<p>Okay, so I think we can all agree on one thing: The economy is affected by more than taxes. The go-go years of the 90’s were neither caused nor deterred by tax rates which were higher than are now present. Same thing for the 60’s and numerous other periods. We’ve had strong and weak economies with tax rates higher than we have now. (I can’t say for lower, because we haven’t had lower tax rates in the modern era than we do now.)</p>
<p>Also, we can agree that we need to have some taxes to fund government services. The answer to “Should taxes be cut?” is not always yes.</p>
<p>So what it boils down to is what is the optimal level of taxes to fund government services without overburdening society? I would also add, without running a deficit in the absence of a major event such as World War II which justifies borrowing from future generations. Personally, I do not consider lowering taxes, primarily for the very wealthy, and filling the gap with loans that Xiggi’s generation will have to pay for, to be a prudent course of action. </p>
<p>I don’t think that Bush’s tax cuts are responsible for a “vibrant economy” as FF claims, any more than Clinton was “responsible” for the boom of the 90’s. Coincidence does not prove causation. (Prescott agrees with this, by the way.) But Bush’s tax cuts are responsible for a part of the increase in wealth stratification of the country, and also of the increase in the deficit that Xiggi and his cohort will have to pay for - both of which I believe are unambiguously bad for the country.</p>
<p>So - it’s not about being like France or Sweden, and it’s not about whatever Pelosi and the other guy said which ticked you two off so much. It’s about the rich continuing to become increasingly more wealthy than everyone else, and the deficit growing to absorb much of the slack we would otherwise have in case a real national emergency comes along, and also weighing down Xiggi’s generation’s opportunities and alternatives once they take over. </p>
<p>And Xiggi - IIRC you are already aware that the tax burden on the poor - taking into consideration all forms of taxation - is already as heavy or heavier than the tax burden on the wealthy, as a percentage of their respective incomes. Why do you want to increase that burden on the poor alone?</p>
<p>When posters such as Xiggi and Funding Father can say with a straight face that Pelosi and Reid would love to adopt a “socialist system”, well, I lose all hope for righting our sinking ship. Those who sing the praises of our “thriving” economy while ignoring our soaring deficit, the onging collapse of our health insurance system, and the slide of our elementary and secondary educational system…well, it’s impossible to reason with them. The divide between fantasy and reality is simply too wide.</p>
<p>“When posters such as Xiggi … can say with a straight face that Pelosi and Reid would love to adopt a “socialist system”, well, I lose all hope for righting our sinking ship.”</p>
<p>Well, feel free to find hope where you can find, but I doubt that righting your sinking ship will come from any of the ideas of the dynamic duo of Pelosi/Reid. Do you really believe that the future of our country hinges on a … Marshall Plan? What a display of creativity? At least, Reid stopped one level short of claiming Gore invented the internet as he went a bit farther back to credit an entirely nebulous “National investment.” as creator. Of course, he failed to mention the decades where nothing happened to the famous internet before the Ozone Man invented it “again.”</p>
<p>So what did Reid have to say?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes indeed we need to build the next economy … Too bad that Reid and Pelosi only offer hollow and cynical rethoric, amidst a sea of usual partisan crticism. </p>
<p>As far as reversing the “the slide of our elementary and secondary educational system” would you kindly point me towards what the Democrats did on that issue while they enjoyed their reign? Please tell me by how much Clinton-Gore increased the funding of the Education Department during the boom times? Oh, no need to look it up … they did not increase it at all! </p>
<p>The divide between fantasy and reality is indeed simply too wide. However, the fantasy is all about the illusion of the accomplishments of your favorite party and the reality is simply its total lack of creativity and constant negativity. Want to contradict me? Easy, point me towards the last time something positive and novel came from the democrats? Federal Highways or maybe the National Labor Relations Act of 1935?</p>
<p>Xiggi: I am a professor and I know a lot of elementary and secondary teachers around the country. They are all leaving the profession because, in many cases, they cannot afford to live in the areas where they teach (and, by the way, they are also fed up No Child Left Behind requirements.) Most of them are not near retirement age…they just can’t take it anymore and, believe me, they started out with their hearts in the right place. This, to my mind, spotlights the growing income disparity between the top 5 percent and the rest of us.<br>
The Democrats have</p>
<p>Carlmom, I have posted at length about my positions on our education. </p>
<p>If the issue is wages, please note than I am in favor of raising the salaries of educators by tying it to performance and hours worked. However, the issue of accountability and proficiency of educators should not be negotiable. </p>
<p>Teachers and administrators who fail tests of minimum qualifications should not be protected but weeded out of the system. The same for teachers who have elevated absenteeism to new heights or hide behind the powerful reach of unions. Skyrocketing administrative expenses should be reined in, and last but not least, the real culprits of our failing system identified. Our failure is not due to changes, but to our insistence to maintain a cynical status quo.</p>
<p>Lets be fair, no US president has to face what Bush faces. </p>
<p>The 9/11 attack and its aftermath.
We are fighting an invisible enemy that do not seek to conquer us but to snuff whole modern civilization.
And now we face another challenge, one with even greater potential for diseaster, the Iranian nuclear ambition. </p>
<p>Give the guy some credits. FDR withstood the Nazis, but the Germans didn’t or couldn’t sneak attack us except sending a few periscopes up New York Harbour. The Japanese did surprised us, but the rest of the war was fought conventionally, one navy against another. I am not a Bush fan, but in a time like this, I support him because I think he’s doing as good a job anyone can do under unprecedented circumstances.</p>
<p>Xiggi - Gore never claimed to have “invented the internet”. You’re perpetuating a well-debunked myth - and a pretty slimy one at that. What Gore did claim he did was take the initative in Congress to support its creation - which was federally funded, and which Gore did push while in Congress. I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be, but please refrain from smarmy right wing soundbites.</p>
<p>“I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” Gore’s words. Wolf Blitzer didn’t make him say it. It was a lame and self-serving attempt to claim credit for something with which he had nothing to do, and he deserved to be ridiculed for it.</p>
<p>carlmom, you may know a lot of teachers leaving the profession, but that doesn’t mean that there is a nation-wide shortage of teachers - by a long shot. In NJ it is very difficult to get a job as a teacher and it is not uncommon to have 50 applications for a single opening. </p>
<p>You say that the salaries are too low. I dispute this. In NJ a typical starting salary for a teacher is $40-45K. Compare that with the average starting salary of a person coming out of college. They then grow to the $70-80K range. This is not exactly fabulous wealth, but it is definitely a comfortable living when you consider that teaching is also an ideal job for dual-career families where the parent wants to home at the same time his/her kids are home from school. </p>
<p>But, it is necessary to look at the total compensation picture to get the full view. The medical benefits of most teachers are excellent. The retirement package is far superior to anything that private industry offers (it would be interesting to determine the value of the total, life-long compensation of a teacher versus someone in private industry). By far the largest benefit of teaching is the job security that it offers. In what other job is it virtually impossible to be fired no matter how poor/mediocre your job performance is? In what other job are you only expected to work 182 days per year?</p>
<p>This is not a slam on teachers. I have many teachers in my immediate family and I see how much they work. To echo xiggi’s sentiments, I just wish that there were a mechanism to reward their work and get the poor performers out of the system. However, one of the fundamental tenants of the Democratic platform is to never allow this to happen.</p>
<p>Your world, regarding your post above: I think you have succinctly summarized for me what ultimately has created the great Bush divide over the past five or so years. I have spent a lot of time trying to understand why it is so difficult to find common ground among Bush administration supporters and detractors–something I think we can all agree would be in our best interests. </p>
<p>Ultimately, I think that the divide comes down to what each of us fears the most. It seems to me that most of those who still support the president fear another terrorist attack(s) more than anything else. As a critic of the president, I hope that you can believe I am being genuine when I tell you that I fear losing my health insurance and coming down with cancer, or, alternatively, losing my savings in a period of hyper inflation more than I fear any possible terrorist attack. To me the odds of the first two are much higher than the latter. So, in many ways, the Bush divide seems to me less of a fever-pitched ideological battle but rather a simple expression of our inner-most fear(s). What say the rest of you?</p>
<p>There is a teacher shortage and it is about to get worse as many baby boomers retire, a starting teachers salary in California will not put them in the running for affording decent housing. A top teacher salary of 60-70,000 or even 80,000 (with a doctorate and 20+ years of experience) does not compare to a managment position with similar responisibilities and credential/educational requirements.</p>
<p>Yes, to the Question, Bush is the worst President in American History. He provoked a war to build his own popularity with his oil friends. Now his Iran threats are keeping the gas prices and oil profits up…throw the bum out.</p>
The scientists who were responsible for the key components which make up the internet credit Gore for being a leader among politicians in supporting - and funding - the R & D behind it, and confirm the essential truth of his statement to Blitzer. You can google “Gore internet” and get the story in seconds. </p>
<p>I reserve my ridicule for people who deliberately twist the truth to advance their agenda, Driver. Between your right wing claque and Al Gore the woodman looks prety good.</p>
Neither will a typical liberal arts grad’s starting salary, or for that matter most starting salaries no matter what the major when you are talking about a hyper-inflated real estate market like California.</p>
<p>
You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare manager salaries, you need to look at the salaries of principals. Also, you have ignored the biggest differentiator between a “management position” and a teacher - job security. A manager can and will be fired when he screws up, even if he doesn’t screw up but his boss thinks he screwed up, or even if the boss just wants to make room for his nephew. This doesn’t happen in teaching and with the elimination of risk comes reduced reward. It’s the same principle as to why people make more money investing in the stock market than in CDs. People who leave teaching to go to private industry are willing to accept this higher level of risk for more potential reward. That’s their choice, just as its the choice for those who remain as teachers to accept the lower reward for the phenomenal job security.</p>
<p>“… its the choice for those who remain as teachers to accept the lower reward for the phenomenal job security.”</p>
<p>…and the retirement benefits. I have a friend who will retire at 58 with 80% of his 60K+ salary for the rest of his life. Not that he needs it. Because he was quite frugal early in his career and made great investments, he is now a millionaire several times over.</p>
<p>I kind of agree with FF in that comparisons of teaching careers with MBA-types is not the proper comparison. I make fairly good money with a technical degree, but nowhere near what my lawyer friends make. Would I exchange careers for the extra money? No way.</p>
<p>Kluge, isn’t it typical to look at the same information or same report and draw different conclusions, according to our own criteria and bias? In the case of Gore, you believe that the people who find the statement by Al Gore to be a self-serving exaggeration deserve ridicule and scorn, and that is your prerogative. For the record, I do not doubt that “some” scientists came out and spoke on behalf of Al Gore. This is not different from finding academics supporting liberal views at any time and for any purposes. That is just the nature of the beast. It is expected to kiss the hand that feeds you, and occasionally kiss a more lowly part of the human anatomy. The government does fund a multitude of programs and supports research, but it creates very little and is rarely proactive. </p>
<p>On the other hand, do you really believe that any objective and comprehensive anthology of the internet would even mention the name Albert Gore, or attribute to him the slightest of credit for the CREATION of the internet or taking the INITIATIVE in creating it? I checked one and I looked for the name Gore, and DID find him:</p>
<p>The words of Al Gore might be what we have learned to expect from politicians. In return, we are used to apply a heavy dose of salt onto the same statements. The difference along party lines is only represented by the quantity of salty we decide to use. </p>
<p>Now can we move back to Reid and his Marshall Plan for America, and how that fits in the current rage about curbing spending? Oh, I forgot that investments are different from expenses!</p>
<p>Xiggi, who do you feel strays farther from the truth, Al Gore, who while he was in Congress pushed the government funding of R & D which was directly responsible for the development of key aspects of the internet, and later, in response to a question about his accomplishments, stated: “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet” - or you, who asserted that “Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet”? </p>
<p>And your slander of the numerous scientists and engineers who give credit where credit is due - yeah, they know who stepped up to fund the R & D which allowed them to do their work - demonstrates nothing but a propensity to personally attack honorable people who have the temerity to point out facts which contradict your pet theory. I fear you are evolving into a true modern right wing American.</p>