The Goat Pen

Sunday night, I dined at an Italian restaurant across the street from the DC occupiers. Took a walk through the encampment and saw very few people, but a buncha tents. Funny thing is around the corner at the Metro station about 30 homeless were sleeping without tents....

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... _house.php

eCat

Both true posts.

We tend to agree more often than not, sadly. I need more idiots on here so I can sharpen my debate skills.

I don't think it's the 100K loan debt that is the problem. I think it is the 100K of interest on the loan that is the problem. Last night one of the occupy Cincy chicks stated that this was her situation. Damn. I also liked the comment e posted about having to go to college to avoid flipping burgers. So true. That's been the party line for years. I also believe that people don't need to go to college to become successful. If you have a passion, follow it. At least that's how it worked for me.

It's a fine line to walk. Not everyone is built for college and sometimes it can get in the way of a person's path to success.

With that said, your chances of wealth accumulation increase with every year you go through college. I forgot the specific numbers, but I read something that said if you graduate with an undergraduate degree, you make like a million dollars (gross) more over the life your employment than if you only have a HS diploma. If you're a drop out, it's a differential that goes even farther (obviously).

for eCat

Poll: Ron Paul Emerges As Frontrunner in Iowa


http://news.yahoo.com/poll-ron-paul-eme ... 57664.html

If he has a strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have some legs.

But I'm afraid he'll fall victim to the same traps that have haunted him in past races.

i've said it before and i'll say it again, it used to be in this country that all you had to do was work hard and save a little in order to have a decent life.

and I'm sick of hearing grumpy old men complain that nobody is willing to work hard when those fuckers had 40¢/gal gasoline, $200/mo house payments and health insurance paid by their employers. plus, nobody complained if you smoked in a restaurant or drove around with a mixed drink. on the other hand, they had very limited access to porn so I guess I should cut them some slack.

limited access to porn just meant they had more time to work

And that's why life expectancy then was about 8 years younger than today.

Forza porno!

I've said this multiple times but the real problem, at least IMO, is that our education system is based on an agricultural timetable and teaches kids to be a 1950's factory worker. Yes, our schools do have calculus and physics but not its not applied or practical and the kids taking it only represent about 15% of the overall school population.

So most kids with a high school degree have no more value in the work force than a mexican illegal, and a 50 year old has less because he costs more money.

If I lost my job tomorrow my world would be turned upside down but I was lucky enough to go to college, graduate and have an interest in a job skill that provided me with a career where I could provide for myself and my family. That option is available to everyone if they make the right decisions in high school.

From an education standpoint I think we need to address two issues - dropout rates and education level. I don't think anyone should be allowed to drop out of high school. We need to have dropout rates go from like 20% (or whatever they are) to like .05%, and then have a proficiency test that determines high school graduation - not just keeping a kid warehoused for 4 years and then give them a diploma.

How you do that I have no idea but some level of accountability after high school graduation would be where I'd start.

another idea I have is the concept of an entitlement bank. Its radical but I think its has merit.

Instead of taking a route where we continually attempt to cut entitlements that are means based, I think every citizen of this country is entitled to access to the same level of "safety net" our government provides and I'm actually in favor of increasing the safety net to include broader education options, health care and living assistance.

However its not open ended and its not free. Up until the age of 18, whatever you need, you get. But once you are an adult you are contributing to a government sponsored account that is yours for the rest of your life and its there if you need it.

For example, if you are 25 years old and need government assistance, fine, but the government assistance you get is going to be based on the idea that you are working toward independence - AND that you'll be paying back the government for the assistance you receive. That is where the idea of this "bank" or account of services provided comes in.

So if you sign up for government assistance then you are assigned a "life planner" that will discuss what options you have - it may be just a temporary disruption in work where you are unemployed for 6 months and you need money or you could be in a static situation where you are never making progress toward dependency. In either case the government is keeping a running total on how much you are taking out of your account, and of course taxes that you pay in go toward increasing the money in your account. You may decide that you want to attend school and live off the government dole for 4 years while you get a degree, and the government plan might go as far as having designated schools where you get drastically reduced tuition or have specific degrees you can obtain that have a reduction in your obligation to pay back your account.

At any rate, whatever approach you take and for however long it takes you to get there you are borrowing against your account with the assumption that your actions will result in you either returning to or becoming a contributing member of society. If you go back to work and start paying taxes , all is good. If, after the designated period of time you don't and its time to address that you need to settle up on your account, then you have some options - option 1 is to join the armed services, national guard, coast guard, border patrol.,etc for whatever designated time is needed to get your account back in the black, or option 2 - join a national works program that is addressing infrastructure similar to the CCC camps of the New Deal Era, or option 3 - opt out of government assistance - no more welfare, social security, health care etc., - until your account gets back in good standing you forfeit all future government assistance. That means you could literally starve in a street gutter if that is your choice.

Of course there would be exemptions, the mentally and physically disabled, veterans who volunteered and earned a combat medal or purple heart, etc.,

And finally retirement would not be based on a set age like 65. It would be based on your account total and actuary tables (or some other formula), so the amount you get back in monthly increment is based on a minimum living expense for the rest of your life. If you beat the odds you still get the same amount each month. Of course you are free to retire anytime you want but you'd only have access to your account (where you didn't have to pay it back) based you meeting the retirement formula. If you led a lifetime of continually wiping out your account then you don't retire, you just work until you are physically unable to and meet the exemption.

Also, criminals who work in prison get to contribute to their account but they also have to pay for the cost of their incarceration from their account.

you cant force people to get an education. maybe offer trade school as an alternative to high school but if someone doesnt want to be in school let them go. however they should be responsible for their decision and not allowed to just walk from the school campus to the welfare office and start a career as a sponge.

My idea wouldn't force anyone to do anything, it just gives them a one time safety net that they have to payback in order to get a second one.

If they don't want to try the education route, they can join the military or work for the government building our nations infrastructure, or they can opt out.

but for high school - yea I think you can force someone to get an education. We've determined that you need a high school education in order to meet the demands of society (or be cannon fodder in the military). We contribute billions of dollars and have billions more built up in infrastructure, we have child labor laws, and we setup the educational school year around maximizing the child's time toward school

As long as you are a child by law, then you should be mandated to attend school.

Now what constitutes school may have some flexibility - the world will always need mechanics, plumbers, HVAC, carpenters and repairmen.

and eCat pulls into a tie with Ron paul in Iowa

Ron Paul would not support that idea but he'd support it over the system we have now.

so you're advocating forced schooling until a student reaches their majority?

we have forced schooling now.

to 16, not 18. dont sweat it I agree with 90% of what you're saying.

Natalie Wood's death has been reopened as a homicide investigation, primarily because of a book written by the captain of the boat where Natalie Wood spent her last minutes ... a book suggesting foul play ... this according to sources close to the investigation.

We've learned Marti Rulli -- who co-authored the book -- has been in regular touch with the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. over the last few months. She has given Sheriff's investigators documents supporting material in her book, and we're told the Sheriff is so impressed he has assigned 2 full-time homicide detectives to the case.

In the book -- "Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour" -- Rulli and Splendour Captain Dennis Davern write about the night Natalie drowned. They say before Natalie disappeared from the boat, she was drinking and taking Quaaludes with her husband, Robert Wagner and actor Christopher Walken.

According to the book, Wagner became enraged when he saw Wood and Walken speaking, and smashed a wine bottle, yelling at Walken, "What do you want to do, f**k my wife? Is that what you want?"

At that point, Walken returned to his cabin and Natalie and Robert went to their state room. According to the Captain, he heard a loud argument between the couple and thumping sounds, and eventually silence.

A short time later, the Captain went to the deck and was told by Wagner, "Natalie is missing."

The book claims Wagner refused to let the Captain call the Coast Guard.

The fact that this mystery contains Christopher Walken makes it awesome.


http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/17/natalie-w ... stigation/

I read that this morning. I'd like to know what the captain of the ship said that had them think she was pushed in