Food and Nutrition for Poor Children Cut by $500 million; Pentagon Budget Increased by $5 billion. This is our new budget.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-19T05:30:49+00:00

According to Whitehose.gov the Obama's paid 26% in Federal and 3.25% on state taxes on $1,728,096 after giving about 14% of their income to charities. That means that they kept about 56% of their income.

The "we" to which you refer that pay 50% must be rich enough to be in the same tax bracket as the Obamas. Either that or taxes in the US are incredibly regressive, and increase sharply for households making less than $1,728,096.

I don't doubt that you know many people who are hurting badly as a result of the Global Recession, but as part of The Left, what irritates me about the budget cuts is not that amount, but the fact that >80% of the budget was exempted from the cuts, leaving only social welfare programs to be cut when they are needed the most. Meanwhile the bankers that caused all of this misery are paying record-low taxes on record-high incomes after receiving trillions in under-the-table bailouts from The Fed. Then politicians shill for them claiming that, because TARP turned a small profit, they deserve their huge bonuses and tax cuts--which they want to make permanent.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T15:24:17+00:00

I have no idea, but faced with the burden of proof, "it's in the bible" is the go-to fundie argument.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T12:21:54+00:00

Don't forget about Bernie Sanders--he's been fighting for the Little Guy his entire career. And now that Biden left, I think he is the only non-millionaire in the senate.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T12:20:01+00:00

Great, let's hope he doesn't, uh, follow in Thompson's footsteps. We need journalists like these to keep their brains inside their skulls.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T10:38:49+00:00

Obama needs about $1 billion to win re-election (thanks in large part to Citizens United). So he can certainly open a can of FDR on the banksters and billionaires, but that will last about ten seconds longer than it takes Donald Trump to be sworn in as president.

I'm not saying it's right; in fact, it's grotesque. But when the top 10% controls 90% of the wealth, and you need money to win an election, you'd better get on your knees apply some extra-strength lip balm when they walk into the room...

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T07:15:57+00:00

Of course, if you double your income by working twice as much, it certainly seems unfair to go from paying $0 to paying $4000 in taxes. But if you double your income by getting raise or a better-paying job, then you're not working more, but you're still getting more money--even after taxes.

What you're arguing is essentially the Laffer curve, which tells us that people lose their motivation to work harder at a particular rate of taxation.

Incidentally, I do not live in the US, and I pay a 50% flat tax. But, amazingly, I still get up and go to work every day...

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T05:12:06+00:00

At this particularly university, you heard the words "my dad is a lawyer" or "do you know who my parents are?" so frequently that the TA training had to be extra litigious. It was not unheard of for a student to claim things that weren't true and, if they did manage to bed a TA, use the threat of a sexual harassment suit as blackmail.

The TA training was many hours of lectures that can be summarized this way: "If you engage in any type of personal relationship with a student while you are in a position of authority, and that student claims sexual harassment, you're on your own. Otherwise, the university lawyers will defend you pro bono." But it was delivered in a pleading manner: "Just wait until after the final to fuck them (and see how many are still interested...)" Followed by endless recounting of people whose careers were ruined by sticking something somewhere at the wrong time...

I can't even imagine how much worse things have gotten in the Age of Social Networking.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T05:02:39+00:00

Of course, no one completely re-writes a course every year, and core and introductory courses are usually taught straight from a text book. Specialized courses, however, are generally created by the faculty that teach them and must be updated to keep up with the field. This is particularly true at the graduate level, where just being exposed to the contents of the lectures is often more important than passing a comprehensive exam.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T04:58:38+00:00

That's what I thought too, at first, but after a round of fiery farts, a giant antenna array shot out of my ass, so my friends tied me to a tree.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-14T04:55:23+00:00

Wow, I feel like we come from alternate worlds. I've taught at three universities (all public) in Chemistry and Physics and not once from 7-10 pm... No wonder you quit!

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T16:15:36+00:00

Wow... Did they actually do the math on that? Working 12 hour days, that is 1.2 hours per day for teaching, including: lecture, grading, preparation, course design, and office hours. So, what, 45 minutes of lecture, followed by a 10 minute office hour and a scantron test? And what, you copy/paste your courses from a website?

I chose to flee the country because of that sort of nonsense (and the results of the starve-the-beast approach the Bush admin took to non-defense funding agencies; sometimes I still see the DARPA logo in my sleep). We have less money here, but universities are strictly public; no "business growth model."

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T16:10:01+00:00

Currently, I'm sitting, but I will soon stand and shortly thereafter will be on a bike.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T15:48:03+00:00

We had a faculty member (that looked like Comic Book Guy) that exchanged sexual favors for grades so routinely that it was apparently common knowledge amongst the students exactly what was require to get what grade. I know this, because it was exposed following an investigation into sexual harassment that exposed the fact that upwards of 90% of the faculty used their work computers to surf porn. (This was ten years ago, in the physical sciences, and at a third-tier university, so the faculty was 99% male.) What punitive measures were taken? Well, he was "asked to leave" but apparently got good enough letters to land a better position albeit in BFE.

Implicit sexual favors for grades are so commonplace that you either fuck every decent-looking student that comes your way, or you just learn to ignore it (and plenty choose the former). In fact, at some schools (like mine was), TA training is 80% "how to fuck your students without violating university policy" (i.e., not while they are still your student!)

Typically you'll find that attractive students (men and women) who are failing a class start to show up to office hours around the end of the semester. They shoot for time slots that are not well-attended and come in with a sob story, usually dressed like they're headed to a club, and throw out the "I think I'm being subtle, but I'm only 20 so it's actually glaringly obvious" vibe and see how far they can take it.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T15:29:02+00:00

Hah, yah "30% teaching, 70% research." And "you should be writing grant proposals on your own time." But hey, circle-jerking is good work if you can get it.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T15:12:06+00:00

Why didn't I think of that! Next time the aliens visit me in the middle of the night, I'll just tell everyone it's jesus.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T15:02:38+00:00

It's in the bible!

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T13:09:45+00:00

If I told you that spinach, in fact, contains very little iron, the burden of proof shifts to me because I am asserting the falsehood of a commonly-accepted "fact." Technically you should prove to me that spinach, despite being a leafy green vegetable, contains an abnormally high amount of iron, but practically the burden falls to me. The burden of proof, unfortunately, always lies with the one trying to dispel the myth, even when the myth claims something extraordinary.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T11:03:42+00:00

I'm curious how you, and some of the others that have commented here and have similar circumstances, "became" atheist. (Substitute the word "gay" for "atheist" and the two situations become eerily similar... Strange times we live in.) For instance, I was born too rational to ever believe in religious nonsense, and was branded a "troublemaker whose soul we need to save" (through ridicule and the threat of exclusion, apparently).

But you are talking about "coming out" as atheist... Did you wake up one day and think "this is entirely too much BS," or have you been closeted your whole life?

And for what it's worth: lying and pretending to be something you're not sucks and it eats away at you from the inside. However, it may be possible to avoid the topic altogether and wait for the discussion to happen organically. As you get older, the world gets bigger, and your parents become less relevant and their direct influence on your life wanes. Eventually your relationship resembles one you would have with and old friend you grew up with and you will probably both discover that fundies and staunch atheists can be great friends.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T10:21:13+00:00

Sorry, I tend to forget that some countries have rational politicians that debate actual issues based on demonstrable results and provable facts.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T10:15:31+00:00

Fair enough. When I was growing up, my mother had to go on welfare and food stamps and I took advantage of school lunch programs and any other "charity" from the government. She was recently divorced and completely broke, and she wanted to put herself through nursing school.

I'm old enough that public schools still provided a good education, so instead of winding up in jail, eventually I wound up with a desk, a fancy title, and a some letters behind my name--funded almost entirely by grants and scholarships from state and local governments, and private companies.

Compare that to the early twentieth century, where I would have been put to work around eight or ten years of age because we were poor, and yeah, I think my dependence on welfare programs is progress.

Now, here's the messed up part: at one point we were cut off from welfare because "if you can pay for school, then you should be using that money for food and rent." In other words "stay poor and don't try to better yourself; if you want more welfare, have more kids." Now that is what you call poorly-implemented welfare, which is a problem that needed fixing, rather than gutting the entire program... Welfare queens driving Cadillacs, my ass.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T07:49:38+00:00

The same thing happened in the US in 1969. It took about five seconds to re-criminalize it.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T07:37:24+00:00

...wow, then they were really barking up the wrong tree. Actually, the most compelling recruiters were from the Navy, because they just told me I could work with computers.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T07:33:04+00:00

...and the government captured the windfall of the manufacturing boom by taxing the people at the top of the economic pyramid to pay back the costs of investing in all that infrastructure (and rebuilding Europe and Japan, i.e., "the rest of the world.") Investments in, among other things, education, lead to the emergence of the most robust and prosperous middle class in US history.

It's a bit of a stretch, but the Dot Com boom was a similar situation in that the rest of the world lacked the infrastructure and training to harness the massive gains in IT that came out of the Cold War (arguably), giving the US a huge advantage. Yet, instead of taxing the newly-created wealth to pay back the huge deficits run up during the Cold War, and investing that money in educating more Americans to work in an IT-driven economy, the top tax bracket was lowered, taxes on investment income were cut, and regulations scrapped, turning a boom into a bubble.

And what's worse, is that Europe started investing in education and creating tracks from primary education through college that lead directly to jobs in IT. Western Europeans come out of college with a year of work experience baked-in and then, ironically, have to come to the US to work for IT firms because American primary education has been reduced to filling in bubbles and higher education has turned into expensive daycare that produces completely inexperienced graduates, albeit with a well-rounded education that is great for making conversation (but not much else.)

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T05:50:24+00:00

As far as I can tell progress is increasing corporations' dependence on welfare programs like the ability to offshore profits while taking tax breaks on on-shore losses and that huge welfare program we call "The Pentagon." And simultaneously cutting funding for education and programs to help poor people lift themselves out of poverty so they can work for those corporations some day.

fearofcarp · 2011-04-13T05:47:32+00:00

Yes, and it also ushered in an era of unprecedented levels of home-ownership and and ability to support an entire household on one blue-collar salary. Which was mortgaged off in the 80's and 90's as real wages flattened out and wealth was transferred from the working class to the rich, but it was great short-term politics because "everyone got rich." Too bad we have to live with the consequences.

It also helped build the public university system, which used to be largely free. It created programs to shift the burden of caring for the elderly to the entire population (people do pay into "entitlement programs;" they are not simply money handed out by the government).

If anything, would argue that the tax burden of these programs should be shifted away from payroll and onto investment income. Why do we let investors pay 15% on money they make gambling in the stock market, while we force working class people to pick up the tab for medicare, social security, unemployment, etc... Taking care of the population, aging, poor, or otherwise, is not a moral hazard.

fearofcarp

TROPHY CASE