DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

You must not know bout me.

Do you think we can get the But back together? Like....ACTUALLY back together? Instead of what little heartbeat was left....

I don't know if I should do this anymore....

I was gonna come hang out over here but now that I know I'll have to deal with your hot draft takez, I think I'm out.

We don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit.... And even if we did, what would that have to do with any investigation?

I can speak for at least some lawyers when I say that the "law degree" is far from a certain path to financial success. A fair amount of my law school (which up until very recently was a Top 25 program) was still unemployed. I'm talking Law Review students....unemployed. It's like anything else....success draws interest, interest saturates markets. Thats why people who rail against "useless" degrees are missing the point. Every degree has a job market...those markets ebb and flow depending on all sorts of factors. No degree is inherently useless....especially in a working world where, often, concentration is sort of irrelevant. What gets me is the number of "unimpressive" schools that still charge rates similar to the more established school. Law schools that charge people 35k in tuition and find themselves at the bottom of the law school rankings are ripping people off something fierce.... The fact is, the student loan problem is a simple rent seeking issue. I fully support government efforts to provide low interest rate, highly reliable loans to the populace....and educated populace is an incredibly compelling government interest. What I don't support is government's hands off approach to higher education cost control. As rates have escalated for tuition and service fees, no one has done anything. Look at the endowments schools like Harvard and Yale have. They could afford to give all of their entering freshmen free rides on the interest alone. There needs to be substantial steps to reclassify schools as not for profits with strict limitations on their services and expenditures. They are essentially serving a public function...they should be treated accordingly.

Nope, this isn't what has happened at all. The "least capable of producing" or any other ridiculous generalizations you feel are apt to describe the less than rich can also be known as the "least capable of influencing policy" the "least catered to constituency" or the "least rewarded economically" Those "producers" who employs hundreds of people are far more responsible for policy directives and election outcomes than the lower class. So placing the "blame" for the current state of things on the ghosts and shadows of the lower class may work to appeal to an angry conservative base, but it doesnt really hold any water when looked at in depth.

But it IS a component of self-interest in the current political and economic climate of America. There is ALWAYS someone else that can bear the burden for your enrichment. And Congress knows that, banks know it, welfare recipients know it, corporations know it, etc. Rare is the situation where a cost can't be transferred to someone else. Even pre-social contract scenarios feature the availability of theft/looting for one's gain at the loss of someone else. At this point its tough to see how it isn't inevitable.

Doc, your buffet analogy works well for some. For others (read: young people) I don't think it's quite as apt. When I was paying for good health insurance (from 2004-2008) I really didnt ever use it. I guess I did for the dentist but I've never been a fan of the rush to the doctor mentality. Most of my young friends are similar in that regard. But you're right, people do need to be more conscious of the consequences of their decisions to randomly go to the doctors/ER/urgent care because of a headache. And I would LOVE to see a focus on healthy lifestyles. I think American society has been trending that way for the last ten years or so, but its still a long way from being the dominant approach. I'd like to see the food stamps program take a more heavy handed approach at nutrition and even education. As someone who has been trying to get in better shape over the last few months, I appreciate the necessity of good food and how destructive an unhealthy diet can be, especially when its supplemented with a sedentary lifestyle. The best thing this country can do to solve ALL of its problems is to get dialogue going, develop understanding of the assorted problems and try to reach an understanding on how to fix them. Thats why I get so mad when people participate in the demonization of liberal/conservatives. I am an unabashed liberal....but that doesnt mean I think conservatives are the devil. They hold a different approach...one with some merit. So lets talk and see how we can both accomplish goals.

So if rent seeking is one of the main drivers of health care costs, why are we to assume that a fully privatized approach to health care will eliminate rent seeking? As doctors/hcp's continue to bill in an attempt to get every dime possible, all that will happen is access to healthcare will continually dry up for people that can't "afford" it. The ACA is far from a good piece of legislation.....but acting as though the market has some internal sense of morality that will eliminate rent seeking and other price increasing pressures is completely absurd. Unchecked marketplaces always result in marketshare pooling and price gouging. Always.

For many, the bailout isn't a consideration....the financial/political influence of the banking industry is. I don't care that bailouts happened....I care that private firms (both banking and non-banking) can spend money, effectively "lobby" Congress for legislative back slaps, and pass along the costs to the consumer. And I certainly hope that criticism of the bailout in connection with the Tea party movement was treated the same way around here. I sure hope all the TP threads were filled with "back off the bailout they paid it back".

Pretty brave to post a single horribly ignorant person with the aim of generalizing to an entire population of approximately 40,000,000 people. Here's the part where I post a youtube video about white supremacy/anti-semitism/homophobia suggesting that all white people are like that, right? Or I suppose I could go a different route and find any number of examples of rich white people gaming the system to make tons of money, right?

Well if you look at the blame for the immediate decision, this little link is irrelevant. If you look at it as indicative of the typical "if the other side proposes it, we hate it" way of doing business in Washington, it's incredibly relevant.

Always a pleasure! Yeah your last paragraph is perfect. That sardine oppression is what I love. I love feeling like I'm "in" something....not in a self-affirming belonging kind of way but in a "wow theres a lot of stuff to do and see!" way. I've spent some time in rural areas and the silence is always a little unnerving for me. I like the din of society. As for the lack of cultural diversity...yeah thats sad. But some people, for one reason or another, don't value the experiences and such of other people. Everyone is confident that they're living life/making decisions in the best way....it only makes sense. IMO, its a shame to blast someone out of town because they may feel a different way or have a different take. I try to listen to everyone and every position and assess them independently. But the people that "have it all figured out" tend to be the ones that cause the most ruckus in my experience. Those are the ones that I don't get along with so well... Tolerance is great unless the thing being tolerated is inherently negative. To each their own and all that noise Enjoy the pastures missy!

Unfortunately, Mr. Walsh is only half correct..... I appreciate his passion, but his acceptance of private market behavior bereft of a sense of morality is very much part of what got us into this mess.

It's certainly not ALL of the problem, but I believe its a self-feeding cycle that perpetuates those stereotypes. As for hip hop culture, yeah a lot of it is destructive.....though I'd argue that its a bit overstated at this point. Other cultures have been destructive and aimed specifically at youth while not debasing an entire race's viability. I mean is hip hop any more destructive in its aims than punk was in the late 70s? Than the various types of metal (specifically death metal/grindcore etc)? Kids flock to things that they relate to, whether it be through aspiration or firsthand experience. Kids like to see that there is a way out of ghetto at all. And its unfortunate that almost all of the visibly successful black people in this country have used those gateways (arts, athletics) to get out of the ghetto. But I've known a lot of black youth that try to climb out without using those things. They study and work and get stuff done. But the entire environment around them isn't conducive to success. Not to say that it precludes it, just that it doesnt encourage it. And I think most of (certainly not all) white america is more conducive to achievement. Black people don't escape without responsibility. They DO deserve a large portion of the blame. I just think its difficult and kind of egocentric to say "why don't they show the toughness and determination to rise above those bad influences." I think it shortchanges the poisoning aspect of their environment. It assumes everything is a "choice" when I don't think reality works that way....I think we're much more a slave to the things around us and inside of us than we care to admit. As for the asian folk, I think for the most part their entrance into this country doesnt have the same negative stigma that black people have had to deal with. Not to say Asians havent dealt with racism (obviously the have...particularly in the late 19th century) but there isn't the same institutional inferiority that exists in black/white relations. White people view Asians as different from them, just as they view blacks as different...but I think today it tends to be almost a superiority. "Good at math" "great with computers" "work way more/harder" than everyone. Contrast that to 400+ years of institutional inferiority that permeates white black relations. Thats not something that can just be "overcome" with legislation or discussion. It will take time. The civil rights movement was only 50 years ago....there are a ton of people STILL WORKING that grew up in a time when blacks and whites didnt use the same toilet. How do you grow up for the first 10-15 years of your life taught that those dark children shouldnt be intermingling with you and then, on a dime, adjust that to think "oh, they're the same" ? I absolutely wish it could be that easy....but for most people, its not. The institutional racism isn't overt....it isn't passed along in memos saying "don't hire black people". It's implicit. It's in upbringing. Its probably something that a lot of people arent really conscious of. But that doesnt mean it doesnt affect how they think or behave.

A few comments from the first few pages 1) There looks to be some confusion in linking. Every single crime, is not a flash mob. 2) The "racists if reported!!" thing seems to be some sort of preemptive "i'm not racist" comment despite the fact that you're still making a generalization about people based on their skin color. These youths (some of which aren't identified as black, or inner city or anything of the sort) are stupid kids committing crime. Thats all. Race has NOTHING to do with it. The act would be criminal if it were a black kid, a yellow kid or a white kid. No one has ever suggested that black people don't commit crimes or that white people commit all crimes. So you've effectively constructed a useless strawman. 3) I don't like calling people racists until they actually do racists things. But its very difficult to fight the urge when people point out bad things black people do and scream "see they never do anything!!!" It's almost like some sort of weird defensive racism... 4) Go to any major drinking/college town and you'll see scenes similar to the scene linked third...only its often filled with white kids. I've seen dozens of white kids brawl on the streets of Chippewa in Buffalo. I've seen a dozen kids brawl on the streets in Fredonia. I've been involved in a 15 man brawl in a bar. It happens.

I'll be right there.

Ahhhh and here lies ANOTHER flaw. That flawed attempts to fix the problem (which is inarguable at this point) results in the non-existence of a problem. It's clear that institution "racism" (read inequality) exists and is a problem. So regardless of prior attempts to the fix the problems (to varied success levels) we aren't to conclude that the imbalance of experience in this country is permissible. And your "fueling violence towards white people" is pretty ridiculous....

In answer to your last question....I obviously appreciate that you are different...that was kind of the entire crux of my post. But where I will not agree is your implication that Wyoming folk are "better" due to the fact that they're the "only ones who want to work!" and such. Its obviously not correct. I'm currently looking for work in NY. I live with my Aunt and Uncle. My Uncle gets up everyday at 3:30 so that he can get to work by 5am across the county. He works from 5am-5pm in an environment filled with furnaces that are thousands of degrees, melting metal and fabricating machine parts. He does this just about 7 days a week......a practice that is illegal but generally ignored, because the work has to get done. I've seen him go 25-35 days in a row....12 hour days, over and over. He comes home and immediately races outside to do yardwork for a few hours before coming in to eat dinner and hit the sack. I think he works plenty hard... I have friends who got pretty nice biglaw jobs in Chicago who work 80-90 hours a week.....I think thats working plenty hard. So I'm sorry, I can't give any credence to an idea that because someone likes the vast expanse of Wyoming and chooses to live there, that they must be a better, more willing worker than everyone else in the country. I respect the heck out of you and you know that....but that idea is craziness. As for your federal money complaints....maybe. Maybe the hold water. You're there, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Thats but a small part of what makes Wyoming solvent. I said it'd be nice to have that level of funding on a per capita basis but that doesnt mean you get more money than big states.....just more money per person. And thats the real fabric of why Wyoming is financially healthy....because it has fewer people to take care of. Maintenance isn't as demanding when its for a much much smaller number of people. The stress on resources is smaller. The stress on roads and infrastructure is less intense. There is nothing in Wyoming that compares to the stress manufactured by 2 million people living in a small area. There just isn't. And thats not a good thing or a bad thing, as we've both noted, people have different values and look for different things. But that doesnt mean that comparing the management of the second least densely populated state in the union to the management of a state that has 5 metropolitan areas more populated than the entire state of Wyoming is an apples to apples comparison. Its a different world, IMO. If there were a sudden influx of people into Wyoming....and Wyoming became one of the bubble "hot spots" that move from new city to new city in this country (Florida, to Phoenix, to Vegas, to North Carolina, to etc) Wyoming would end up just like those states. Thats just how it goes. Vast numbers of people cause vast stresses on everything. Its sad and its a challenge...but its something populous states have to deal with. Luckily for you, you guys don't.

Well this is exactly right, and completely rational. If a district has a representative that is able to secure funding for the local library or post office or whatever, why in the world would they vote him out? Why would they work against their self-interest? As with everything in this (and probably every) country, self interest rules the day. It's always "valuable public work" when it stays home and "pork" when it goes to another district. It's exactly like the majority of midwest red states that scream about socialism and out of control spending but then have no trouble collecting checks off of the various farm and ag bills that get passed, year in and year out, affecting consumer prices in a negative way while paying the farmers that are "vital to the nation's health"

Well this is a steaming pile of horseshit that I'm glad is allowed to exist here. If you think that because a minority was born post-1975, they've probably never been oppressed, you've obviously spent little to no time paying attention to the other side of the color line. And no, "consideration" (DEFINITION) does not make one an "insufferable douche" it makes one a normal human being who understands that GASP people have their own **** to deal with. And that maybe, JUST MAYBE, that **** should be "considered" before conclusions are drawn. The numbers are clear with regards to the difference in experience for whites vs. minorities in this country. Minorities go to jail more, they go to jail longer, they make less money, the receive less education, they hold fewer positions of prestige, etc. On every substantive metric, white people excel. Now what could cause that? You're left with two options. Option A) suggests that the American experience is different for people of color (aside from empirical evidence which clearly suggests this, anectdotal or observational evidence backs it up as well) or Option B) which suggests that folks of color must be inherently less capable. Option B is pretty clearly a racist statement. Option A seems to make sense. Option A it is...... And FTR, I was a white kid in a black neighbor until I was about 10. I never got picked on for being white. Ever. Not to say that people don't (because of course they do) but if we were to pool up all the hostility that flows from one race to another on account of the difference in color, the white to black ratio would OBVIOUSLY be higher. If you think otherwise, you're clueless.

FWIW, this is the go to "faggot" content, IMO. As for Ratner....he makes ****ty movies so I think he should never have been hired in the first place. For those that say "well it doesnt mean gay" unfortunately that's not true. We may have adapted it as Sage Louis says in that clip ^ but that doesnt mean that, by and large, the entire negative context of the word comes from its application to gay guys. In that regard, its no different than "!@#$" "kike" or "spic" They are singular hurtful words that draw a negative connotation from a a characteristic of a person. Now, its important to note that Ratner obviously has the right to say faggot, !@#$, kike, spic, dago, etc. He has the freedom to say all of those things.....but the Academy has the right, as a private organization, to fire him for use of those words. They can fire him because they dont like the hat he wore. They can fire him because he wears skinny ties. They can (and should have) fire him for making the joke that is X-Men 3. He was appropriately punished by an organization that has a disproportionately (which is kind of sad but whatever) high number of homosexuals or homosexual sympathizers (the idea that not hating on someone because of their sexuality is notable is pretty sad). This has nothing to do with "PC" or any other bull **** excuse people blame the intolerance of their ignorance on. Ratner was stupid. Ratner bit the hand that feeds. Ratner lost sight of the people he represented and were willing to pay his salary. As a result, he was fired. Freedom of speech (regardless of how it aligns with political correctness) is not and never has been an immunity to judgment as a result of the things you say. Freedom of speech does not mean there will be no consequences for the things you say. The practical rule remains: don't say dumb **** if you want to keep your job.

I agree with some of this. The answer is definitely right.......its rent seeking. So long as there are available funds, colleges will raise their fees to maximize access to those available funds. There's more to it than just the government as so much of school costs are paid through private loans and/or individual expenditure but the higher education system has flipped to a business model seeking to maximize profits. As for the "miscellaneous degrees with no marketable skills" I think thats tremendously overstated. Here is a link for the Top 10 college majors. http://www.princetonreview.com/college/top-ten-majors.aspx 1. Business Administration 2. Psychology 3. Nursing 4. Biology/Biological Sciences 5. Education 6. English Language and Lit 7. Economics 8. Communications 9. Political Science 10. Computer Information Sciences I think most of those are very viable in today's work. Psychology isn't, unless you're planning on getting more schooling (though I'd suggest that its incredibly valuable in other ways). English is pretty "useless" in terms of generating a ton of jobs (though again I'd suggest that having an expertise in regards to English is pretty valuable) and Communications is questionably valuable (though all my communication/speech friends have good jobs). So yeah, there are a few people here and there with degrees that don't exactly funnel into systems that have great jobs waiting at the end. But there are tons of kids that major in things that walk right into the work force (CIS and nursing in particular). The fact is, college used to be less of an automatic thing. So college was a legitimate option for gaining advanced training over a large portion of others which resulted in you being the most suitable candidate for a job. Unfortunately, everyone started going to college which sort of eliminated the competitive value of it....or at the very least shift that competitive value toward the upper echelon. You're still getting a job if you have a "useless" degree from Stanford or Princeton...just maybe not from Brockport or St. John Fisher. The entire way that colleges run today SHOULD be looked at and reformed. I think they should all be non-profits. I don't really see the value in a school like Harvard hoarding a 35 billion dollar endowment. TMQ talked about it in this article http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080122 and I thought it was a pretty decent look at it.

Incumbents almost always roll because of ignorance in the population (I dont mean stupidity....I mean not knowing what a given position does/is responsible for/etc). Its easier to just vote for whoever is already in charge. The only time the flips really happen is when something goes wrong.....which is why we have seen as much turnover in the last 5 years of election cycles. Because theres an inherent conclusion construct that thinks A) The people elected to position A are responsible for XYZ B) XYZ isn't satisfying so it must be the holder of position A who is at fault C) The opponent of position a's holder "can't do any worse, amirite!?"