Ray Jay, completely agree. The sins of the fathers do indeed get passed onto the sons. Most of the problesm we have in this country are a direct result of government 5,10,20,30,50,80,100 years ago. Who is going to blame LBJ for the mess we have with the so-called Great Society? Or FDR with Social Security? Or Jimmy Carter with Communbity Reinvestment Act? No it is far easier to blame who is in charge now. I think Obama is about the qworst president we have ever had but the problems we have now are not his fault. But not taking the appropriate action to fix the problems and only following the same policies that got us here are his fault and the fault of his LSD ideology.

ray, here's how Paul Krugman addressed the issue of job creation/loss under Obama.

This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office.
Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.

The notion that Obama "hasn't done enough" collides head on with the claim that " A republican congress wouldn't let him do more harm."
In the case of public sector employment its entirely true that only Stimulus money seems to have forestalled massive public sector layoffs in Texas and other states. But I'm not sure what that really says? Stimulus money was intended to keep people employed and/or create new jobs. If its true that as soon as the stimulus ended that Texas and other States proceeeded to layoff their teachers police and firemen in large numbers isn't that evidnce that the Stimulus essentially worked in its primary goal? I agree that it isn't, on the face of it, fair that taxes collected in some states be apportioned to Texas and other states to subsidize their state governments. Especially becasue the Texas situation is caused primarily by an unwillingness to tax at levels that will pay for the services.

Moreover, if its largely republican States that ended up laying off all the public sector employees, what does it broadly say about the application of republican policies at the state level? (Lets take a moment to also consider the relative performance of States in studies comparing student achievement levels....)
I realize that an awful lot of state and civic pension plans are abominable, by the way. And often they are often largely responsible for economic woes at civic and state levels. (Put in place by policitians of both stripe.) All I'm saying is that arguements about Obamas performance with the economy, that include a helpful contribution from Congress Obstructionist tactics is perhaps disingenuous or at least illogical.
Simply put its two arguements "He didn't do enough"/
"We wouldn't let him do anything"

Only a few comments Rickyp, Paul Krugman is a socialist. He believes government is the ONLY answer to all of our problems. I take ANYTHING he says with the same degree of scepticism as I do of ANY politician left or right.

I don't think that there are any conservatives out here saying that Obama didn't do enough. So there is no paradox about the left saying that he didn't do enough and the right saying we didn't let him do anything.
As far as stimulus it went largely to help union pensions. As for shovel ready jobs (HA HA HA) Obama made a joke about it afterwards. Wasn't funny was pathetic.

As for the stimulus money itself, it was originally presented as a way to CREATE jobs. Ater they got their hands on it, they wanted to pay back their union supporters so the selling point got changed to CREATED OR SAVED. And many of the jobs they created were temporary. The only way to create permanent PRODUCTIVE jobs is through the private sector

Government can't do ANYTHING correctly and must be starved.

rush

So there is no paradox about the left saying that he didn't do enough and the right saying we didn't let him do anything.

On this board, which is what I'm debating, you've got exactly those paradoxial claims.
And by the way, if you have specific evidence of Krugmans data being erroneous have at it. Labelling him, doesn't make his information wrong, nor make the way he makes his arguement with the information wrong either.
(And he ain't a socialist to start with.... )
.
rush

The only way to create permanent PRODUCTIVE jobs is through the private sector

Then you must be very happy with this fact:
But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the Obama administration’s early months. That compares favorably with the Bush era: as of March 2004, private employment was still 2.4 million below its level when Mr. Bush took office

And by the way, what would you describe as a permanent productive job?
Does a teacher qualify? A soldier? A doctor or nurse?
Does someone inspecting meat qualify? Do you think its productive that meat packing plants are now regulated and inspected suffficiently that they are providing products that aren't regularly causing outbreaks of food poisoning? You might want to read the history of your nation before regulations and inspection were brought into industry.... It was a history of disasters, accidents and health crisis.
A heathy populace is a productive populace.
An educated populace is a productive populace.
So tell me, how do you describe jobs in those sectors? (Jobs which are often NOT private sector).

Please, Ricky. There is a place for government. No one, even I, disagree. But the governemtn can't do anything properly. And by propoerly I do not mean that they can't accomplish anything. Just that it will probably cost more and take longer. And yes there are jobs that the private sector can't do. Teaching NOT being one of them. Recent show by John Stossel (I am sure you did not see it) compared public schooling vs. charter schooling. Charter schools which are publicly funded just not union controlled. They are run by private corporations. Turns out student achievemnet is considerably higher and paradoxically considerably cheaper. Soldiers yes, (my daughter is currently serving). But there is a huge amount of waste in the military.

And once again, just being a scoialist doesn't necessarily make you wrong. But if you agree with Santayana, then history is on my side of the arguement.

As for reading a history of my nation, I have read much of it. Sounds like you need to read more of a variety. How about the Federalist Papers, or DeToqueville? Or more recently How Capitalism Saved AMerica. (Which alludes to the historical problems in the meat packing industry)

Unbridled capitalism has shown itself to have caused problems. Not as many as you would have us believe. But we have not been a capitalist society for quite some time. We have been more of a mercantile capitalistic (crony) system. Government intervention has caused most of our problems and not fixed them.

And yes, a healthy populace is a productive populace but there has been a lot of junk science around that proclaims that this or that thing is bad for you without any real evidence. (breast implants, et al.) But I do not want a bureaucrat telling me what to eat or drink. On the other hand I don't think you or anyone else should have to pay for my medical problems resulting from my bad behaviour.

And yes a WELL educated populace is a productive populace. But I do no want to subsidize lavish campuses and students studying 13th century French Poetry who complain about being unable to find a job in their preferred profession. (we don't need too many 13th century French Poetry experts)

As for data being erroneous, you can make statistics and data show whatever you want. Unemployment is down. So what. There are less people working now than before but the unemployment rate goes down. Statistics.

I am no big fan of Bush either so using him as a comparison to show how great Obama is doesn't make any difference to me. Both of them kept/are keeping interest rates artificially low (more so now) which will eventually need to be paid for. Under Bush the government grew way too fast. Seems that the Republicans, once they got into office, thought they were Democrats.

Recent show by John Stossel (I am sure you did not see it) compared public schooling vs. charter schooling. Charter schools which are publicly funded just not union controlled. They are run by private corporations. Turns out student achievemnet is considerably higher and paradoxically considerably cheaper. Soldiers yes, (my daughter is currently serving). But there is a huge amount of waste in the military.

Did Stossel bother to look at educational systems in other countries? Competition is on a global scale and if he didn't bother to look at places like Finland, who's schools are the best in the world ... then he wasn't really looking for excellence. (And he really wasn't was he, because charter schools come with their own set of problems.)

A national study conducted by Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond found that 37% of charter schools got worse results than comparable neighborhood public schools, 46% did about the same and only 17% were superior to the local public schools. The Raymond study surveyed half the charter schools in the nation and more than 70% of all charter school students. Raymond said, "If this study shows anything, it shows that we've got a 2-to-1 margin of bad charters to good charters."

Unlike the Hoxby study, the Raymond study concluded: "This study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public school] counterparts. Further, tremendous variation in academic quality among charters is the norm, not the exception. The problem of quality is the most pressing issue that charter schools and their supporters face."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/char ... z1stFMhGrw

On the other hand I don't think you or anyone else should have to pay for my medical problems resulting from my bad behaviour

Do you have private health insurance? Cause thats kinds the premise of private health insurance... Lots of people paying into a pool and sharing risk...

Yes I have private health insurance which is a private enterprise. SO yes there is shared risk. But I think that are a ponderous amount of regulations about what can be charged. I think that smokers, drinkers, drug abusers, obese people should pay more for their bad behaviour. But I think, but am not sure, that legally this can't be done.

As for Stossel

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stoss ... nt-succeed

Also, since the charter schools are a free enterprise system.. Over time, the bad ones will close (and be replaced) and the good ones will prosper.

But seriously (not that I haven't been trying to) the biggest impact on student achievement is the parenting involved and the "culture" of the necessity for a good education in the community. So I have no idea of these in Finland, so I have no idea whether or not comparing Finland to the US is in any way valid.

rush

Also, since the charter schools are a free enterprise system

Wrong.
They are all not for profit, and receive public funds.
Only some are managed by for profit corporations. (They have to make their profit from a set fee.)

Yes, I know, as I think I said previously (I think I said it previously) that they are publicly funded But the free enterprise/public funding aspect really has nothing to do with it. They need to be 're-chartered' periodically. Unlike public schools which can (up until recently, and only in limited areas) operate with impunity. Does not matter how well or how badly they perform. The teachers unions have a strangle hold on politicians. Ain't no teachers getting fired. Charter schools on the other hand are non-union (in most cases, maybe all cases) So underperforming teachers/schools can be gotten rid of.

rush

But the free enterprise/public funding aspect really has nothing to do with it

Well, your the one who said it did.
If instead you mean they have a different system of accountability - the question becomes why? Why aren't regular schools operated with similar accountability ? (Its baffling because at least here in Ontario, there is this kind of accountability within the public systems.)
And moreover; if this accountability is the vital unique ingredient why did this happen?

A national study conducted by Stanford University economist Margaret Raymond found that 37% of charter schools got worse results than comparable neighborhood public schools, 46% did about the same and only 17% were superior to the local public schools.

I suspect its a lot more complex than Mr Stossel or you would like it to be...
Or maybe not:
The Finns do the best in the world , basically by making the teaching profession one of the best paid professions and treating it as an extremelly respected and desirable profession. They attrat the best and brightest. So there's your simple answer. And its "free enterprise".
That is, they attract the best talent by paying the most. And end up with the best schools and student performance . In the world.
Unfortunately to support this system requires a greater level of taxation within Finland than say, in Texas. Of course it may pay off in a lot of ways that decrease tax use in other areas. (lower crime, less chronic unemployment, are things that seem to come with a well educated populace)

danivon wrote:Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

Um, we don't do "national police." It's not in the Constitution, it's not our tradition, and it is way too centralized.

This is something States and local communities are supposed to do. How would the Federal government know what is an appropriate level of policing for Podunk, Iowa? Would it be responsive to particular needs of a given neighborhood?

What the Federal government does is give States and local governments funding with strings attached. On occasion, that funding is, frankly, idiotic. During the Clinton years, the COPS program was highly touted. I know one guy who was on a COPS task force. Their mission was to root out the homeless from a local park. It was a poor area, but even poor folks don't like the homeless using their children's park as an outhouse.

Local and State governments are not broke. Show me a town that can't keep its library open, has shut down its schools, and has no money to pay the town council, and I'll show you a town that might need Federal assistance. However, as long as Uncle Sam is willing to take money from one town to give to another, towns and States don't have to make the tough decisions they need to make.

As for how much improved the economy is:

Rather than a breakout surge in economic growth, mainstream forecasters say, Americans should expect the U.S. economy to slog forward for another couple of years.

The economy grew at a subpar annual rate of 1.7 percent last year, down from 3 percent the year before. The consensus forecast for this year now is for growth of 2 to 2.5 percent.

The U.S. economy is expected to slow later this year, dragged down by slowing global growth, rising anxiety about the elections and the specter of gridlock in Washington over urgent tax, spending and debt deadlines. The Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the payroll tax cut of the past two years expire at year’s end, when last year’s debt deal also will force across-the-board cuts in federal spending unless Congress and the president strike new deals, but there’s no consensus on that.

A spate of recent indicators punctuated fears that the economy is stalling. March delivered only 120,000 new jobs, and the latest manufacturing and real estate data softened. Some economists say the economy’s strong six-month run through March might not be sustainable.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/24/n ... -in-march/

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

Um, we don't do "national police." It's not in the Constitution, it's not our tradition, and it is way too centralized.

In other words the dogma of Constitutionalism, the dogma of small-c conservatism, and the dogma of, ummm, dogma. Of course, you do have national policing, and it appears to be Constitutional.

Perhaps you misread my question, so I'll highlight the bit you appeared to miss...

"Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'.[/quote]

This is something States and local communities are supposed to do. How would the Federal government know what is an appropriate level of policing for Podunk, Iowa? Would it be responsive to particular needs of a given neighborhood?

Did I say they should fund 100% of policing? Nope. I think there are national, regional and local components. The reality of the modern world is that crime easily crosses parochial borders. Why should we be hidebound in how we pay to fight it?

I see no reason why States and local communities cannot be responsible for how and where funds are spent, or for raising a large proportion of the money for their own needs and setting priorities

However, the sheer number of different law enforcement agencies across the USA, with competing jurisdictions and priorities is boggling. Crime is a national problem, and the 'tradition' of parochial policing only serves to help criminals.