The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

If "Taking out a mortgage" is the "Extreme example" in terms of the requirements of financial literacy, then we're truly screwed.

Part of being financially literate is knowing when a situation may be beyond your knowledge base and consulting a professional. Know your limits, seek help when in doubt.

[mr_genius]

I'm watching Meet the Press and David Gregory is a very dimwitted individual. He really has ruined this show.

[Texsox]

If you are going to require a HS course in balancing a checkbook and basic consumer law, what course will you be removing? We have required courses our way to almost zero electives.

 

At least in Texas, you *are* required to complete a college loan education program on-line. It very clearly explains the repayment process and how not having a job etc, will not cause you to not have to pay. It is so clear and simple even someone with a PhD* can understand it.

*I kid because I care™

[NorthSideSox72]

If you are going to require a HS course in balancing a checkbook and basic consumer law, what course will you be removing? We have required courses our way to almost zero electives.

 

At least in Texas, you *are* required to complete a college loan education program on-line. It very clearly explains the repayment process and how not having a job etc, will not cause you to not have to pay. It is so clear and simple even someone with a PhD* can understand it.

*I kid because I care™

I would contend that having a basic knowledge of finance is more important than, say, many of the science courses. In fact I'd say it is more important to having a successful life than nearly anything in high school other than English and HS-level math.

 

[southsider2k5]

I would contend that having a basic knowledge of finance is more important than, say, many of the science courses. In fact I'd say it is more important to having a successful life than nearly anything in high school other than English and HS-level math.

 

I'd agree with this 100%. No matter what you do with your life, you will need basic finance. Odds are you won't need something like biology.

[Balta1701]

I'd agree with this 100%. No matter what you do with your life, you will need basic finance. Odds are you won't need something like biology.

Thankfully we dont have people reproducing in this country or having to make medical decisions that benefit from a knowledge of anatomy.

[southsider2k5]

Thankfully we dont have people reproducing in this country or having to make medical decisions that benefit from a knowledge of anatomy.

 

And none of those involve finance at all.

[Balta1701]

And none of those involve finance at all.

However, they do involve "Biology".

 

I'm sure when we realize that we've made people even more unprepared to make decisions based on anatomy and about reproduction, and they wind up surprised that diseases they have carry down or they start asking the government to make more decisions about exactly which treatments they should undergo, you'll have no issues with them stepping in to fill the role, right?

[southsider2k5]

However, they do involve "Biology".

 

I'm sure when we realize that we've made people even more unprepared to make decisions based on anatomy and about reproduction, and they wind up surprised that diseases they have carry down or they start asking the government to make more decisions about exactly which treatments they should undergo, you'll have no issues with them stepping in to fill the role, right?

 

You mean paying for it? Hmm...

[southsider2k5]

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spo...nds-consistency

 

Ax, You’re on the Wrong Candidate’s Team to Make the Flip-Flopper Charge

 

The chief adviser for President Expiration Date says that there’s a question as to what Mitt Romney’s core principles are.

 

“I think there’s this question about what his core principles are,” Axelrod said, citing changes in Romney’s positions from earlier in his political career when he was running for U.S. Senate and Massachusetts governor. “Then he was a pro choice, pro gay rights, pro environmental candidate for office. Then he decided to run for president. Did a 180 on all of that.”

 

“So time and time and time again he shifts – and you get the feeling that there is no principle too large for him to throw over in pursuit of political office,” Axelrod added.

 

Axelrod has recently turned a laser-like focus to Romney, holding a conference call last Wednesday to critique Romney’s record and his remarks at last Tuesday’s GOP debate.

 

“If I were Governor Romney I’d be worried about all these changes in position and . . . what kind of message that sends to voters,” Axelrod told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour.

 

Really? Governor Romney has to worry about being attacked for inconsistency by a president who attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the individual mandate, who promised all of the health care negotiations would be on C-SPAN, that anyone making less than $250,000 wouldn’t see their taxes raised a dime, who now is a fan of recess appointments, who pledged to close Guantanamo Bay within one year, who pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, who pledged a net spending cut, who would press the Chinese on human rights, who wouldn’t allow lobbyists to work in his White House, who pledged to avoid bringing “the same Washington players” into his administration, posting every law on the White House web site for five days before signing it, who pledged to end the income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, who pledged to end no-bid contracts above $25,000, who pledged to double federal funding for cancer research, who pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps, double funding for afterschool programs, to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour, to support a human mission to the moon by 2020, to establish term-limit for the Director of National Intelligence, to enact a windfall profits tax, to create a cap-and-trade system, to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and to introduce a comprehensive immigration reform plan in his first year.

 

To be fair, we know what the core principles of Barack Obama are: blaming corporate jet owners and ATMS for job losses, shrugging his shoulders at scandals like Solyndra and Fast and Furious, fundraisers, telling the American people they’ve gone soft, and golf.

 

Still, at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson feels like Obama’s right-hand-man’s arguments sound . . . familiar. “AxelPlouffe is going after Romney as a flip flopper. Hey, that’s our gig! Axelrod says voters are unsure about Romney’s “core principles“. No problem there for Obama, we know exactly what his core principles are.”

 

As Jeff Poor reports, the Obama team feels quite eager to get the general election started already: “Earlier in the program, chief Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod made it clear that the president’s reelection strategy was focused on attacking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with little regard for the other GOP contenders, including Cain and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Will said that President Obama’s campaign strategy will be to go after the Republican candidate because his administration’s “record isn’t particularly appetizing.”

 

“They’ve clearly decided that Romney is the problem,” [George] Will continued. “And they have a problem with Romney because they’re not going to run on their record because the record isn’t particularly appetizing. Therefore they’re going to run on the fitness of the Republican candidate. And I think precisely because how do we say this, Romney showed a certain versatility of conviction over the years, it’s hard to nail him down.”

 

“Versatility of conviction.” Nobody does it like Will.

[Balta1701]

If you've paid attention, I think it's quite clear that the Obama administration has been hugging Mittens a lot more than anyone else in the race, especially when it comes to health care. I think it's pretty clear they think he's their strongest opponent.

[southsider2k5]

If you've paid attention, I think it's quite clear that the Obama administration has been hugging Mittens a lot more than anyone else in the race, especially when it comes to health care. I think it's pretty clear they think he's their strongest opponent.

 

Well except when they send an adviser on Sunday TV to trash him...

[Balta1701]

Well except when they send an adviser on Sunday TV to trash him...

Could mean that they think the primary race is all but decided.

[southsider2k5]

Could mean that they think the primary race is all but decided.

 

It probably is sadly. Even more sad is that I would rather see Romney's flexible spine than Cain.

[NorthSideSox72]

It probably is sadly. Even more sad is that I would rather see Romney's flexible spine than Cain.

The only two candidates in the current GOP field that I might consider voting for over Obama, are Huntsman, Romney and Gingrich, in that order. Romney is the only one of those three with a real chance of winning. At this point, I am not sure if I'd vote for Romney or Obama.

 

[EvilMonkey]

However, they do involve "Biology".

 

I'm sure when we realize that we've made people even more unprepared to make decisions based on anatomy and about reproduction, and they wind up surprised that diseases they have carry down or they start asking the government to make more decisions about exactly which treatments they should undergo, you'll have no issues with them stepping in to fill the role, right?

Don't they learn all about the babies stuff when they are trying to teach them sex-ed in grade school? Or do they just concentrate on how to put a condom on cucumbers?

[Balta1701]

Don't they learn all about the babies stuff when they are trying to teach them sex-ed in grade school? Or do they just concentrate on how to put a condom on cucumbers?

They certainly didn't cover how traits are inherited in my Health Class.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A...5-This-Year.htm

 

The Austerity Myth: Federal Spending Up 5% This Year

 

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08:05 AM ET

 

When Republicans took control of the House in January, they pledged to make deep cuts in federal spending, and in April they succeeded in getting a bill advertised as cutting $38 billion from fiscal 2011's budget. Then in August, they pushed for a deal to cut another $2.4 trillion over the next decade.

 

Some analysts have blamed these spending cuts for this year's economic slowdown.

 

But data released by the Treasury Department on Friday show that, so far, there hasn't been any spending cuts at all.

 

In fact, in the first nine months of this year, federal spending was $120 billion higher than in the same period in 2010, the data show. That's an increase of almost 5%. And deficits during this time were $23.5 billion higher.

 

 

 

These spending hikes haven't stopped many analysts from claiming that the country is in an age of budget austerity, one that's hurting economic growth.

 

A July article in USA Today, for example, claimed that "Already in 2011, softer government spending has sapped growth."

 

Jared Bernstein, former chief economic adviser to Vice President Biden, wrote over the summer that "government spending cutbacks have been a large drag on growth in recent quarters and have led to sharp losses in state and local employment."

 

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argued in September that "the turn toward austerity (is) a major factor in our growth slowdown."

 

If government spending is related to growth, as these and others claim, then the economy presumably should be growing faster, not slower, given the current higher rates of federal outlays.

 

Nor does the claim that state governments sharply cut spending stand up well to closer scrutiny.

 

Overall state spending continued to climb right through the recession, when all money from state general funds and other funds, federal grants and state bonds is combined.

 

Total state spending in 2010 was almost 10% higher than in 2008, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers' annual State Expenditure Report.

 

And general fund spending — which makes up about 40% of total state spending — is expected to climb 5.2% this year and 2.6% next year, according to the association's latest survey.

 

NASBO says that states were able to sustain spending growth through 2010 only because the federal government was pumping more money in via the $830 billion stimulus, and that these funds are now all but exhausted.

 

As the survey report notes, the tapering off the stimulus "combined with a slow recovery in state revenue collections, will continue the tight resource environment for states in fiscal 2012."

[Texsox]

I would contend that having a basic knowledge of finance is more important than, say, many of the science courses. In fact I'd say it is more important to having a successful life than nearly anything in high school other than English and HS-level math.

 

 

We could also add parenting classes, career planning, and a few more.

 

I agree on the value but can a required for graduation high school course be taught both at a level every HS student will understand *and* fully prepare the person to make financial decisions on a home mortage eight or ten years down the road?

 

We keep adding to the schools things that should be considered knowledge that parents should cover in raising their kids. I know they can't so we have schools teaching the kids everything from sex to finances to driving. Why not just have schools adopt the kids and eliminate the parents? And if you say look at the news, the parents don't know this stuff, I will agree. But it just seems like piling how to survive in life to the schools may be too much.

[NorthSideSox72]

We could also add parenting classes, career planning, and a few more.

 

I agree on the value but can a required for graduation high school course be taught both at a level every HS student will understand *and* fully prepare the person to make financial decisions on a home mortage eight or ten years down the road?

 

We keep adding to the schools things that should be considered knowledge that parents should cover in raising their kids. I know they can't so we have schools teaching the kids everything from sex to finances to driving. Why not just have schools adopt the kids and eliminate the parents? And if you say look at the news, the parents don't know this stuff, I will agree. But it just seems like piling how to survive in life to the schools may be too much.

I absolutely agree that parents should teach there kids this stuff. But you could say that about everything in school, pretty much, so really it comes down to priorities. I believe that basic finance is more important than some things already required. I also think some things like driving should not be done during normal school hours.

 

[southsider2k5]

We could also add parenting classes, career planning, and a few more.

 

I agree on the value but can a required for graduation high school course be taught both at a level every HS student will understand *and* fully prepare the person to make financial decisions on a home mortage eight or ten years down the road?

 

We keep adding to the schools things that should be considered knowledge that parents should cover in raising their kids. I know they can't so we have schools teaching the kids everything from sex to finances to driving. Why not just have schools adopt the kids and eliminate the parents? And if you say look at the news, the parents don't know this stuff, I will agree. But it just seems like piling how to survive in life to the schools may be too much.

 

In a lot of cases, that would be a net positive sadly.

[Balta1701]

In a lot of cases, that would be a net positive sadly.

(actually, most scientific work on this subject says that unless the parent is about to sell the kid for drugs...it's always better to keep the kid with his or her parent.)

[southsider2k5]

(actually, most scientific work on this subject says that unless the parent is about to sell the kid for drugs...it's always better to keep the kid with his or her parent.)

 

Living and working in a school system with 70% poverty rates, I don't care what the stats say. There are kids who don't have a chance, and it is because of their idiotic parents.

[Balta1701]

Living and working in a school system with 70% poverty rates, I don't care what the stats say. There are kids who don't have a chance, and it is because of their idiotic parents.

...But taking them away from those parents can still make things worse.

[Texsox]

Living and working in a school system with 70% poverty rates, I don't care what the stats say. There are kids who don't have a chance, and it is because of their idiotic parents.

 

When you really want to talk poverty, I'll share some stats from my students.

 

And many of these kids only have *a* chance, but it is very thin and perhaps they have it despite their parents.