Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2501904)

There is one specific example I can give that happened earlier this year. There was a person in another department hired solely to run my mapping application for customers. He was not very bright but did his job effectively, albeit in somewhat of a disconnect kind of way. I asked about this relatively low-level position and he said he just needed something to help pay off $50,000 in student loans. I didn't push further but two thoughts ran through my head: 1) what on earth did that $50k accomplish?? and 2) why would you even consider taking on that much debt in the first place??. Due to an increasing level of incompetence and an indescretion (I don't know what), he was fired a couple of months ago. He was replaced with a bright, young lady with exceptional customer service skills (and was able to pick up my complicated application rather quickly). She has no student loan debts and we are allocating training funds for her to move up to the next levels.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2502199)

I can relate to both scenarios.

I have a cousin that got his MBA and delivered pizza for a living simply because he couldn't find anywhere to apply his degree in our hometown coupled with not having a desire to move elsewhere to pursue a career that he could apply it. Delivering pizza was actually the best money he could realistically make (short of construction...which he was not the construction type). He's doing better now but his degree had absolutely no bearing on him getting into the role that he is in today (family member that got him into a good company).

I think I can relate more directly with the woman (or girl) example of somebody that took opportunities and simply ran with it. Many others I worked with over the years did not choose to pursue and increase their understanding in the business and as such, I'm probably doing much better than most people I knew when I began in the industry. As a result...I have a soft spot for the autodidactic people in the industry that really take it upon themselves to learn & progress themselves.

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2502217)

How long did he wait after graduating with the bachelor's degree before he got his MBA?

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2502220)

but nobody was going to hire him to help run a company where he didn't understand their industry.

Originally Posted by SteveMax58 (Post 2502220)

He went straight into the MBA program. He had no relevant experience and wasn't really expanding an area of expertise. It was more along the lines of thinking that the education itself would be of benefit.

I'm sure he's more knowledgeable about business management now than he would be otherwise...but nobody was going to hire him to help run a company where he didn't understand their industry.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 2501904)

The trend that I have seen in my company and in the industry as a whole (IT) is far less emphasis on college coursework and degrees and more on training and targeted skills. I remember 10 years ago our annual budget would include enough for every staff (in my section) to take 3-4 college courses each year (we paid for tuition). Now such budget item is almost zero but our training/seminar/conference budgets have remained high. HR is slowly coming around, we are getting them not automatically reject those without much college coursework. It's more cost effective for young people not to ring up so much debt (from college or otherwise) and for companies to invest more into on-the-job training. It's a win/win, we wouldn't have to pay as much such a candidate and the candidate wouldn't have to play catch up so much.

There is one specific example I can give that happened earlier this year. There was a person in another department hired solely to run my mapping application for customers. He was not very bright but did his job effectively, albeit in somewhat of a disconnect kind of way. I asked about this relatively low-level position and he said he just needed something to help pay off $50,000 in student loans. I didn't push further but two thoughts ran through my head: 1) what on earth did that $50k accomplish?? and 2) why would you even consider taking on that much debt in the first place??. Due to an increasing level of incompetence and an indescretion (I don't know what), he was fired a couple of months ago. He was replaced with a bright, young lady with exceptional customer service skills (and was able to pick up my complicated application rather quickly). She has no student loan debts and we are allocating training funds for her to move up to the next levels.

Moral of story: If you feel the need to take on massive student loan debts, make sure you have clear plan on having the resources to pay them off as soon as possible. Same goes for public and private entities, and governments.

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2502234)

Getting a MBA straight out undergraduate school is one of the worst things one could do (and one of the biggest waste of money in my view). I also think that MBAs from highly-respected schools are the only ones that might be worth it.

Originally Posted by Galaxy (Post 2502235)

I forgot to ask, what kind of skills are you exactly talking about?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2502237)

Maybe the climate has changed more recently but as of 10-15 years ago, I frequently saw MBA's required for some of the most mundane jobs in advertising & they were jobs frequently going to people with zero work experience (that was actually the most attractive combination, the degree theoretically meant you were talented, the inexperience meant you were cheap).

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2502233)

He should have tried broadcasting, they do it all the time.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2501951)

. If the goal is to increase ownership in new homes because it may help other businesses, why would you not want rich people going out and buying big homes? Aren't those the people we should want spending their money?

Originally Posted by Raiders Army (Post 2502484)

Obama: We've raised the debt ceiling many times; it's routine. Also, by the way, I don't want to revisit this six months from now, even though it's routine.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army (Post 2502484)

Boehner: We spend more than what we make. Let's spend less.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2502505)

Roughly half all Republicans believe the earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese.

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2502505)

Meanwhile, everyone with a lick of common sense realizes that to fix this issue you need both revenues to be increased AND spending cuts

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 2502505)

Boehner can't do anything without the Tea Party everything they want, and even if they could get it through the house, they couldn't get through the senate. They're shoveling tons of horseshit, trying to convince everyone there's really a horse inside.

Meanwhile, everyone with a lick of common sense realizes that to fix this issue you need both revenues to be increased AND spending cuts:

CNN Poll: Strong partisan divide on debt ceiling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


As the debt ceiling debate drags on, a new CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

From the same article:

"Roughly half of all Republicans think (a default) will create only minor problems or no problems at all."

Which translates to:

Roughly half all Republicans believe the earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2502513)

Change that to the Earth is 6000 years old and you are correct.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2502522)

Who should we be listening to?

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2502522)

Who should we be listening to?

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2502525)

The awesome independents!

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2502515)

Keep spreading that manure, maybe it'll grow into a horse or a bull.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502528)

Seriously? That's your answer? How about people who realize both parties keep fucking them over and so think maybe more government and more central power is not the answer? Whether it be Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians... power corrupts, I can't fathom why I am one of only a few voices on this site that sees this and wants to try something different.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502526)

I don't know. Maybe economics is so hard to understand because it is predicting human behavior and that can't always follow a set formula. Why do the guys who completely missed the impending crash amd recession and the politicians who led us to the crash get to explain how to get out of the crash? Maybe its time to listen to some other voices?

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502519)

Really it’s that certain? Seems to me the debate is really one about Macroeconomics. There isn't a person on here that would agree that it is healthy for an individual person or even a city to live the way our federal government does. But there generally is some debate on how immune large entities are from these same economic laws. (Though a lot of the press tends to act like Keynesian economic principles are 100% correct) You do agree at some point the system will crash? How far can you push it? Are you certain this might not be the breaking point?

Didn't realize that was as easy to answer as whether the world is flat. But I guess I am just one of those stupid guys who knows I can't take a billion dollar mortgage out on my $150K house without dire consequences and isn’t certain why we let politicians and economists explain to us that this is a completely different situation that our simple minds can't understand. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain both sides are being completely honest with you about our countries financial health.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502526)

I don't know. Maybe economics is so hard to understand because it is predicting human behavior and that can't always follow a set formula. Why do the guys who completely missed the impending crash amd recession and the politicians who led us to the crash get to explain how to get out of the crash? Maybe its time to listen to some other voices?

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2502620)

So the Reid plan the president is pushing for is basically an anti-Repub plan? Cut defense, get out of the wars, raise taxes, and oh yeah maybe cut a couple of domestic programs without touching the entitlement albatross? You really think that's going to fly?

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper (Post 2502632)

sounds good to me.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502658)

The Reid plan includes zero revenue additions. It's 2.7 trillion in cuts and no new taxes. But of course even that isn't good enough for the House GOP.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502565)

You keep talking as if raising the debt ceiling is about budgeting for the next fiscal year. We're not talking about spending choices, we're talking about paying our bills or not. Failure to raise the debt ceiling doesn't mean we'll live within our means. It means we'll decide to stop paying 40% of our bills.

So if you really want to frame this in micro terms(which doesn't really work, but seems popular) try this. You have a bunch of bills lying around your table and instead o making a plan on how to pay them down and cut other spending you say, "Fuck it. I'm just not going to pay 40% of them. Problem solved." That decision is bound to have negative consequences for you, right?

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2502678)

But none of the cuts are in areas that will really fix things.

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2502537)

Well you're the one saying that no one knows what they are talking about, so I assumed you had someone in mind for people to start listening to. Unless you have real answers, it's no different than the political rhetoric on both sides.

"We need to cut spending"
"What should we cut?"
"I don't know, just cut spending"

Sounds just like:

"We need to start listening to a new voice"
"Who is that voice?"
"I don't know, a new voice"

I'm sorry, it's empty rhetoric. It's easy to get on a soapbox and say "cut spending", "raise taxes", "listen to new people", "fix schools", and so on if you don't actually have to define what those plans entail.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502695)

OK. How about this?

Husband: "Honey we have to pay our mortgage, heating bills, electric bills, and maybe let you have the cable tv. But we have to cut netflix, hulu, the trip to Europe, the gardener, your personal assistant, the maid, the nanny, you shopping at coach every day, your boat, your personal plane...

Wife: "We can't get just fire all those people! What about their families?"

Husband: "OK. But how about we quit paying them each 200K a year and pay them what they actually should make? And how about buying a purse at Walmart for $25 instead of the $500 t coach until we get the bills paid on time?"

Wife: "Ha ha ha, but thats just how I have always done things."

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502699)

I'd agree that Medicare isn't looked at, but it isn't in the Boehner plan, either. The only way Dems can agree to big changes in Medicare is if they get something in return. Reid coming out with a trillion in Medicare cuts will gut the party and then fail to pass the Senate. A grand bargain requires that both sides sacrifice. So far Dems have shown a willingness and Republicans in the Senate have shown a willingness, but the GOP House hasn't.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502702)

Again, you're talking about budgeting for the next fiscal year. If the debt ceiling isn't raised the government will stop paying bills it has already agreed to pay. Not raising the debt ceiling is fixing the deficit by stiffing 40% of the people we promised to pay. If that happens there will certainly be consequences. The likely impact of those consequences is to make it harder to pay off the debt.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502702)

Again, you're talking about budgeting for the next fiscal year. If the debt ceiling isn't raised the government will stop paying bills it has already agreed to pay. Not raising the debt ceiling is fixing the deficit by stiffing 40% of the people we promised to pay. If that happens there will certainly be consequences. The likely impact of those consequences is to make it harder to pay off the debt.

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502707)

Well first of all you know my answer involves the wars which is a huge chunk of change but lets pretend like I am a politician who is scared to quit bombing brown people for a few weeks to get the house in order. Here's a plan...

Sen. Paul Unveils 5-Year Budget Plan: Eliminates Four Federal Agencies - The Note

I don't even disagree with any of the stuff the Reid wants to cut. (Could do without the tax increases but maybe we even need those for a few years)

Instead they will do what you are saying... compromise. Really accomplish nothing and keep sending taxpayer money to big banks, big military contractors, and big manufacturers. And then in 2012 we get to hear all the candidates talk about what they will do different "this time". I'm just tired of it from both sides.

Originally Posted by the article

Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.Among the items on the cutting room floor are the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2502712)

Here's a counter plan:

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2502712)

Yeah, cuz cutting the Departments of Energy and Education sounds like a great idea.

Here's a counter plan:

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Th...2%20Budget.pdf

Originally Posted by panerd (Post 2502716)

As a teacher I completely support eliminating the department of education. You do realize it hasn't been around all that long and basically just throws money around to try to fix societal problems. NCLB is one of the biggest jokes to anyone actually involved in education, just encourages systematic fraud and that every child in a low income area is left behind.

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2502634)

So you're all for driving us off a cliff by not actually fixing the root cause? That plan is a step backward from what the Dems had been proposing.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2502712)

Yeah, cuz cutting the Departments of Energy and Education sounds like a great idea.

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2502703)

Raising the debt ceiling right now fixes NOTHING long-term.

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2502759)

No, but it does fix the giant looming problem of default.

Originally Posted by gstelmack (Post 2502761)

And push it off another year.