Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, where on earth did you get the idea that universities contribute to campaigns? Please, I really want to hear this one.

From a previous post:

Ever wonder who are the top contributors to Obama's campaign in the 2012 election cycle? Would you believe that University of California, Harvard, and Stanford are in the top 10 and above Goldman Sachs?

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

And in the 2008 cycle, the top donor was the University of California with Harvard as number 3.

And which President just took over the student loan system from the evil bankers? These entities are buying influence to be sure the gravy train they are now on does not slow down.

These are not poor people, and they work at institutions that pay no taxes.

Follow the money.

James50

Originally Posted by Cole94

Sorry if my post came off with a mixed message. I'm not berating Gingrich or any Republican for suggesting that Blacks have bad living conditions or little money, a lot of us do. I was trying to say that Gingrich comes across as saying,"All they have to do is get a decent job and food stamps won't be necessary."

That's not what he was saying. He was saying, "The only thing Obama and the Democrats have to offer you is food stamps, our policies will grow the economy and help you get a paycheck (or a better paycheck)".

Originally Posted by Cole94

Sorry if my post came off with a mixed message.

You made the point clear the first time:

Originally Posted by Cole94

Yeah, definitely true. Regardless of race, if the situation at home is horrible and there's little to no income, it's all the same result. Which leads to question, why is Newt focusing his statement on Black people? Granted, proportionally, more Black people are on food stamps, but out of everyone on food stamps, whites are the majority.

Always trust your instincts. And don't let anyone make you question your perception of reality. Some people can talk about "hypothetical" black friends. But none of it stands the test of your reality and the reality you've witnessed of your family which is what people understood you were speaking from.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, where on earth did you get the idea that universities contribute to campaigns? Please, I really want to hear this one.

I know that Board members in the past at my college have contributed to campaigns. And have given individually as I have donated individually.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The latter. I know black people who have relatively stable family lives, well-paying jobs, etc.I know black people who are just scraping by, for reasons beyond their control. Some of those things might include what you referred to as "situations at home."When I read what you wrote, I didn't automatically assume that you meant "all" or "the majority" of black people, but rather those black people who are in the latter category. I do have a black friend who would probably be offended by what you wrote, because she is in the former category and doesn't like the fact that "black issues" are automatically associated with "poor black folks." She votes Republican. But I know you didn't mean it to be offensive. You were using a subconscious stereotype that many people use without even thinking about it. And it's not even a completely inaccurate stereotype. As you said yourself, "a lot of us do" (have bad living conditions or little money.) And you were told that you were wise beyond your years. So I had to point out the irony, more for others who keep insisting that I'm digging holes than for you.(And I totally agree with you that Gingrich is full of it on this issue, by the way.)

Ah okay, I see what you're saying. Yeah, part of the reason I used that stereotype as an example is because my parents, my mom, grew up in that struggling single parent, working class environment. But both of my parents fell into very well-paying jobs, finished school, etc. And my brother and I grew up middle class like your friend. However, a lot of my family is still struggling, so my posts are coming from parents and relatives who have lived/are living on both sides of the fence.Edit: Essentially what I said wasn't a stereotype. How can I "subconsciously use a stereotype" if what I purposely typed is the reality of my family?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

You made the point clear the first time:



Always trust your instincts. And don't let anyone make you question your perception of reality. Some people can talk about "hypothetical" black friends. But none of it stands the test of your reality and the reality you've witnessed of your family which is what people understood you were speaking from.

Cheers.

Yes. There's a lot of noise. Who do you believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Had completely forgotten about Santorum and hs "blah" comment...

Support from Catholic leaders is a pleasant surprise...

Best...

The Catholic Church is pro-life on abortion... but it is not "pro-death" on poverty, military aggression, capital punishment, and nuclear proliferation as Protestant fundamentalists seem to be.

Originally Posted by Cole94

Ah okay, I see what you're saying. Yeah, part of the reason I used that stereotype as an example is because my parents, my mom, grew up in that struggling single parent, working class environment. But both of my parents fell into very well-paying jobs, finished school, etc. And my brother and I grew up middle class like your friend. However, a lot of my family is still struggling, so my posts are coming from parents and relatives who have lived/are living on both sides of the fence.Edit: Essentially what I said wasn't a stereotype. How can I "subconsciously use a stereotype" if what I purposely typed is the reality of my family?

@Rani It may be stereotypical to use my family's situation to describe your friend, but again, I'm describing real experiences here. This was not subconsciously written. The example I gave is the truth and not a stereotype in my case. Just to make that clear.Edit: Ah, so we're on the page here.

Originally Posted by The Rani

LOL ... we are lagging behind each other's edits. I sent you a PM before I saw this.But ok, I'll stop now.

Got the PM. Everything's good now. Lol This is what happens when I type from an iPod touch.

Originally Posted by annla899

I know that Board members in the past at my college have contributed to campaigns. And have given individually as I have donated individually.

Really, I think this statement in the SOTU was a cynical piece of political blather. Obama is not about to do anything that would seriously affect his largest group of donors. This statement was a preamble to apply standards to the for-profit colleges which use government loan money to stay in business. My prediction is that soon you will see stiff graduation and payback standards applied to student loans. Also, what you will see is that non-profit schools will be exempted from these requirements. Its all a way to protect the non-profits and a big donor group from pesky competition.

Its typical manipulation of government by the big givers to protect their economic interests. The use of regulation to chill competition is one of many reasons to hate big government. Let's wait and see between now and the election if I am correct.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm not too impressed with Rodgers. Spending is what we need, no doubt, whether that is deficit spending created through the Fed/Treasury and/or borrowing, or paid-for through taxation ("tax and spend liberalism"); and I'm sure Krugman GETS that (and has said so clearly and repeatedly); but ultimately it needs to be paid for, IMO. A stimulated economy would pay for it, but only if we raise taxes soon afterward.

It is interesting that, perhaps counter-intuitively, higher taxes on the wealthy really do lead to greater equality. The stats on that are clear and have been posted abundantly, by yourself too I believe.... The taxes trim the wealth and power of the wealthy, and the resulting government spending of the tax money boosts the other people in the economy in many ways. Taxes given to the government are spent, and this creates economic activity and equality. Tax money kept by the wealthy is not spent, except to boost their own wealth and power (through buyouts, gambling, hoarding, receiving interest on loans made, and dividends on stocks purchased, etc.). Trickle-down does not trickle. It's no wonder the wealthy hate taxes, and that through their power, they deceive regular folks into thinking that taxes hurt them too.

Too much national debt becomes a problem if interest rates go up, and this drains money to service the loans, although this gives some economic benefit through the money paid to loan holders-- at least if they are American. Creating still more money to pay the debt perpetuates this debt cycle. Printing money is only one potential cause of inflation; probably a minor one, but a problem nevertheless-- if and when inflation returns, largely because of higher prices for gas and other basic needs....

I don't think they are "taxes," but definitely these student loans choke the economy, and what's worse, they choke the students, and help keep the wealthy-few rich and everyone else poor.

The national debt was paid off once, by Andrew Jackson around 1835. It was soon followed by an economic depression that some historians believe was proportionally worse than that of the 1930s.

Actually, did you know the total national debt is paid off about 4-5 times every year. It's right there in the FED's balance sheet. They roll the debt over to new buyers (mostly re-buyers) all the time.

Another interesting fact. Walk into an IRS branch and pay your taxes in actual cash. What do you think happens to that cash? It's shredded.

- Here's a little secret. Federal taxes pay for nothing. Federal taxing destroys money supply. None of it is saved and put in armor cars and transferred to the SS offices, Medicare offices, the Defense Department or any other federal entity. When those federal agencies spend, the Treasury issues a spanking new check or much more likely has the FED credit the appropriate bank account by sending electrons from their computers to the banks' computers.

It's all a spreadsheet on a computer screen manipulated by sending electrons with a key board.

The only issue is whether there are, when combined with private sector spending, too many digits for the amount of goods and services that the economy can provide and inflation becomes a concern or there are too few digits and the economy stagnates at best or worse spirals down into a recession or depression.

Any guess what the situation is today?

Taxing the rich or anybody right now to "help pay for federal spending" is at best a political calculation, it has nothing to do with the actual financing of federal spending. At worst, it's like Rodger suggests - a misdirection to make folks feel better about everyone paying their fair share that will have absolutely no impact on the economy or their economic well being.

I'm telling you all this as someone who is viewed by family and friends as too far to the Left for the Democratic Party; if you think I bought into this new thinking easily, you would be very very wrong about that - nearly as wrong as you are about how a monetarily-sovereign entity like our Federal govt actually operates.

This 4T has little chance of concluding until this understanding is clear and widespread among the public at large as well as our leadership.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The national debt was paid off once, by Andrew Jackson around 1835. It was soon followed by an economic depression that some historians believe was proportionally worse than that of the 1930s.

I am not one of those historians!

Actually, did you know the total national debt is paid off about 4-5 times every year. It's right there in the FED's balance sheet. They roll the debt over to new buyers (mostly re-buyers) all the time.

New owners; same debt.

Another interesting fact. Walk into an IRS branch and pay your taxes in actual cash. What do you think happens to that cash? It's shredded.

Replaced by electrons, no doubt. Same money.

- Here's a little secret. Federal taxes pay for nothing. Federal taxing destroys money supply. None of it is saved and put in armor cars and transferred to the SS offices, Medicare offices, the Defense Department or any other federal entity. When those federal agencies spend, the Treasury issues a spanking new check or much more likely has the FED credit the appropriate bank account by sending electrons from their computers to the banks' computers.

Cash or electrons; money is money.

The only issue is whether there are, when combined with private sector spending, too many digits for the amount of goods and services that the economy can provide and inflation becomes a concern or there are too few digits and the economy stagnates at best or worse spirals down into a recession or depression.

Any guess what the situation is today?

No problem with your analysis there, and I agree; obviously, recession is the problem today.

Taxing the rich or anybody right now to "help pay for federal spending" is at best a political calculation, it has nothing to do with the actual financing of federal spending. At worst, it's like Rodger suggests - a misdirection to make folks feel better about everyone paying their fair share that will have absolutely no impact on the economy or their economic well being.

I still don't follow you; you haven't convinced me. Taxes are collected; the checks are deposited in the Treasury and it sends electrons to the agencies that spend the money, which then is back in the economy.

This 4T has little chance of concluding until this understanding is clear and widespread among the public at large as well as our leadership.

Not much chance of that!

I do agree that jobs are more important than the debt.

Originally Posted by James50

Really, I think this statement in the SOTU was a cynical piece of political blather. Obama is not about to do anything that would seriously affect his largest group of donors. This statement was a preamble to apply standards to the for-profit colleges which use government loan money to stay in business. My prediction is that soon you will see stiff graduation and payback standards applied to student loans. Also, what you will see is that non-profit schools will be exempted from these requirements. Its all a way to protect the non-profits and a big donor group from pesky competition.

Its typical manipulation of government by the big givers to protect their economic interests. The use of regulation to chill competition is one of many reasons to hate big government. Let's wait and see between now and the election if I am correct.

James50

Can Obama enact his proposals by fiat? If not, nothing will happen.

Obama's proposal is great, although I agree it should also be applied to non-profits too. He didn't say it wouldn't be.

College costs are too high, and the government should not be giving any grants to colleges that charge high fees. They have gotten out of hand. Obama may get some campaign funds from academia, but the affordability of college is one of the biggest issues in this recession; he will gain more by doing something about it.

Regulation is a reason to love government, if done correctly. What happens today is that the government does not enforce anti-trust laws, and so a few people own the whole economy.

And which President just took over the student loan system from the evil bankers? These entities are buying influence to be sure the gravy train they are now on does not slow down.

How does making sure that colleges charge lower fees, keep a gravy train moving to them?

James, was this another conservative swipe at academia? As if academia is somehow a problem?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Can Obama enact his proposals by fiat? If not, nothing will happen.

Obama's proposal is great, although I agree it should also be applied to non-profits too. He didn't say it wouldn't be.

A good reason exists for higher nominal tuition at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford than at "Marginal Bible College", "Questionable College of Business', or "Podunk College of Cosmetology and Hairdressing". (Don't get me wrong; there are fine religious-directed colleges and universities, but some of them seem to exist to ratify the faith of the student without challenging the intellect). Now if someone can show some outright rip-offs among non-profit schools...

College costs are too high, and the government should not be giving any grants to colleges that charge high fees. They have gotten out of hand. Obama may get some campaign funds from academia, but the affordability of college is one of the biggest issues in this recession; he will gain more by doing something about it.

Unless one chooses to go into a low-paying profession after graduating from one of the Ivy League and its equivalents, one generally gets one's money's worth. The non-selective schools, unless community colleges, are generally worthless in enhancing one's prospects for a career irrespective of programs or orientation. (It may be that the Ivy League schools are more valuable to a student by creating connections to the Upper Class, an obvious concern in an age of intensifying inequality of income and opportunity than by what one learns in the classroom).

Regulation is a reason to love government, if done correctly. What happens today is that the government does not enforce anti-trust laws, and so a few people own the whole economy.

Anti-trust laws haven't been enforced since at the least the start of the Reagan era. As significant as anti-trust laws is that the graduated income tax that used to offer niches for small business has been nearly leveled -- often in the name of fostering small business -- only to make it far easier for giant entities to exploit economies of scale in advertising, distribution, information technology, tax compliance, and of course the bribery of politicians... ahem, lobbying services and campaign contributions.

How does making sure that colleges charge lower fees, keep a gravy train moving to them?

James, was this another conservative swipe at academia? As if academia is somehow a problem?

Non-specialized colleges need to revert to the Great Books approach for the bulk of education. One can still learn much from Homer. Shakespeare, Voltaire, Dante, Dickens, etc. Sure, there will need to be some teaching of such standards as freshman composition, the calculus, and maybe a couple of science courses... not to mention art, music appreciation, and cinema (yes, that is a legitimate art form)... and from such learning one can ask such essential questions as the meaning of life.

Originally Posted by James50

Really, I think this statement in the SOTU was a cynical piece of political blather. Obama is not about to do anything that would seriously affect his largest group of donors. This statement was a preamble to apply standards to the for-profit colleges which use government loan money to stay in business. My prediction is that soon you will see stiff graduation and payback standards applied to student loans. Also, what you will see is that non-profit schools will be exempted from these requirements. Its all a way to protect the non-profits and a big donor group from pesky competition.

Its typical manipulation of government by the big givers to protect their economic interests. The use of regulation to chill competition is one of many reasons to hate big government. Let's wait and see between now and the election if I am correct.

James50

You're right. I am cynical. The chair of the finance committee of the Board of Trustees at my college has donated exclusively to Republican politicians, most of whom are on the extreme right, like Eric Cantor. As far as I can tell, the only moderate politician he has donated to (for more than $1000) is Mark Kirk of IL, who seems like a decent representative. I've researched board members' political donations, which like mine, are accessible publicly.

I have said repeatedly that I cannot justify the sky rocketing costs of college tuition. You claim it's because student loans have become too easy to get, I know that in the past 10 years the increase in upper administrators has been astronomical, to the point that, where I work, even a paid consultant noted it. A consultant who was paid a quarter million dollars which could have and should have gone to student scholarships. But us teachers don't get say in where the college tuition goes.

All I know is that my salary has been the same since May 2008,before the crash, although the president of my college got a a couple of large bonuses during a time of decreased enrollment--a matter of public record. I know my job is in jeopardy. My pension has been frozen since 2002.

Don't worry, James. We're feeling it in higher education. We know we're screwed. At least those of us who actually teach people know we're anachronistic and we certainly don't pay our way. We're superfluous. Pretty soon college classes will be taught only by adjuncts who are paid (poorly) per class and who don't and who shouldn't have a stake in long term curricular planning, because they are not paid to. But they don't get benefits, thus they cost less. And they have no power. Which, in the view of not just a few, is good.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

A good reason exists for higher nominal tuition at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford than at "Marginal Bible College", "Questionable College of Business', or "Podunk College of Cosmetology and Hairdressing". (Don't get me wrong; there are fine religious-directed colleges and universities, but some of them seem to exist to ratify the faith of the student without challenging the intellect). Now if someone can show some outright rip-offs among non-profit schools...



Unless one chooses to go into a low-paying profession after graduating from one of the Ivy League and its equivalents, one generally gets one's money's worth. The non-selective schools, unless community colleges, are generally worthless in enhancing one's prospects for a career irrespective of programs or orientation. (It may be that the Ivy League schools are more valuable to a student by creating connections to the Upper Class, an obvious concern in an age of intensifying inequality of income and opportunity than by what one learns in the classroom).



Anti-trust laws haven't been enforced since at the least the start of the Reagan era. As significant as anti-trust laws is that the graduated income tax that used to offer niches for small business has been nearly leveled -- often in the name of fostering small business -- only to make it far easier for giant entities to exploit economies of scale in advertising, distribution, information technology, tax compliance, and of course the bribery of politicians... ahem, lobbying services and campaign contributions.




Non-specialized colleges need to revert to the Great Books approach for the bulk of education. One can still learn much from Homer. Shakespeare, Voltaire, Dante, Dickens, etc. Sure, there will need to be some teaching of such standards as freshman composition, the calculus, and maybe a couple of science courses... not to mention art, music appreciation, and cinema (yes, that is a legitimate art form)... and from such learning one can ask such essential questions as the meaning of life.

You have many good things to contribute, but your view of a college education is quite provincial and elitist.

Originally Posted by James50

Really, I think this statement in the SOTU was a cynical piece of political blather. Obama is not about to do anything that would seriously affect his largest group of donors. This statement was a preamble to apply standards to the for-profit colleges which use government loan money to stay in business. My prediction is that soon you will see stiff graduation and payback standards applied to student loans. Also, what you will see is that non-profit schools will be exempted from these requirements. Its all a way to protect the non-profits and a big donor group from pesky competition.

Its typical manipulation of government by the big givers to protect their economic interests. The use of regulation to chill competition is one of many reasons to hate big government. Let's wait and see between now and the election if I am correct.

James50

Sorry, James, but I find the idea of education for profit just as distasteful as health care for profit.

I'm also not inclined to project such cynical, self-interested motives onto educators.

EDIT: After reading Annla's post, I might not say the same thing about administrators -- but, then, they are a whole 'nother animal.

Originally Posted by James50

From a previous post:

Ever wonder who are the top contributors to Obama's campaign in the 2012 election cycle? Would you believe that University of California, Harvard, and Stanford are in the top 10 and above Goldman Sachs?

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

And in the 2008 cycle, the top donor was the University of California with Harvard as number 3.

And which President just took over the student loan system from the evil bankers? These entities are buying influence to be sure the gravy train they are now on does not slow down.

These are not poor people, and they work at institutions that pay no taxes.

Follow the money.

James50

OK, I looked at the sites. Very interesting sites I must say. James, you are turning demographic facts into a vast conspiracy which does not exist.

The University of California is a huge organization. The vast majority of its employees are Democrats. Together, they contributed $1.6 million to Obama in 2008. Harvard employees contributed almost $1 million.
If you can show me that either of those institutions has a PAC, sends out appeals to its employees suggesting that they contribute it, and targets the contributions according to what will benefit them, I'll be impressed. I just did a quick google for Harvard PAC and did not come up with one. Ditto for University of California PAC.

May I ask, are you equally concerned that thanks to Citizens' United, one billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, has single-handedly turned the Republican primary race around at the moment with $20 million in contributions to Gingrich's primary campaign?

Originally Posted by annla899

You're right. I am cynical. The chair of the finance committee of the Board of Trustees at my college has donated exclusively to Republican politicians, most of whom are on the extreme right, like Eric Cantor. As far as I can tell, the only moderate politician he has donated to (for more than $1000) is Mark Kirk of IL, who seems like a decent representative. I've researched board members' political donations, which like mine, are accessible publicly.

I have said repeatedly that I cannot justify the sky rocketing costs of college tuition. You claim it's because student loans have become too easy to get, I know that in the past 10 years the increase in upper administrators has been astronomical, to the point that, where I work, even a paid consultant noted it. A consultant who was paid a quarter million dollars which could have and should have gone to student scholarships. But us teachers don't get say in where the college tuition goes.

All I know is that my salary has been the same since May 2008,before the crash, although the president of my college got a a couple of large bonuses during a time of decreased enrollment--a matter of public record. I know my job is in jeopardy. My pension has been frozen since 2002.

Don't worry, James. We're feeling it in higher education. We know we're screwed. At least those of us who actually teach people know we're anachronistic and we certainly don't pay our way. We're superfluous. Pretty soon college classes will be taught only by adjuncts who are paid (poorly) per class and who don't and who shouldn't have a stake in long term curricular planning, because they are not paid to. But they don't get benefits, thus they cost less. And they have no power. Which, in the view of not just a few, is good.

How is this different from K-12 education where administrators get newer facilities and larger salaries, but teachers and students get shafted? Or for that matter how is this different from management and labor? Are you not talking about the two-sets-of-rules system of America as we know it? Somehow the problem doesn't appear to be rising tuition costs or inflated salaries, but gross inequity.



Cheers.

Something very weird is going on with Ann Coulter. This column combines all-out attacks upon Newt with a fawning attitude towards Romney that is worthy of the candidate's own wife. It's not that I have any respect for her, I don't, I'm just fascinated by the depth of her feeling, especially since Romney is hardly the kind of politician she usually likes. Coulter has a reputation as a pretty free spirit herself. I can't help wondering if she and Newt might have a past.

Originally Posted by James50

From a previous post:

Ever wonder who are the top contributors to Obama's campaign in the 2012 election cycle? Would you believe that University of California, Harvard, and Stanford are in the top 10 and above Goldman Sachs?

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

And in the 2008 cycle, the top donor was the University of California with Harvard as number 3.

And which President just took over the student loan system from the evil bankers? These entities are buying influence to be sure the gravy train they are now on does not slow down.

These are not poor people, and they work at institutions that pay no taxes.

Follow the money.

James50

I'm less concerned (maybe outraged is more accurate) when a few hundred well-healed folks band together to support their mutual interests, than I am by a single extremely welathy family just writing huge checks for the same reason. It's the difference between angry and livid. Until Citizens United is overturned, this is the way of politics. Even then, more needs to be done ... a lot more. We would be much better served by publicly funded elections at all levels. This isn't even a future option now, so we all pay to play or get rolled by those who do.

It stinks, but let's look at who pushed this idea in the first place. I'm 100% certain that Citizens United wasn't decided by Democratic appointees.

Originally Posted by James50

Really, I think this statement in the SOTU was a cynical piece of political blather. Obama is not about to do anything that would seriously affect his largest group of donors. This statement was a preamble to apply standards to the for-profit colleges which use government loan money to stay in business. My prediction is that soon you will see stiff graduation and payback standards applied to student loans. Also, what you will see is that non-profit schools will be exempted from these requirements. Its all a way to protect the non-profits and a big donor group from pesky competition.

Its typical manipulation of government by the big givers to protect their economic interests. The use of regulation to chill competition is one of many reasons to hate big government. Let's wait and see between now and the election if I am correct.

James50

None of this will change unless Citizens United is overturned, one way or the other. The best option is an amendment to the Consitution that puts bribery out of reach permanently. Can I assume we have your support?

Robert Scheer ( http://www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer#bio ) weighs in on Obama's suggesting that drop outs are the problems of our educational system. Sometimes it's just much easier to scapegoat those at the bottom than to see the corruption at the top. This is what's wrong with looking at politics through the eyes of the privileged.

I’m also getting tired of the exhortations to improve the nation’s schools, certainly a worthy endeavor, but this economic crisis is the result not of high school dropouts as Obama suggested, but rather the corruption of the best and brightest graduates of our elite academies. As Obama well knows from his own trajectory in the meritocracy, which took him from one of the most privileged schools in otherwise educationally depressed Hawaii to Harvard Law, the folks who concocted the mathematical formulas and wrote the laws justifying fraudulent collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps were his overachieving professors and classmates.

If he doesn’t know that, he should check out the record of Lawrence Summers, the man he picked to guide his economic program and who had been rewarded with the presidency of Harvard after having engineered Clinton’s deregulatory deal with Wall Street.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... It's all a spreadsheet on a computer screen manipulated by sending electrons with a key board.

I know you like the image of electrons as money, but technically, the electrons go nowhere. Using "photons" is closer to accurate but still wrong. The real activity involves a conversation (typically through the exchange of secure IP packets) that consists of a serieis of amplitude and phase changes travleing to and fro. In other words, the money moves by the equivalent of electronic hand waving. Nothing of substance is involved.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Taxing the rich or anybody right now to "help pay for federal spending" is at best a political calculation, it has nothing to do with the actual financing of federal spending. At worst, it's like Rodger suggests - a misdirection to make folks feel better about everyone paying their fair share that will have absolutely no impact on the economy or their economic well being.

I'm telling you all this as someone who is viewed by family and friends as too far to the Left for the Democratic Party; if you think I bought into this new thinking easily, you would be very very wrong about that - nearly as wrong as you are about how a monetarily-sovereign entity like our Federal govt actually operates.

This 4T has little chance of concluding until this understanding is clear and widespread among the public at large as well as our leadership.

This assumes that the entire concept of the accounting identity is flawed or, worse, a myth. Sorry, this I can't buy. Keeping score is a fundamentally human trait. We will not allow a good (X) without a corresponding cost (Y), because it runs counter to our genetic wiring. It may be intellectually honest and might even be a better way, but it will never be accepted by the masses.

Keep in mind, that, counter to all evidence, the overwhelming majority of humankind believe in a supernatural god or gods. Nothing you can say or do will alter that, except for a tiny minority who coincidently have no power. This falls in the same category.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Robert Scheer ( http://www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer#bio ) weighs in on Obama's suggesting that drop outs are the problems of our educational system. Sometimes it's just much easier to scapegoat those at the bottom than to see the corruption at the top. This is what's wrong with looking at politics through the eyes of the privileged.

Well that seems to somewhat answer my question.

Cheers.