|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 17:58:45 GMT -5
Well, Sandman, he's just following the Republican party line, isn't he?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 21:28:16 GMT -5
At present, filling out the FAFSA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) is akin to giving your identity and finances a body cavity search. They want to know how much money you have to your name - including frozen assets - down to the last penny. [...blah, blah, blah...] Isn't it interesting how Sky advocates the CPAC dittohead ideas of small government and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps do-it-yourself American elbow grease....but also wants the Feds to hand him cash with no questions? Astonishing. It's a matter of scale. On one hand, we've got firms making millions of money who already have bloody accountants and such on hand to do this kind of stuff anyway. On the other hand, we've got families who are probably just scraping by to begin with and are having to do everything solo.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 5, 2009 21:35:07 GMT -5
....so when Bush throws gobs of cash at a problem, it's a solution. When Obama does the same thing, and attaches stuff like limiting spending by the bailed out coperations, capping CEO pay, and making them culpuble to goverment oversight(if anyone can tell me what word I was acutally trying to use that'd be a big help) it's just wasting money. Ironbite-or was that the gist of your points there Skybaby? Quoting myself so Skydumbass can answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 21:41:23 GMT -5
Sky, Sky, Sky. I don't know what is sadder. The fact that you are taking the fastest track to a "professorship" that you can, the fact that there is an actual chance that you may attain such and be given instructorial status over live human beings, or the fact that you believe you can vault from a paper route to an executive position merely by 4-yearing an MBA. I full expect to have done more than just the route by then, both big and small. I'm just stating a theoretical based on the established minimums. As it is, a lot of the professorships at the local community college (where I'd start first, as they have a fairly high turnover and thus more openings) are only part-time to begin with and so I'd need another source of income anyway. For example, I'm looking at writing a handful of case studies. One study will be entirely fictitious. One of my professors is disappointed in the fact that whenever he assigns a case study from the book that is more than a few years old, people go online, read what the company did in real life, and then work their case study backwards from there. I figure that by writing a case involving fictitious entities, he can give that out and have at least one case where students can't do the whole "working backwards" bit and must therefore look at the case in and of itself. The others will be over real-life firms that didn't get a lot of press coverage yet whose situations illustrate points perfectly. One of these that I really want to do is Dreamwave Comics, which is a perfect case in corporate ethics: founders Pat and Roger Lee used the company as their own personal bank account, and when money started to run out they tried to cheat their employees to make ends meet. Questions could be about what ethical decisions led to the situation, how the situation could have been avoided, and what duties the brothers had to their employees and to the company. I've also got most of the research I did for an ethics paper I had to do on Firestone. I actually had to trim the thing down quite a bit (the outline alone, which is all we had to turn in, was 11 pages even after edits) and figure that if I was to do the thing up in its entirety I could probably get a good 40 - 50 pages from it. If nothing else, there does seem to be a need for fresher case studies, especially those over unorthodox areas, and so I could put my skills at writing to work in producing some and thus potentially build up a track record from those.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 21:42:35 GMT -5
Quoting myself so Skydumbass can answer my question. Even I admit that Bush's first attempt at a stimulus was pretty half-assed. Problem is, Obama - despite all his pledges about change and doing things differently - is still looking to repeat the same half-assed measures that Bush did; he's just doing it with a little more style.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 5, 2009 21:43:37 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting how Sky advocates the CPAC dittohead ideas of small government and pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps do-it-yourself American elbow grease....but also wants the Feds to hand him cash with no questions? Astonishing. It's a matter of scale. On one hand, we've got firms making millions of money who already have bloody accountants and such on hand to do this kind of stuff anyway. On the other hand, we've got families who are probably just scraping by to begin with and are having to do everything solo. Are you saying that not everyone starts off equally to begin with and therefore don't have the same opportunities. What on earth could you be advocating?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 5, 2009 21:45:27 GMT -5
It's a matter of scale. On one hand, we've got firms making millions of money who already have bloody accountants and such on hand to do this kind of stuff anyway. On the other hand, we've got families who are probably just scraping by to begin with and are having to do everything solo. Are you saying that not everyone starts off equally to begin with and therefore don't have the same opportunities. What on earth could you be advocating? Sorry, but I don't go for questions wherein people try to bait me.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 5, 2009 21:59:38 GMT -5
Even I admit that Bush's first attempt at a stimulus was pretty half-assed. Problem is, Obama - despite all his pledges about change and doing things differently - is still looking to repeat the same half-assed measures that Bush did; he's just doing it with a little more style. ....little more style? Repeat the same half-assed measures? Did you read anything I posted? Or anything anyone else has posted? OR ANYTHING THAT'S COMING OUT IN THE NEWS THAT ISN'T FILTER THROUGH GLEN BECK OR BILL O'REILY'S NARROWED RATINGS FILLED MIND!? Obama is handing out money left and right, then telling everyone about the strings that attached when they sign the bottom line. Suddenly the realization of culpability and responsibility make that money seem not so good a plan. Bush would've just handed out the money and turned a blind eye to everything else. Which is what he did with AIG. Ironbite-honest dude...read some other source other then Faux Noise.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 5, 2009 22:06:33 GMT -5
Are you saying that not everyone starts off equally to begin with and therefore don't have the same opportunities. What on earth could you be advocating? Sorry, but I don't go for questions wherein people try to bait me. Really? Is this a new policy you have adopted? Oh, and that's not a bait question, it was an actual question. He asked what you were advocating. The fact that you refuse to answer indicates that you either don't know what you are advocating, or that you know what you are advocating is asinine. I'm betting on the former. And by the way, the "I'm not going to answer you" defense made Sarah Palin look like a complete idiot. You really think you're going to have better luck with it? If you can't or won't discuss your views, then don't bother to post them. I'm one of the fiercest advocates for your right to speak here, but if you start this Palin crap up, I predict a ban in your future.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 5, 2009 22:09:43 GMT -5
She. Death's a she.
Ironbite-just checking.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 5, 2009 22:24:12 GMT -5
Problem is, Obama - despite all his pledges about change and doing things differently - is still looking to repeat the same half-assed measures that Bush did; he's just doing it with a little more style. I don't remember Bushes stimulus including massive spending to create jobs. Bush did what Republicans almost always do, cut taxes. He also gave a one time stimulus check the did very little. The ontl Republican that has not followed this trend was Reagan. While Reagan did cut taxes he also and more importantly spent a massive amount on defense, including contracts and research. A lot of people in a lot of different lines of work made money with that spending.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 5, 2009 22:45:46 GMT -5
I don't remember Bushes stimulus including massive spending to create jobs. Bush did what Republicans almost always do, cut taxes. He also gave a one time stimulus check the did very little. The ontl Republican that has not followed this trend was Reagan. While Reagan did cut taxes he also and more importantly spent a massive amount on defense, including contracts and research. A lot of people in a lot of different lines of work made money with that spending. That's the problem with "everything is equal" logic. It falls apart under scrutiny. Bush operated under the model of tax cuts and rebates. The Rebates were supposed to stimulate spending, but times were sparing enough people squirreled them away or simply paid off debt they already had. Fission Mailed. Spending money to create jobs is a different approach. We need those jobs, we need to get people working, and we need to stop people from being afraid to spend money. One literally was throwing money at the problem...One is spending money on a solution. But then, we're not thinking with the "everything is equal" mindset.
|
|
|
Post by Lt Fred on Mar 5, 2009 23:21:18 GMT -5
ok. I'll give you a free pass on that point. So sky, what do you think of the New Deal? The one that got the US out of the Great Depression. What not a lot of people seem to realize is that to this day there is controversy concerning whether the New Deal helped propel America forward or if FDR's efforts inadvertently prolonged the matter. No there isn't. There are a bunch of economists who say that the New Deal was fantastic, and there are a bunch of morons who don't know what the hell they're talking about (Amity Shales/ Tom Freidman come to mind) who say that it prolonged it somehow. Economists win the argument when they point at employment figures. Unemployment was half the 1930 level in 1937- not including government jobs. Given that the Depression was mass-unemployment, I'd say that that counts as a success. Many of the people who take the latter view also hold that it was the military spending during WWII that finally did the trick, while others hold that it was the exuberance in the post-war years that are to thank. Other people think that the New Deal did dignificantly reduce unemployment and stimulate the economy, but the subsequent orthodox economics (balancing the budget by raising taxes and lowering spending) undid all of the good work. As is the case. The Second World War's Millitary Keynesian government spending had a similar effect to the New Deal. It was, if you will, a second New Deal. It basicly proved Keynesian economics.
|
|
|
Post by Lt Fred on Mar 5, 2009 23:22:11 GMT -5
Are you saying that not everyone starts off equally to begin with and therefore don't have the same opportunities. What on earth could you be advocating? He he he. Irony. Socialism for some, capitalism for most. It could be the motto of the Republican party.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 5, 2009 23:32:10 GMT -5
Yep, Socialism for the multibillion dollar companies, Capitalism for the people at the bottom of the pile.
|
|