114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
LockeD
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 07:39 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The State University of New York tution is $4,350 for state residents. They expect a total cost of $16,880 after room and board, fees, books and expenses.


Well then I hope most of the nations scholar minded people are from the state of Newyork, because it's generally higher from what I heard.

"NEWS FLASH if you want an education move to the state of new york, resedents get 10 thousand off!"

Or so it seems. However, the big picture looks alot diffrent than the small picture.

I'm not going to rant about my life for long. I seriously don't care what your views on my life are. So why would I put it here? Example.

I'm not your normal 20 year old kid who aspires to be a rap artist or be in a rock band, I don't want to be a psycologist, and I don't want to be a doctor, or even do research in that field. Right now you're saying this kid is as stupid as we thought he was, but wait, read. The research that I want to work on requires a completely new technology to be created, in order to work on creating this technology I need at least four masters. If I do complete this research it could make the world a very diffrent place, maybe better, maybe worse, maybe both at the same time, but it would open up an entirely new type of study and create endless possiblities in fields known as: Medical, scientific, entertainment, social, and even offer opertunities to advance millitary wise. Now, if I could get this education for free, and live off my parents while doing it, with a part time job to support the gass bills for two and from college then it would take me approximately 14 years at least to complete my education that would prepare me to persue my ideal. To do the research and expermentation it would require to profect my new technology it would take at least 30 years without a company to support my research, with a company to support just my research it could take around 20 years if the company doesn't get fed up with how long I'm taking producing this new technology. As it stands right now, getting the education that I need, not counting the possiblities that I would have to return to college to study more incase I'm over looking a field of study that has to do with my research, I would be in a little over half a million dollars in dept. Which my technology being plubished would cover ten times, but lets look at another factor. Intrest on all the loans that I got for this education. 5%+ for every year after I graduate. If it takes 30 years that's potentally 2 million dollars in dept, sure my technology could pan out and I might reach the point where it is worth billions and not just millions, but if it doesn't pan out, if i'm too stressed or overwork myself, die early or even if this technology is stolen from me from a collige then where would I be?

Knowlege should not be sold, it should be given to those who aspire to do greater things. This is what I'm getting at, it shouldn't just be for rich people to get higher educations. Some of us lower class have ideals and dreams too.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ask, receive.

Quote:
On March 15, the UC Board of Regents approved student fees for the 2007-2008 academic year. Based on its decisions, we expect total fees for Boalt students to rise by $1,258 (5%) to $26,729 for residents and by $1,127 (3%) to $37,721 for nonresidents.


Cycloptichorn


Where is that?

I checked my alma mater that I graduated from in the 60's (Oklahoma State) and although the fee schedule is a bit more complicated, and there may be some fees over and above the basic cost, the basic cost is listed at $108.75 per semester of undergraduate hour. At 16 credit hours per semester, that works out to $1,740 or $3,480 per year, a far cry from $26,000. Whatever other fees there are, I would have to see proven numbers in black and white to convince me that it would rise to more than $20,000.

I am sure some states are higher than others.

I think I remember something like around $7.00 or was it $10 or $12.00 per hour or so when I went to school? I don't remember. $10.00 is worth about $60.00 now, so perhaps tuition has gotten more expensive but not so tremendous that college is totally out of reach.

Of course, there will be textbooks, computer, etc., plus living expenses, however living expenses occur whether you go to school or not. Low interest, or delayed interest student loans, I would have to check this out as well in terms of what is available now, but obviously money is available for someone that genuinely wants an education.

LockeD, if you don't have a ton of money, you don't have to go to Harvard or Yale to get a decent education.

LockeD, would you be so kind as to let me know what this mysterious new field of research is that you plan to spend 20 or 30 years to perfect this new wonderful and unique technology you have in mind? Or is it to remain a secret? If it so different, how much good is schooling really going to do you? After all, the professors won't be teaching it yet. Perhaps you are another Einstein that just needs a vacant garage where you can think and build your own laboratory with your own equipment? With such a genius of an idea, you should be able to figure out how to do that for little or no money while you work a day job to put food on the table.

By the way, LockeD, you don't pay for the knowledge. You have to get that yourself, but if you want to get a degree written on a piece of paper, it will cost you something. Professors need to be paid to teach classes, and buildings and facilities cost money to maintain. That will never be free. Somebody must pay for it.

P.S. LockeD, this isn't a joke, is it? You are serious about some of this? Just checking? I think I smell a rat, but I will be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt.
0 Replies
 
LockeD
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 11:08 pm
No sir.
No Sir, I am serious, I'm wanting to do research on the human nervous system, bio-chemistry, and I was hoping to find a way to read nerons with a computer, that way, we could futher the intergration of man and machine and artifical limbs could be directly controled by your mind, along with other aspects such as, virtual reality, and other things. It's a new type of technology so you never know what it could turn into.

However, I just have the ideal, and some contempory knowlege in the fields, to gain the knowlege I'd probly have to persue it from a colege I'm sure. However, I have ready many books and materials myself on the subjects.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 11:39 pm
That is already a huge area of research and is being done at this very moment. If you have the brains and the motivation, then it will be hard work to get there, including schooling. Nobody will give you a job researching this simply because you say you want to. You will have to demonstrate the desire and motivation to learn what is known, which likely includes degrees, in order to obtain a job in the field of interest.

Do you actually think this is your niche, that fits your motivation and individual capability, or is it merely a far off dream of yours? Are you being realistic in terms of the amount of work and commitment you are willing to apply to it? This is an important question to answer honestly to yourself. Many people chase dreams that are impractical for them, although some people do in fact defy the odds and surprise other people's expectations of them.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 10:36 am
Perhaps it would deserve its own thread, but some of the most regressive taxes around, in terms of the drain on low income people, sales tax losses, etc., and which are generally supported and instituted by liberals who claim to love the poor, are government run lotteries. I believe these useless, blood sucking programs only serve to drain much needed resources from the economy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 10:38 am
okie wrote:
Perhaps it would deserve its own thread, but some of the most regressive taxes around, in terms of the drain on low income people, sales tax losses, etc., and which is generally supported and instituted by liberals who claim to love the poor, are government run lotteries. I believe these useless, blood sucking programs only serve to drain much needed resources from the economy.


Did you know that the lottery was invented by Sir Isaac Newton - to gin up money for the English mint?

Designed from the start to fleece the poor in the name of getting rich. I don't think it's really a tax, however, as you aren't really required to play.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 11:16 am
You're right, it isn't a true tax in the strict sense of the word, but it generates revenue for the government, so I view it as sort of a voluntary tax and bait and switch game by making the people think they will strike it rich through advertising and half truths. The message is to get lucky, strike it rich, and so the poor are a significant number of the victims of these scams.

Not only is it practically counterproductive in terms of robbing the economy from more fruitful sales of necessities, but it also reduces the sales tax that would otherwise be collected from other sectors of the economy. It also robs poor people of much needed funds, so that some people may become a larger burden on the state.

But it also sends a very wrong message to the citizenry. One wrong message is that if you strike it rich by winning something for nothing, you will be happy, which often turns out to be wrong for huge lottery winners. Secondly, it plants the thought that work is not the only government sanctioned way to honestly earn money, so in this regard government sets a very bad example for society. Thirdly, it propagates the thought that it is okay and fun to live happily ever after when your luck succeeds at the cost of everybody else's bad luck, which is another very bad and conflicted lesson for people to absorb.

I have tried some, but with time, I would like to find out how many billion are spent on lotteries in the U.S. per year, and what the economic impact of this is. Also gambling expenditures would be of interest, but mainly I am picking on lotteries.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 11:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did you know that the lottery was invented by Sir Isaac Newton - to gin up money for the English mint?


I didn't. I'd thaught it was invented in Bologna, pre-1550, by a merchant.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 11:26 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Did you know that the lottery was invented by Sir Isaac Newton - to gin up money for the English mint?


I didn't. I'd thaught it was invented in Bologna, pre-1550, by a merchant.


It seems you are correct. Evidently the first sign of a lottery was in the Han dynasty of China, between 205 and 187 B.C. I had always thought that Newton was the first to have a modern, government-run lottery instituted during his time as Master of the Mint. Thanks for the catch!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 11:28 am
There have been pre-1600 a couple of state run lotteries here in Germany.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 04:50 pm
okie wrote :

Quote:
But it also sends a very wrong message to the citizenry. One wrong message is that if you strike it rich by winning something for nothing, you will be happy, which often turns out to be wrong for huge lottery winners.


i certainly agree with okie .
imo both lotteries and casinos are draining large amounts of money from the economy .
i shudder when i see people lined up at the kiosk buying their tickets ,
scratching away like crazy and dumping 99% of them in the trashbucket .
unfortunately all governments - no matter whether left or right or centre - seem willing to extract money from people by telling them they can get rich quick - SHAME , i say !
and don't get me going on casinos ... or i'll start foaming at the mouth !
when i see seniors taking the bus to the casino to get rid of their money there , i can only shake my head .
friends of ours - seniors , who had worked VERY hard all their lifes - would take their "old age security cheque" (about 1/3 of their income )
to the casino every month .
they believed that they would win enough money so that their children/grandchildren could stop working - GRRR !
enough said !
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Mar, 2007 10:05 pm
Agreed, hamburger. It is not rare to go into the local convenience store and watch an old woman or man looking like they are on their last legs, scratching tickets and buying cigarettes, only to toss the tickets in the waste basket and walk out to their beat up cars, maybe even with oxygen tank in tow, and watch them drive away, license plates maybe hanging by one bolt and windows taped with duct tape. If they do happen to win a few dollars, they buy more tickets until all the money is gone, plus more.

This is not sarcasm. Well, maybe a bit, but mostly it is sadness I feel for such folks that are their own worst enemies. But for crying out loud, does our government need to become enablers and facilitators? Especially given the fact it has to be a significant drag on the economy. Second grade math should teach us that much. Where do politicians go to school anyway?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 06:18 am
Quote:


Link is Here.
0 Replies
 
LockeD
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 11:51 am
okie wrote:
Agreed, hamburger. It is not rare to go into the local convenience store and watch an old woman or man looking like they are on their last legs, scratching tickets and buying cigarettes, only to toss the tickets in the waste basket and walk out to their beat up cars, maybe even with oxygen tank in tow, and watch them drive away, license plates maybe hanging by one bolt and windows taped with duct tape. If they do happen to win a few dollars, they buy more tickets until all the money is gone, plus more.

This is not sarcasm. Well, maybe a bit, but mostly it is sadness I feel for such folks that are their own worst enemies. But for crying out loud, does our government need to become enablers and facilitators? Especially given the fact it has to be a significant drag on the economy. Second grade math should teach us that much. Where do politicians go to school anyway?


Ever think about writing books as a profession? The detail, beautiful. That's another one of my dreams, to become an accomplished writer, however I don't seem to have the motivation to finish writing anything I start.

Sorry I've been away however I came back to reinstate my point: Education should not be sold.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 11:09 am
Quote:
Total Household debt outstanding/GDP = total household debt outstanding as a percentage of GDP

75. 734/1638 = 44%

80. 1396/2789 = 50%

85. 2270/4220 = 51%

90. 3589/5803 = 61%

95. 4855/7397 = 65%

00. 6999/9817 = 71%

05. 11803/12455= 94%

06. 12815/13246 = 96%


http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/z1.pdf

Yeah, things are going awesome, just awesome.

Well, they are for the rich, anyways:

NY Times

Quote:


Supply-side economics supporters: this is the effect of your policies. Increasing debt on the poor while increasing monies for the rich.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 03:26 pm
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/195/444018067_677c14d31e_o.gif

The WSJ

Gotta love that Bush economy

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 03:47 pm
hamburger wrote:
imo both lotteries and casinos are draining large amounts of money from the economy .
i shudder when i see people lined up at the kiosk buying their tickets ,
scratching away like crazy and dumping 99% of them in the trashbucket .


Here, we call it "Idiotensteuer zahlen" when somebody plays the lottery every week...

:wink:
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 04:04 pm
Hi, Cyclop. I am certainly not disputing your post above re Household Debt/GDP. But I can't find in the Fed Reserve link you provided that statistic. Could you point out where that was? Thank you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 04:17 pm
RJB,

Page 16 shows the Total Household Debt Outstanding for the years in question; Page 20 shows the National GDP, but only back to 2002 - I had to look a little further to get those numbers.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 07:11 pm
For those who are interested.

Quote:
Where do your tax dollars go? Notes and Sources (2007)
Wednesday, 04 April 2007

Breakdown of the Individual Income Tax Dollar: Your income taxes are allocated to the federal funds budget; this is the budget that has been broken down for the chart on page 1 of Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? The total federal government budget includes the federal funds and the trust funds budgets. Trust funds include Social Security, Railroad Retirement, and others. All numbers are derived from the tables of individual federal agency budgets as provided in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2008, Analytical Perspectives. The breakdown is for outlays (as opposed to budget authority) in fiscal year 2006, since this most closely corresponds to your tax filing. Total federal funds outlays in 2006 were $2,055,074,000,000. We have defined the categories on the bar chart as follows:

Median Income Family Taxes: The median income family's taxes were computed first by forecasting 2006 income levels by state from the 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 American Community Survey. Data for cities, towns and counties that were at least 65,000 in population were available in the 2005 American Community Survey for the first time. For those that were available, we calculated the city/town/county family median income as a percentage of the state level in 2005. We then applied that percentage to the state forecast for 2006 to come up with a 2006 level for the city, town or county. For smaller cities, towns and counties, we based the number on state and local data from the 2000 Census. Then, the tax estimate was computed by assuming standard deductions and exemptions for a married couple with one dependent, including one child credit. No other deductions or credits were assumed. Additional data and statistics on income and taxes are available at:

Military ($558 billion) includes the function area (referring to government categories) national defense, the sub-function area international military assistance, and Iraq War-related spending in the Executive Office of the President.

Health ($428.5 billion) is the federal funds portion of all health spending by the federal government, including the federal funds spending on Medicare.

Interest on the Debt ($398.6 billion) refers to the interest payments paid on the national debt. The military share of the interest payment is based on the average historical share of national defense spending. Since interest payments are on the debt which has been accumulated over time, the allocation of shares between military and non-military spending takes this into account.

Income Security ($123.5 billion) includes federal funds outlays on the function area income security with the exception of housing assistance, and food and nutrition assistance, which are separately illustrated on the graph. This category includes Supplemental Security Income ($38 billion) which provides cash assistance to disabled, elderly and blind who have very low incomes; payments where Earned Income Tax Credit exceeds tax liability ($34.6 billion); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.4 billion); payments where child credit exceeds tax liability ($14.6 billion); foster care and adoption assistance ($6.4 billion); child care spending and a variety of other small programs for children and families.

Education ($93.2 billion) includes all federal funds outlays on elementary, secondary, and vocational education, higher education, and research and general education aids, subfunctions defined by the government.

Veterans' Benefits and Services ($68.9 billion) includes the federal funds portion of the Department of Veterans' Affairs and any other federal funds spending on the function area veterans' benefits and services.

Nutrition ($53.9 billion) includes any federal funds outlays classified as food and nutrition assistance, including the Food Stamp program, all child nutrition programs (such as the National School Lunch Program) and others.

Housing ($38.3 billion) includes all federal funds outlays defined by the federal government as housing assistance.

Natural Resources and the Environment ($31.3 billion) includes all spending on the government-defined function area natural resources and the environment.

Job Training ($6 billion) includes the total for training and employment services as defined by the government.

Other ($254.8 billion) includes everything else not listed above and is comprised of the following function and subfunction areas: international affairs outside of international security assistance (included above in military); general science, space and technology; energy; agriculture; commerce and housing credit; transportation; community and regional development; labor and social services outside of training and employment services; justice; general government; and undistributed offsetting receipts.


http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=285
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/12/2025 at 05:03:25