US Presidential Debate and what is really important to people

[AbandonEgo]

People’s minds have become too tired to be reasoned with. Perception of attitude has yet again prevailed as the attractive attribute of leadership. To use a debate to promote winners and losers is to disband the critical awareness necessary to understand what is really happening. The one who can create rational is not as important as the one who creates direction.

Also, the moderator must realize and demonstrate his power to both the candidates. This is why, the moderators need to be those of independent parties. Someone who is themselves empowered to take on the role of a president, or someone who has already taken the role of president.

 

What people need to see is the bridging of ideas. A great leader will find ways to cross barriers of communication to discover unity. A common force is more powerful than a divided one. Yet we like to watch ego battles and determine winners. How lame. The real tests of a person’s character are their choices in life. The way they address the challenges that life throws in their way will give a demonstration of resolve.

 

Ultimately, must our philosophical differences cause our common goal of a successful nation to fail? Republicans and Democrats, they have their own vested interests. That is what they should be honest about. The debate format must change - “who do you work for, and what do you support?” of course the answer would be the American People and American Values. But that is not the whole truth.

 

The truth is these people are figure heads. They are not well versed in understanding anything more than what they have read, heard, and sometimes experienced. Life itself is so vast that no one man can ever understand every aspect of it. So we depend on support staff to clarify issues.

This is where the candidate must be pressed to reveal – especially when they choose to hide behind a justification – “who do you owe favors to?” This is important because it will determine the next 4 years of presidency and maybe more. Their political platform is a transient parlor show – resulting as mostly fiction. Their perspective on various issues is a shadow formed by their dance in the spotlight.

 

The tactic is always to promote the interests of their fellow man. Yet, which president could truly fulfill noble intentions, especially when aligned or affiliated with some commercial interests? Keep in mind, the system does not allow for moral regulation of commerce. Moreover, the allocation of resources has always been mismanaged.

 

Think about the butchers from back in the day, they might save the best cut of meat for their friends and family. This kind of favoritism is ever-present in human nature. Globally, nepotism has survived all our advances.

 

The reality of Chinese debt collectors is a necessary phenomenon to maintain Global economic relationships. Interdependence among nations is vital to sustain a global system. The regulation of national relationships will be the next step to coordinate global economy. They current repercussion of creating one value system for the entire world is the failure of the Euro. Different nations are in different developmental stages. Therefore their productivity will reflect the infrastructure of the nation.

 

So what do you all think?

[Protector]

O Canada

Our home and native land

True patriotic love

and I forgot the rest

[Aetherous]

the system does not allow for moral regulation of commerce

 

Yup.

 

By the way, slightly off topic, but with the debates I think it's a good idea to go to Fact Check afterward.

[chi 2012]

Yup.

 

By the way, slightly off topic, but with the debates I think it's a good idea to go to Fact Check afterward.

 

You think fact check is non biased? A google search said Fox news uses fact check. That doesn't mean Fact check is biased though......I'm just wondering....It's hard to find anything these days that doesn't have a bias.

[Aetherous]

To me it seems almost entirely unbiased, at least when it comes to specific claims being made by the two major parties.

Edited October 5, 2012 by turtle shell

[AbandonEgo]

Yup.

 

By the way, slightly off topic, but with the debates I think it's a good idea to go to Fact Check afterward.

 

I think this is a great website. Is there one that enumerates the financial backing for each candidate. The next four years will probably be determined by who is owed favors. It takes millions of dollars to get someone into office. Who ever contributes the most will most likely want something in return.

 

Bush and Cheney had Haliburton and other companies that they wanted to scratch backs for.

 

what about Obama and Romney? who are the puppet masters?

[Aetherous]

Not that I'm aware of. Maybe that information is private in most cases? Would be nice to see a website like that, though.

 

IMO, it should be illegal for money and media to influence a political campaign. But cash rules everything around me.

 

About Obama's puppet masters...the most shocking thing for me has been his administration pushing the unconstitutional aspects of the NDAA.

[AbandonEgo]

Not that I'm aware of. Maybe that information is private in most cases? Would be nice to see a website like that, though.

 

IMO, it should be illegal for money and media to influence a political campaign. But cash rules everything around me.

 

About Obama's puppet masters...the most shocking thing for me has been his administration pushing the unconstitutional aspects of the NDAA.

 

Scary to think that they are ready to "strike the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens"

 

I think it is frightening to think our rights are being etched away. What kind of war do they want to wage on Iran?

[eye_of_the_storm]

one that will destroy the entire planet at least 3 times over

[zerostao]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ceo-workers-youll-likely-fired-131640914.html

 

[Stosh]

 

The reality of Chinese debt collectors is a necessary phenomenon to maintain Global economic relationships. So what do you all think?

 

Sorry I believe the Chinese debt holding thing is rather a bogus perception which Romney 'used' rather than corrected.

The vast majority of our debt is to american individuals , only 8 percent is held by China.

There is no villainy in the debt holding , there is irresponsibility by the american public

to understand that their champions are not managing money well and in not understanding that bouncing back and forth between the two parties is not enough choice. Moreover loyalty to either party is essentially an act of ignorance, sometimes one should spend -creating debt-, and sometimes one should rein in spending and pay off debt.

One recipe for all situations creates bad results.

Holding loyalty to a party, rather than holding loyalty to all the people( by demanding honesty and responsibility by those who are supposed to lead ) is beginning to shred the fabric of our fortunes.

Folks tune in to hear hate mongers , or to newscasts which are just gossipy speculations on candidates body language , or whether they think other people were impressed by some quip or verbal slip.

We americans are going to reap what we sowed.

Stosh

[zerostao]

what stosh said

[Aetherous]

Word.

[Stosh]

Thanks for actually saying so.

Stosh

[gendao]

Sorry I believe the Chinese debt holding thing is rather a bogus perception which Romney 'used' rather than corrected.

The vast majority of our debt is to american individuals , only 8 percent is held by China.

There is no villainy in the debt holding , there is irresponsibility by the american public

to understand that their champions are not managing money well and in not understanding that bouncing back and forth between the two parties is not enough choice. Moreover loyalty to either party is essentially an act of ignorance, sometimes one should spend -creating debt-, and sometimes one should rein in spending and pay off debt.

 

We americans are going to reap what we sowed.

Stosh

Exactly, losing focus on plain competence in favor of social engineering, the IMF-run FRB banking, overspending on perpetual, terroristic wars farrrr beyond our borders and any pretense of self-defense and ruining our nation's health with our purely profit-driven food and medical industry has resulted in a giant black hole of debt. Scapegoating this on other harder-working countries with more sustainable economic values is only covering-up and worsening our own root culprits here.

 

Meanwhile, our Persidential debates are laughable charades in controlled opposition with all of the real issues and voices strictly silenced...

Police arrest US presidential candidate Jill Stein at debate site

 

Police arrested Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, after they tried to enter the site of tonight’s presidential debate at the Hofstra University.

The two were protesting against the exclusion of all but the two major political parties from taking part in the debate.

 

“Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's #debate a "mockumentary",” said a tweet posted on her account.

[media]

[/meia]

The presidential candidate and her vice-presidential nominee were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, Stein's campaign website says. The women are currently still in police custody.

 

The arrest comes after an announcement by the Green Party that the candidates will take “Occupy the Commission on Presidential Debates” action on the night of the debate.

 

This is a great day for democracy,” Stein told The Philadelphia Weekly by phone as she headed to the debate site. “It’s a great day for the politics of courage.” She said they’re attempting their stunt because fighting the exclusion of this debate is a “push-back against the stranglehold of the economic elite — and especially of this forum.”

The candidates claim that the Commission on Presidential Debates is an unfair entity formed by Democratic and Republican leaders designed to exclude any opposition.

Edited October 17, 2012 by vortex

[Aetherous]

Vortex, droppin the truth bombz.

 

I was disappointed to see my favored candidate get arrested tonight. I'm glad they are trying to make the issue known, in whatever way possible. They have been released already...

 

About the chart of "Who Owns our Federal Debt"...it can be misleading to look at because that's only publicly owned debt. This article sums it up well: "So America owes foreigners about $4.5 trillion in debt. But America owes America $9.8 trillion."

 

Here are the top categories, to keep things in perspective:

• U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
  
• China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
  
• The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
  
• Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
  

[joeblast]

Why a balanced budget is (pretty much) impossible in america

 

If the US government cut all government services except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest payments, federal spending would still outpace revenues. As we noted here, these four mandatory items dominate costs. All the arguing over sequestration and the fiscal cliff are moot since as Professor Antony Davis notes in this brief clip, there are no specific cuts that will enable government to balance the budget; in fact "nothing less than a complete redesign will solve the problem." That redesign begins with determing the proper role of government.

 

[Aetherous]

Nice, clear video...so the question is really, how do we raise federal revenue?

[joeblast]

Heh Was it really clear, if you are framing the question like that? *elbow nudge*

 

The question is, how do we reduce federal outlays to some actually reasonable, sustainable level? Unfortunately any notions of "raising the federal revenue" are but tinkering around the edges - nobody is ever going to be able to raise tax revenues here to the pace at which the government would like to continue expanding - nor to the present level of expansion...or the expansion of the last 30, 40 years. The government has used monetary obfuscation to grow far beyond both its means and our means as citizens - and we are sitting here thinking this is the norm! All of the largesse has either been put on a credit card or has come about via watered down currency. When measured in real, cold hard value, the path is mathematically unsustainable to a breathtaking extent and its only via the reserve status of the dollar that we've gone this far (and the resultant abusing of said status as a means for the government to do more with thin, hot air 'credit' and little else.) This problem we're experiencing now was given a huge boost with the ending of the bretton woods gold standard stuff, but the roots of it were long since in place by even that time. This problem of federal outlays and the endless growth of the federal government has been a LONG time comin and like the euro problems will entail pain and the sooner we do it the less pain there will be, the longer we wait thinking we can dig ourselves out of a hole is only going to leave a chasm that grows wider from fantasy to reality every day.

 

I know, I know...people like their "free shit." Ergo nobody wants to "reduce the size of government" and most people think its a crazy idea to cut back the size and scope of government, but at this point it is a simple mathematical necessity, lest we be down the path of hyperinflated banana republic insolvency. (It turned a deep recession around at the beginning of the 1920s but evolved into a fed blown fiat bubble that crashed in the 30s - but the trimming back of government had the correct effect, it was simply poisoned by other issues.)

 

The world has changed and continues to change and people will not be kept in the dark forever about what the government does.

 

Those that think we can just create a few government programs and fix anything whatsoever simply have no understanding of the root causes of the problems we face. That's why I said in another thread that anyone who really looked at the math was supporting ron paul, because he was the only one that had a grasp on the size and scope of the fiscal problems. Everyone else is status quo in comparison.

[Aetherous]

Heh Was it really clear, if you are framing the question like that? *elbow nudge*

 

That's basically what the professor insinuated by saying, "the wrong way to deal with these choices is to weigh specific cuts, because there are no specific cuts that will solve the problem." Anyway...reading the rest of your post now...

[Aetherous]

nobody is ever going to be able to raise tax revenues here to the pace at which the government would like to continue expanding

 

Expanding, kind of like how Romney wants to "maintain the total level of defense spending, shifting war funds to the Pentagon's base budget." Something to think about.

 

I know, I know...people like their "free shit."

 

What are you referring to? Unemployment checks, etc (which keep families afloat when needed)? Which that video clearly shows won't make a difference in terms of our increasing debt.

 

Ergo nobody wants to "reduce the size of government" and most people think its a crazy idea to cut back the size and scope of government

 

Well, I think it's a great idea...as long as it doesn't ruin our country in the future. For instance, when researching Paul Ryan I saw that he supports the idea of getting rid of many student loan programs, making the ones that we keep harder to afford, while simultaneously increasing the cost to the student. If people in our country are less likely to go to college, they won't get the jobs that require a degree, they will be poor and less likely to increase local spending and give back to the economy. So...lets be smart about which aspects of the government we're trimming away at, rather than just assume that too much government is baaaad.

 

Anyway, besides these things, I have such a hard time understanding the economy. I'm trying, man...this is the first year I've begun paying close attention to all aspects involved in politics. I've been looking for a good book that can dumb it down for me, as well...

[Stosh]

You cant ever raise enough revenue to satisfy the ability to spend.

The overall burden of government on business and individuals must be reduced

Tiny individual cuts only affect who 'gets to say what' to get elected

and the only way to allow our elected officials to have the balls to

make real change is to deconstruct present party politic power.

JMO

Stosh

[Aetherous]

I think this is a great website. Is there one that enumerates the financial backing for each candidate. The next four years will probably be determined by who is owed favors. It takes millions of dollars to get someone into office. Who ever contributes the most will most likely want something in return.

 

Bush and Cheney had Haliburton and other companies that they wanted to scratch backs for.

 

what about Obama and Romney? who are the puppet masters?

 

Just stumbled upon http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php which might have these kinds of answers.

[joeblast]

Expanding, kind of like how Romney wants to "maintain the total level of defense spending, shifting war funds to the Pentagon's base budget." Something to think about.

As always, presidential voting is for the lesser of two evils. I strongly disagree with automatic baseline budgeting like that (="as GDP grows we will by default increase spending X amount per %unit of GDP" but then the spending winds up continuing its upward trajectory even if GDP falls. As if GDP isnt some obscure, narrow statistical representation as it is.) Either way, mathematical reality is going to turn into a headwall before we get out towards the end of the projections from those links, I think. I agree with the author in that "we should not institutionalize the war costs" and say that since we were spending X billion on defense + war costs = Y total, its not ok to just say "well since we were spending Y anyway, we'll just wind down the war costs and transfer that elsewhere in the pentagon budget."

 

But then you contrast to Obama's "budget" (if you can call it that) and he assumes a same level of overall spending but uses it to offset the huge holes his other ideas blow in the budget.

 

=holes in the budget either way, except one path is going to encourage businesses and economic activity, another is going to continue to punish it (admin's actions on businesses are directly reflected in the u6 in this regard, you dont get 'flat' recoveries unless the picture is very distorted by non-market considerations...=read 'political considerations trump rationality.') From my own analysis, the holes in the budget will be significantly higher under Obama, there will be less economic activity, more demanded of businesses, a lot more regulations, less demanded of people in general. As we've seen since Obama took the football and started running toward the wrong end zone, more or less.

 

 

What are you referring to? Unemployment checks, etc (which keep families afloat when needed)? Which that video clearly shows won't make a difference in terms of our increasing debt.

Key word there, when needed - 99 weeks of unemployment is preposterous and it is wrong of the fed gov to make promises and then shift however much of that promise onto state budgets (like Obamacare does in a huge way.) That's one aspect the video leaves out - we have a bunch of states that are in relatively bad shape too and a lot of these helper programs lean on the states also. SS disability is ridiculously abused. SS itself is an unsustainable paradigm and needs modification. Medicare is rife with fraud yet for some reason they can never find any. We shouldnt be handing out free cel phones either. Do you think its a good idea for a person to qualify for half a dozen different forms of aid to live on, with relatively open ended commitments for society? These "helper" programs are intended to be temporary, they're not there for people to live off of. Its why kids of all species are ousted from their parent's homes and made to go make it on their own - otherwise the species as a whole would start to suffer at the lack of initiative. Overuse of these programs, no check and balances on them...you might as well flood the land with opiates.

 

 

Well, I think it's a great idea...as long as it doesn't ruin our country in the future. For instance, when researching Paul Ryan I saw that he supports the idea of getting rid of many student loan programs, making the ones that we keep harder to afford, while simultaneously increasing the cost to the student. If people in our country are less likely to go to college, they won't get the jobs that require a degree, they will be poor and less likely to increase local spending and give back to the economy. So...lets be smart about which aspects of the government we're trimming away at, rather than just assume that too much government is baaaad.

 

Anyway, besides these things, I have such a hard time understanding the economy. I'm trying, man...this is the first year I've begun paying close attention to all aspects involved in politics. I've been looking for a good book that can dumb it down for me, as well...

We are already in the midst of a student loan bubble since the federal government decided to simply write a blank check to guarantee all student loans - the problem is, "college" has become "high school II" and has been touted as some mandatory thing for any job applicant to have. But like anything else that has been stupendously oversubsidized, it makes the price curve bend upward (4x the rate of inflation last I looked) and has been leaving many people that get degrees sitting there with huge debt and no job market for the skills they went to learn. Long ago it used to be the businesses who did job training - college sort of took the place of a lot of that, with employers being relatively confident of a certain skillset as one left college - but with the expansion of available degrees, many of dubious value - who the hell wants to go $100k into debt in order to get a $30k/year job? The math just does not add up any longer for more and more people. "But you HAVE to have a college degree" is what they've had hammered into their heads for a long time, so they sign, and hope for a job market when they get out. There's a trillion on student loan debt right now with an unnaturally large percentage of it in default, although I dont recall exactly how much the default rate is otomh - what's the trickle down effects of that? Who's going to have money for a house? What's the fix for that new problem, more housing subsidy?

 

It winds up being an endless rabbit hole of government tinkering and trying fixes to fix the ills that other fixes caused. Government action has a measure of influence on people's behavior, but only up to a point before it starts manifesting unintended consequences. Dont get me wrong, there's a lot of things college is great for, but that like many other things is going to have to become streamlined, the gravy train needs to wind down, we dont need 1 teacher and 3 administrators per pupil, with the Dean making 3, 5, 7 hundred grand a year in salary. Big businesses are just as bad, with the Boards putting their favorite pal in as CEO, CFO, paying them a few mil a year along with tens of mil in stock options - completely disregarding any sort of emphasis on the company's performance. But when TSHTF, be sure to cut back all the middle management jobs, trim back everyone's bonuses and pensions, but leave the exec's mil or 3 bonus untouched.

 

Those things are cultural rot.

[Aetherous]

As always, presidential voting is for the lesser of two evils.

 

Always? That's what they want us to think.

 

I strongly disagree with automatic baseline budgeting like that (="as GDP grows we will by default increase spending X amount per %unit of GDP" but then the spending winds up continuing its upward trajectory even if GDP falls. As if GDP isnt some obscure, narrow statistical representation as it is.) Either way, mathematical reality is going to turn into a headwall before we get out towards the end of the projections from those links, I think. I agree with the author in that "we should not institutionalize the war costs" and say that since we were spending X billion on defense + war costs = Y total, its not ok to just say "well since we were spending Y anyway, we'll just wind down the war costs and transfer that elsewhere in the pentagon budget."

 

Totally agree.

 

But then you contrast to Obama's "budget" (if you can call it that) and he assumes a same level of overall spending but uses it to offset the huge holes his other ideas blow in the budget.

 

Well, "deficit reduction" seems a lot better to me than increasing the Pentagon's base budget! We can brush it off by saying, "well he spends a ton in other areas" but at least in regard to this very clear issue, Obama's choice is extremely good and Romney's is extremely bad.

 

Saying this as someone not even Democrat or voting for Obama, of course...

 

=holes in the budget either way, except one path is going to encourage businesses and economic activity, another is going to continue to punish it (admin's actions on businesses are directly reflected in the u6 in this regard, you dont get 'flat' recoveries unless the picture is very distorted by non-market considerations...=read 'political considerations trump rationality.') From my own analysis, the holes in the budget will be significantly higher under Obama, there will be less economic activity, more demanded of businesses, a lot more regulations, less demanded of people in general. As we've seen since Obama took the football and started running toward the wrong end zone, more or less.

 

That's the typical Conservative perspective regarding Romney/Ryan...not to say it's bad, just saying that people agree with you. The only issue I have with it, is that perhaps it's not entirely true. Do we really know all of the facts, and can we predict the future? Anyway, I hope you're right if Romney wins...I'd love to see our country improve.

 

Oh also...one aspect I don't think would be an improvement is to demand more of people. It's a common Conservative thing these days to blame poor people for not working hard enough (when most of them that I know personally have 2-3 jobs, working more than full time, and still barely make rent). I don't think anyone really likes living on welfare, or unemployment, for instance. It's not nearly as much $ as they'd make in a real job, and it doesn't make the person feel honorable at all. No matter who they are! Sure, it's true that diamonds are formed through intense pressure...sometimes it motivates people to be required to work hard or else starve to death. But most of us are human beings, not diamonds...at other times the pressures of this society can crush us completely. Ever watch "The Pursuit of Happyness"? I don't view that as the American dream, as inspiring as it was to see someone struggling so hard. I view that as unfortunate and not representative of a free country! But, opinions differ...

 

Key word there, when needed - 99 weeks of unemployment is preposterous

 

I don't know. I have a friend who really needed that, and still wasn't able to land the job he was qualified for. Contrary to what we'd assume about a person getting free money, he was not doing well throughout that whole time. I agree it is excessive, though...you could say that the person should just get it until they can land a job doing anything, manufacturing, while they continue to apply in their field. I don't know why my friend chose to keep collecting.

 

Something to remember is that most people don't collect for the whole time. They use it in an honest way.

 

and it is wrong of the fed gov to make promises and then shift however much of that promise onto state budgets (like Obamacare does in a huge way.) That's one aspect the video leaves out - we have a bunch of states that are in relatively bad shape too and a lot of these helper programs lean on the states also. SS disability is ridiculously abused. SS itself is an unsustainable paradigm and needs modification. Medicare is rife with fraud yet for some reason they can never find any. We shouldnt be handing out free cel phones either. Do you think its a good idea for a person to qualify for half a dozen different forms of aid to live on, with relatively open ended commitments for society? These "helper" programs are intended to be temporary, they're not there for people to live off of. Its why kids of all species are ousted from their parent's homes and made to go make it on their own - otherwise the species as a whole would start to suffer at the lack of initiative. Overuse of these programs, no check and balances on them...you might as well flood the land with opiates.

 

Agree, to a certain point. Pretty much just what you said...these programs should be temporary.

 

We are already in the midst of a student loan bubble since the federal government decided to simply write a blank check to guarantee all student loans - the problem is, "college" has become "high school II" and has been touted as some mandatory thing for any job applicant to have.

 

This is a problem I have with employers, not the government. It's unnecessary to demand someone with a master's degree (this is the new "high school ii" these days), for a job that could only require a month of training for a person with a HS degree. So guaranteeing all student loans...that's awesome IMO.

 

Also if you consider our competition with other nations...from what I've seen in the news, we look like idiots when it comes to our education! I think cutting away at student loans is the last thing our government should do...and as your video showed, it's not something that would help the real problem anyway.

 

But like anything else that has been stupendously oversubsidized, it makes the price curve bend upward (4x the rate of inflation last I looked) and has been leaving many people that get degrees sitting there with huge debt and no job market for the skills they went to learn. Long ago it used to be the businesses who did job training - college sort of took the place of a lot of that, with employers being relatively confident of a certain skillset as one left college - but with the expansion of available degrees, many of dubious value - who the hell wants to go $100k into debt in order to get a $30k/year job? The math just does not add up any longer for more and more people. "But you HAVE to have a college degree" is what they've had hammered into their heads for a long time, so they sign, and hope for a job market when they get out. There's a trillion on student loan debt right now with an unnaturally large percentage of it in default, although I dont recall exactly how much the default rate is otomh - what's the trickle down effects of that? Who's going to have money for a house? What's the fix for that new problem, more housing subsidy?

 

I think businesses should do more job training, again. Employers have been the root of the problem; THAT is why post college kids are unemployed with huge debt. They're not sitting at their parent's home because they had access to student loans...they have an education and are more qualified for other jobs because they got student loans! They're better off, even if temporarily unemployed and in debt.

 

Here's a story...I dropped out of college a year before graduation. I was going through a rough time, and was thinking about how I was only going to make 35k tops starting out, so I wanted to look at other options. I took an entire winter/summer doing a job search...spending at least 3 hours a day searching every job board, etc. Found absolutely nothing, except one job I ran into out of luck...roofing. I worked 2 days and killed my back. They were paying me $12.50 an hour, which is pretty damn good for someone without a college degree...but doing the math, that's only 24k a year. So, I went back to school and finished up...now am studying for a board exam, and once I pass, can finally work.

 

I am one of the people who used student loans, sitting at their parent's home, with huge debt, unemployed...but for good reason. This is where I have to be right now. Soon enough, I'll land a real job.

 

For someone who really invests themselves in finding a non-college job...they can get something comparable to a well paying job. My little brother, out of luck, recently got a delivery job that's paying him close to 30k a year. My cousin started out as a welder through an apprentice program. Truck driving jobs are constantly hiring (because it sucks, haha).

 

BUT what I'm trying to say is...right now college is still the best option. I know through experience.

 

It winds up being an endless rabbit hole of government tinkering and trying fixes to fix the ills that other fixes caused. Government action has a measure of influence on people's behavior, but only up to a point before it starts manifesting unintended consequences. Dont get me wrong, there's a lot of things college is great for, but that like many other things is going to have to become streamlined, the gravy train needs to wind down, we dont need 1 teacher and 3 administrators per pupil, with the Dean making 3, 5, 7 hundred grand a year in salary. Big businesses are just as bad, with the Boards putting their favorite pal in as CEO, CFO, paying them a few mil a year along with tens of mil in stock options - completely disregarding any sort of emphasis on the company's performance. But when TSHTF, be sure to cut back all the middle management jobs, trim back everyone's bonuses and pensions, but leave the exec's mil or 3 bonus untouched.

 

Those things are cultural rot.

 

Now we're talking. 100% agree.