Nothing's Getting Accomplished Next Two Years

[Mytical]

Not to mention that a lot of the extra debt was continuing on what was started in the 'Bush Era'. Nobody seems to remember that the 'bailout' was started/talked about/ etc WAYYYY before Obama. Guy never had a chance.

Might as well dressed himself with raw meat and thrown himself in a lions den. He would have stood a better chance.

Now having said that, here is where I get into the real fratching. Doesn't matter who is in office. Democrat, Republican..same monkeys in different suits. The real power are the lobbyist, who have the money. Money now controls the government. Has for some time. Everybody has to have their pork in various bills..and they become so bloated and twisted..the only thing that you can be sure of is some politician or his/her friend is getting rich.

[FArchivist]

and in that two years he has run up the deficit HIGHER than bush did in his total 8 years. As in his two year deficit total is higher than what Bush ran up in 8 years, while funding TWO WARS!

Actually, that's not quite true. A lot of that stuff saying Obama built up a worse deficit in two years depends entirely on what you want to include and there are MANY different opinions on that.

[mikoyan29]

The way it was explained to me is that trickle down economics worked.

Nowadays, we are trickling up. This is bad. Very bad.

Trickle down economics worked...but not in the way that 98% of Americans are happy about. They worked to help the people at the top keep more of their money. They probably also worked to help drive down wages in this country.

[HYHYBT]

AKS: Thank you. You've just convinced me to get a "Palin 2012" sticker for my car

[AdminAssistant]

$40-50K isn't good money?

That's if you're lucky enough to make tenure. Starting out it's more like $15-20K (no health benefits if you're adjunct, and you probably are). Getting tenure requires being hired on a tenure-track contract, teaching, being on enough committees, doing outside research, publishing, and, most importantly, getting your first book out. Oh, and hoping that you sucked up to your students enough to get good evaluations.

Also, remember you aren't working set 40 hour weeks. More like 70-80.

[Greenday]

$40-50K isn't good money?

In my area, you certainly wouldn't be sitting pretty.

[daleduke17]

An assistant professor in the humanities will typically make $20,000-30,000 their first year. An associate...maybe $40-50 K. It isn't until you hit full professor that you start making good money, all the time working 60-70 hour weeks (if you combine the teaching, research, and service).

$40-50K isn't good money?

[Anthony K. S.]

Republican possibilities for 2012:

. . .

Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor

That, right there, explains something that many people had felt really perplexed by.

In late 2009, on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Haley Barbour if he felt that Sarah Palin was qualified to be President of the United States.

After a pause, Barbour replied, "Well, Constitutionally, she sure is."

"Constitutionally" . . . ? That means she's over the age of 35, and she's a natural-born U.S. citizen. That was not what Chris Matthews was asking.

If that was the best Barbour could come up with . . . It was about as brutal an answer as he could have given. After that, he just made several vague, generic statements like, "I've never had anything but a positive impression of her," "I don't know of anything that disqualifies her from being President," and my personal favorite, "She's brighter than people give her credit for."

Read the last : Barbour basically said that Sarah Palin is not a complete idiot.

Why did Haley Barbour do such a tepid job of defending Sarah Palin?

Some folks wondered if Haley Barbour genuinely couldn't come up with anything substantial to defend Sarah Palin with, which strikes me as a distinct possibility.

I think it's more likely, though, that Barbour actually had a hidden agenda to put down Sarah Palin, if he could. He might run for President himself in 2012, and if he doesn't, he has friends who might. Barbour could very well have seen it to his advantage to do whatever he could to discredit Palin in the minds of Republican voters.

Even if nobody close to Barbour runs for President . . . The man isn't stupid. He knows - He has to know - that if Sarah Palin wins the G.O.P. nomination in 2012, then the Republicans will have no chance of retaking control of the White House. I can easily believe that Barbour would view it as good for the Republican Party to reduce Sarah Palin's popularity among voters in the G.O.P. primaries.

This might also be the reason why another prominent Republican, Mike Huckabee, dismissed accusations that Charles Gibson and Katie Couric had been biased against Sarah Palin in their interviews with her. Huckabee stated that neither interview was unfair, and that Couric had been "extraordinarily gentle, even helpful" to Sarah Palin.

In my opinion, the entire Republican Party should have thrown Sarah Palin under the bus a long time ago. But at least there are a few people in the G.O.P. who have recognized her for the time bomb that she is.

[Greenday]

I figured AA meant businessman in the stereotypical sense.

[linguist]

Construction workers do hard, gritty labor.
Cops do hard, gritty labor.
Soldiers do hard, gritty labor.

Businessmen? Right...

you're saying farmers can't be businessmen? construction workers? landscapers? bricklayers? the list could go on and on, but these are all hard, gritty jobs that are often the businesses of the people who do them. wearing a suit and sitting in an office doesn't necessarily a businessman make. owning an operating a business, any kind of business, including those that involve manual labor, is what makes a businessman.

[Greenday]

The vast majority of businessmen/women do not sit on Wall Street or Ivory towers, the vast majority do get out and do hard, gritty physical labor.

Construction workers do hard, gritty labor.
Cops do hard, gritty labor.
Soldiers do hard, gritty labor.

Businessmen? Right...

[Andara Bledin]

Now if you think the division of the profit isn't equitable then that's a whole other topic.

Like I said: Great in theory, but fails in practice.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

It's about taking a smaller percentage of money from the people who need it the least in the hopes that they'll spend it and it'll somehow reach the people who need it the most.

I'll get back to you when I start seeing any of it...

^-.-^

The idea behind trickle down economics is those with the money will invest that money either directly (in their business) or indirectly (buying stock/bonds) to grow that investment. The idea behind business is to make money. If that investment is used to expand a business then most likely employees will be hired. Those employees provide a service that will hopefully grow the business. The employee gets paid for their services and hopefully there's enough left over for the investor to realize a profit. The employee's salary/pay is a result of the trickle. Now if you think the division of the profit isn't equitable then that's a whole other topic.
Trickle down only works in the private sector of business/labor because both the investor and worker working together can grow the pie. Government moving money from my pocket to your pocket doesn't grow the pie it just moves it around and could ineffect lessen the pie by taking a cut for themselves.

[Tanasi]

Not always. A promotion usually grants a pay increase, but those only come around at 6 years (tenure/associate professor) and at 10-12 years (full professor).

However, many schools are hiring more adjunct/lecturers for $2000 per class, no health benefits. So, a 4/4 teaching load (a LOT of teaching, usually the dreaded intro classes as well) grants a whopping $16,000/year. Add to that all of the time that we're supposed to spend doing outside research and publishing, and it's hard to make a living.

An assistant professor in the humanities will typically make $20,000-30,000 their first year. An associate...maybe $40-50 K. It isn't until you hit full professor that you start making good money, all the time working 60-70 hour weeks (if you combine the teaching, research, and service).

Besides, don't businessmen and those in the private sector bitch and whine about how they need raises and good salaries to stay motivated? Why does that not apply to those in higher education? Because we're not doing hard, gritty physical labor, we don't deserve a decent living? Nah, we're only educating the leaders of tomorrow.

The situation is much better in the hard sciences, social sciences, and professional schools (med, law, vet, etc.) I just read an article for class that talked about a study that was done on education funding. They found that colleges are taking money earned from tuition from humanities classes (especially English Composition) and rerouting it to science departments to fund research infrastructure...costs not covered by grants. So, basically, they're taking money away from me, giving it to them to keep the lights on, AND paying their TA's twice as much. Nice.

There's money to be made from the hard sciences, whereas the humanities usually only can expect money if a student becomes famous or an alumnous makes a grant. Those TAs get paid more because there's competition for their time and talents from other schools. It's unfortunate that not all are paid equally but that's the real world. The more people that can do a job will be worth-less than the few people that are qualified to perform highly technical jobs. Both are people it just in this case only a few can perfrom the job whereas thousands can perform the other.

LOL Did you just imply businessmen do hard, gritty physical labor?

No, that was just bad phrasing...what I get for trying to play WoW and post at the same time. What I was trying to say is that performance bonuses are seen as necessary in the private sector, but not in education. Why?

The vast majority of businessmen/women do not sit on Wall Street or Ivory towers, the vast majority do get out and do hard, gritty physical labor.

[Jason]

Republican possibilities for 2012:

Chris Christie - New Jersey Governor
Bobby Jindal - Louisiana Governor
Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota Governor
Haley Barbour - Mississippi Governor