No Zombie. I was just talking. Wasn't meant towards you.

I'm frustrated with how many people see Obama as some great leader.
I don't understand how they come to that conclusion.

---

It's along the lines of Rourke talking otherwise intelligent women out of their clothes.

---

Those farmers vote in 3 Democrats to send in to Washington to go get that Agricultural aid. Then they turn around and vote 90% Republican at the state level to keep local taxes low. But maybe it would be better if they started the farmers something more than 1950's prices for their crop yields.

Care to put your unemployment rate up against ours VR.

---

Have you guys seen that SP episode? The one where Obama wins the election? It makes so much sense when reading this thread.

And what I find most interesting around here is how Obama gets bashed for "not changing a thing" in his first year, but at the same time, gets bashed for pumping too much money into the banking system, setting up welfare plans and reforming your health care.

And why is Obama that bad a leader? Really, I haven't seen anything that he has screwed up royally over there. Despite the costs, some banks and companies had to be saved. That was not a decision so the owners could get working, it was a decision to keep local economics going. Keeping jobs. If he had sat back and just let it all work out, the low point would've been way lower than it was now.

I wouldn't have been surprised to see some circles that are a little lower on the social ladder to do some very bad stuff as a result of being evicted and underfed.

And like Vikes, I still haven't heared why Palin would be any better.

I don't KNOW if she would be better. Couldn't be any worse though.
Lets see....bail out banks and industries. What does that do? Shows them they can do whatever they want, and guys like Obama won't make them pay any consequences. Yeah....thats just GREAT. Shows other companies what to do. Be careless, and what the hell, you won't have to pay for it!
GREAT for the country! And that does what? Puts us farther in debt.
WONDERFUL!
So they want to take over our healthcare. Let's see......everything the government runs turns to SHIT. Just look at their past record, and you'd KNOW that. Yeah.....i want THAT for my healthcare!!!
And "setting up welfare plans".......HOW is that helpful? We saw in our past how "well" welfare works. Pays people to be lazy and careless. Yup....thats something to shoot for.

What does it matter what i think though? Obama and his people are in office, and what i want doesn't matter.
"Change" seems to mean turning our country socialist. THat's all i see. Make us more dependant on government. Then they can control us.
Disagree with them? Fine! We will with hold your family medical care, or foreclose on your house (seeing as we own the banks anyway)
Yup....that's what I want. (end sarcasm)

---

Ok, I wasn't going to watch the superbowl.

But I turn it on...first ad I see is for the census bureau.

Ok. Someone explain this to me. The fed'l government is spending 2.6 million for superbowl commercials, plus whatever producing the commercials cost?

And this is sane on what planet?

---

On a planet where the government doesn't CARE how much they waste.....after all...if they need more money, they will just reach deeper into OUR pockets.

---

It gets "better," Cheesey: Talked to a marketing colleague here this morning. Apparently the Census Bureau is spending $100 million plus on this marketing campaign.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the original (and continuing) purpose of government's doing censuses, namely, ensuring the maximum possible tax revenues. See, e.g., the book of Luke.

---

Hey Wade, what's your take on this?

One way to reduce Federal spending would be to reduce the exorbitant cost of a college eduction. The Federal Goverment (and State) pours billions of dollars into higher education, the cost of which keeps sky rocketing.
And why are these costs rising?

Here is one take......the cost of College Professors

"Its about time someone talks about the most underworked and overpaid leaches of our society. 'COLLEGE PROFESSORS'.

Link 





silently sneaks away after stirring the pot

Well. Er. Um.

I don't have time for an extended reply -- as I've got to go to class in a few minutes. But here's a quick summary response, with hopes to provide more detail later if anyone wants it.

1. The "spend all their time on research" is a bit of a red herring. While it is true that "top" professors do spend little time in the classroom and (more importantly) little time on class prep, most undergrad teachers is taught by people who spend relatively little with research. Student loads being such (this term I have 75, in three different classes).

2. The real distraction from teaching is the other stuff -- committee nonsense, stroking alums, stroking prospectives and their parents, generating paper to satisfy the latest passion of administrators for "data" they lack the skill to interpret. Most college professors aren't underworked. They're mis-worked.

3. For what most people think professors are for (and what IMO most professors think they are for), namely transmitting "content", most college professors are indeed overpaid. Indeed grossly so. As I tell my students, if all you want from your college education is content, spend 5-10K on books, and spend the next couple years reading them. It's cheaper, takes less time, and you'll learn at least as much that isn't out of date by the time you're done as you will from us.

4. For what professors should be doing, namely serving as masters and advanced journeymen to their apprentice thinkers, however, I would argue that they may actually be underpaid. The kind of training people need today is in developing thinking and judgment skills, and that is a very labor intensive task just about any way you cut it. No way can you do it with 75 students per term. Anyone who thinks they can is deluding themselves.

5. Nothing in #4 should be taken as a justification for the current rise of tuition. Because #4 is, save for perhaps 3-5 percent of those going to college, not something you get for today's money. I personally think a decent "education" would probably cost about 75k right now. But I have little confidence against any existing institutions being able to provide it.

6. I'm an anarchist. I don't believe in federal funding for hardly anything. But if I were to make the case, I would argue that funding either research and education (two separate things, see #1) or both is at least helping build the country's stock of human capital.

---