The divide in this country is growing, and is alarming

[volinbham]

How about everyone on here who is rich goes and hires someone today, then! :rock:

Can we do this people? Do it for America!

Now I'll direct you to Steve Wynn for the answer - he blames WH policies for throwing a wet blanket over the economy.

Businesses are sitting on cash because they believe that regulations, taxation and HC costs are going to skyrocket due to Obama's vision. Until this shakes out they are holding tight. When you don't know if the next employee is going to cost you $50K a year or $75K it's hard to pull the trigger. Likewise, if you don't know what's going to happen to you compliance costs or operating costs you tend to get conservative on expansion.

 

[HSVol]

Please elaborate and share, thanks!

I took from our conversation that he believed gang activity, teenage pregnancy, and general apathy towards education were the biggest threats to the long-term prospects of the African American community. We did not get into a political discussion, it was more a history lesson, but the three aforementioned threats to black prosperity stuck with me because I agreed. Fixing the problem isn't easy and I'm not sure there's a solid answer. Didn't get a chance to talk for longer than 30 minutes, so it was an abridged meeting.

I tend to think we need to improve our public schools if we want to improve the wealth divide. The US lags far behind the developed world in secondary education, which is, in my opinion, the biggest reason for this discussion we're having.

Fixing public school funding would be a good start, IMO.

 

[lawgator1]

why is this exactly? because poor people shouldn't have been buying homes in the first place. if your home is 99% of your net worth than that is a stupid investment no? diversification is the #1 rule of smart investing.

you seriously think that the black people have low opportunities in corporations? i'm guessing you have never worked for a major corporation.

With regard to your first point, of course in hindsight everyone realizes what a poor investment housing was. But that does not change the fact that the poor took the larger hit than the wealthy. Especially when you consider that the wealthy managed to recover some portion of their loss by accounting for it in ways that reduced taxes.

As to your second, I didn't say work at a corporation. I said own it.

 

[Tenacious D]

There is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth. Our society encourages it as part of our economic model. It drives industry and creates jobs.

But most people are not capable of, nor interested in, taking a step back and seeing the big picture. What they care about is their own stuff, and right now. The building of roads, schools, and medical care for the guy down the street?

Someone else's problem.

There is nothing - NOTHING - the government can do as well, as efficiently or as cheaply as a free-market system.

NOTHING.

Never has been, and never will be.

To believe otherwise is to escape the bounds of even your own woefully inadequate bounds of "reason".
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[PoochPunt3rdDown]

Well, I thought I could come in here toady and help solve the deficit and job crisis. Apparently there's a lot more to it.

 

[Lexvol]

Everyone pays taxes. Everyone.

Now, they might just be sales taxes, or some other form of point of sale revenue generator. But don't fall for this oversimplistic line that there's a whole class of people who pay absolutely nothing in taxes.

How do you explain the fact that the top hedge fund managers made $25 billion and paid a lower rate in taxes than did their secretaries?

Sounds like a great argument for a non progressive/flat tax with no deductions. You are coming around LG.

 

[droski]

With regard to your first point, of course in hindsight everyone realizes what a poor investment housing was. But that does not change the fact that the poor took the larger hit than the wealthy. Especially when you consider that the wealthy managed to recover some portion of their loss by accounting for it in ways that reduced taxes.

As to your second, I didn't say work at a corporation. I said own it.

yes the poor took it harder than the wealthy. relavance? you are bemoning a divide that exists soley because the poor invested stupidily. why is that the rich people's fault?

what % of americans own a corporation? even quadrupling the number of black people owning corporations wouldn't make a 1% dent in the income gap.

 

[n_huffhines]

before the civil rights bill black americans were narrowing the gap between themselves and whites, both by education and income, every genearation. after it that trend reversed. do you think that is a coincidence?

Poverty among blacks fell by like 20% in the 40 years before the war on poverty and in the 40 years since it's fallen by like 1%.

 

[lawgator1]

I took from our conversation that he believed gang activity, teenage pregnancy, and general apathy towards education were the biggest threats to the long-term prospects of the African American community. We did not get into a political discussion, it was more a history lesson, but the three aforementioned threats to black prosperity stuck with me because I agreed. Fixing the problem isn't easy and I'm not sure there's a solid answer. Didn't get a chance to talk for longer than 30 minutes, so it was an abridged meeting.

I tend to think we need to improve our public schools if we want to improve the wealth divide. The US lags far behind the developed world in secondary education, which is, in my opinion, the biggest reason for this discussion we're having.

Fixing public school funding would be a good start, IMO.

+ 1,000,000.

But guess what? The local government here in Florida are complaining because some $50 million in state money for school construction and expansion was awarded to charter schools rather than the public schools.

The rationale?

Charter school enrollment is through the roof. And they are purely a mechanism to get away from desegregation in the schools. Transparently, in fact.

Its hard enough to get people to invest more when they don't have kids in school at all. But when they feel so motivated such as to send their kids to a charter school because they think the public schools are failing, its even tougher to convince them of the need to spend the money to make the public schools better.

 

[n_huffhines]

I took from our conversation that he believed gang activity, teenage pregnancy, and general apathy towards education were the biggest threats to the long-term prospects of the African American community. We did not get into a political discussion, it was more a history lesson, but the three aforementioned threats to black prosperity stuck with me because I agreed. Fixing the problem isn't easy and I'm not sure there's a solid answer. Didn't get a chance to talk for longer than 30 minutes, so it was an abridged meeting.

I tend to think we need to improve our public schools if we want to improve the wealth divide. The US lags far behind the developed world in secondary education, which is, in my opinion, the biggest reason for this discussion we're having.

Fixing public school funding would be a good start, IMO.

What does "fixing" mean? Vouchers are the only funding "fix" possible. As the last 40 years have proven, spending more does not improve education results.

 

[KB5252]

You don't think that racial minorities, on the whole, are better off now than they would have been but for the efforts of the 1960s and 70s?

Certainly, but then again well meaning programs have encouraged a long list of problems that keep many in poverty.

 

[lawgator1]

yes the poor took it harder than the wealthy. relavance? you are bemoning a divide that exists soley because the poor invested stupidily. why is that the rich people's fault?

what % of americans own a corporation? even quadrupling the number of black people owning corporations wouldn't make a 1% dent in the income gap.

Its not a question of blame for the housing bubble. Its a question of how we clean up the mess. I mean, my gosh, the board is replete with people blaming the poor for buying more house than they could afford, as though that makes it okay for the financial managers to have bought and sold the mortgage securities then, or for dodging taxes now.

They really shouldn't have that much to do with one another.

As to ownership, I don't mean outright own the whole business obviously. Rather, I mean stock ownership, whether directly it or through a standard retirement vehicle.

 

[Tenacious D]

Isn't it theory that raising the tax rate on the wealthiest 1% will reduce the deficit?

Bottomline, economic theory is pretty clear that tax rate increases have a negative impact on economic growth. Revenues are a function of tax rate and economic activity. The real question is which effect is stronger? Will a reduction in economic activity be offset by the increase in tax rate or vice versa?

Taxing anyone, anything or for any purpose - at whatever rate - without curbing spending is an exercise in futility.

It's like trying to dewater the Titanic with a teacup.

The liberals don't (want to) get that - they want to tax more, specifically, to spend more.

Simply, if you're for more and higher taxes, you're a humanitarian. However, if you are for curbing spending, ostensibly, you're a racist.

If only there was some catchy phrase to help people remember that....
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Tenacious D]

before the civil rights bill black americans were narrowing the gap between themselves and whites, both by education and income, every genearation. after it that trend reversed. do you think that is a coincidence?

Racist. Factual profiling, IMO.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[HSVol]

What does "fixing" mean? Vouchers are the only funding "fix" possible. As the last 40 years have proven, spending more does not improve education results.

Ever hear the old adage, "You get what you pay for?"

 

[droski]

Its not a question of blame for the housing bubble. Its a question of how we clean up the mess. I mean, my gosh, the board is replete with people blaming the poor for buying more house than they could afford, as though that makes it okay for the financial managers to have bought and sold the mortgage securities then, or for dodging taxes now.

They really shouldn't have that much to do with one another.

As to ownership, I don't mean outright own the whole business obviously. Rather, I mean stock ownership, whether directly it or through a standard retirement vehicle.

whose dodging taxes? certainly not people on wall street. they pay taxes at the maximum tax rate. the number of hedge fund managers getting the 25% treatment isn't exactly a large % of wall street employees.

black people don't have access to 401ks? whaaaa?

 

[GAVol]

While I feel bad for those affected, this is directly caused by the housing market collapse. They put all their savings into housing and it collapsed and has not come back like the stock market has.

We have a winner.

 

[Tenacious D]

+ 1,000,000.

But guess what? The local government here in Florida are complaining because some $50 million in state money for school construction and expansion was awarded to charter schools rather than the public schools.

The rationale?

Charter school enrollment is through the roof. And they are purely a mechanism to get away from desegregation in the schools. Transparently, in fact.

Its hard enough to get people to invest more when they don't have kids in school at all. But when they feel so motivated such as to send their kids to a charter school because they think the public schools are failing, its even tougher to convince them of the need to spend the money to make the public schools better.

Foolish, even for you.

People are flocking to charter / private / paroch
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

Taxing anyone, anything or for any purpose - at whatever rate - without curbing spending is an exercise in futility.

It's like trying to dewater the Titanic with a teacup.

The liberals don't (want to) get that - they want to tax more, specifically, to spend more.

Simply, if you're for more and higher taxes, you're a humanitarian. However, if you are for curbing spending, ostensibly, you're a racist.

If only there was some catchy phrase to help people remember that....
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think everyone endorses spending cuts, even to entitlement programs. I think they should also end the Bush tax cuts on the top rate. Extend the deficit cap into 2013 or so.

 

[HSVol]

What does "fixing" mean? Vouchers are the only funding "fix" possible. As the last 40 years have proven, spending more does not improve education results.

I also said that "fixing" would be a good start. Obviously, there's much, much more to it. It's very complex problem that will require a lot of work, but to dismiss increased education funding out of hand is supremely foolish.

 

[lawgator1]

Foolish, even for you.

White people are flocking to charter / private / paroch schools to get away from minorities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Finished your post for you.

 

[droski]

I think everyone endorses spending cuts, even to entitlement programs.

ummmm pelosi just came out and said under no circumstances will she agree to cutting entitlement programs.

 

[n_huffhines]

Ever hear the old adage, "You get what you pay for?"

So DC students are outperforming the rest of the country?

We’re often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child – on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s. - Washington Post

How Much Does DC Spend Per Student in Their Government Schools? | All American Blogger

 

[droski]

Finished your post for you.

yes it's to get away from the minorities. not to provide a better education for their child. you are an ass.

 

[Tenacious D]

+ 1,000,000.

But guess what? The local government here in Florida are complaining because some $50 million in state money for school construction and expansion was awarded to charter schools rather than the public schools.

The rationale?

Charter school enrollment is through the roof. And they are purely a mechanism to get away from desegregation in the schools. Transparently, in fact.

Its hard enough to get people to invest more when they don't have kids in school at all. But when they feel so motivated such as to send their kids to a charter school because they think the public schools are failing, its even tougher to convince them of the need to spend the money to make the public schools better.

Foolish, even for you.

People are flocking to charter / private / parochial schools because they WORK.

If anyone is to link the future successes of minorities with the strength of the public education system, well, you should sentence they to a life of unprepared and I'll-equipped servitude now, and save the speeches.

The public education system needs, requires, and (well) deserves only a single change to correct it's now decades long-course: it's complete abolishment and immediate privatization.
Posted via VolNation Mobile