars of choice. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)