• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Household Net Worth

Help Support Ranchers.net:

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
For the readers. Agman

Debt Be Not Proud?
Actually, when compared with household net worth, it’s of little concern.

By Jerry Bowyer

Would you judge the status of someone’s personal finances without even looking at his assets? Probably not. But that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from obsessing over the level of debt of the average American family, which they only look at in a vacuum, completely ignoring the growth of family net worth.

According to the Federal Reserve’s “Flow of Funds” report, released last month, the net worth of the American household (measured as assets minus liabilities) stands at a robust $51 trillion — yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” This isn’t just higher than last year (or the year before that; or the year before that). It’s almost twice what it was in 1995 and over 27 percent higher than it was in 1998 — right in the middle of Clinton’s “economic miracle.”

In other words, American households may be borrowing more today, but they’re acquiring even more assets. And thanks to low interest rates they’re borrowing in an environment that is particularly friendly to borrowing.

The result of all this is the highest level of household wealth in our nation’s history
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
For the readers. Agman

Debt Be Not Proud?
Actually, when compared with household net worth, it’s of little concern.

By Jerry Bowyer

Would you judge the status of someone’s personal finances without even looking at his assets? Probably not. But that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from obsessing over the level of debt of the average American family, which they only look at in a vacuum, completely ignoring the growth of family net worth.

According to the Federal Reserve’s “Flow of Funds” report, released last month, the net worth of the American household (measured as assets minus liabilities) stands at a robust $51 trillion — yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” This isn’t just higher than last year (or the year before that; or the year before that). It’s almost twice what it was in 1995 and over 27 percent higher than it was in 1998 — right in the middle of Clinton’s “economic miracle.”

In other words, American households may be borrowing more today, but they’re acquiring even more assets. And thanks to low interest rates they’re borrowing in an environment that is particularly friendly to borrowing.

The result of all this is the highest level of household wealth in our nation’s history

I'll take Buffett and Greenspan over him, too.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
agman said:
For the readers. Agman

Debt Be Not Proud?
Actually, when compared with household net worth, it’s of little concern.

By Jerry Bowyer

Would you judge the status of someone’s personal finances without even looking at his assets? Probably not. But that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from obsessing over the level of debt of the average American family, which they only look at in a vacuum, completely ignoring the growth of family net worth.

According to the Federal Reserve’s “Flow of Funds” report, released last month, the net worth of the American household (measured as assets minus liabilities) stands at a robust $51 trillion — yes, that’s trillion with a “T.” This isn’t just higher than last year (or the year before that; or the year before that). It’s almost twice what it was in 1995 and over 27 percent higher than it was in 1998 — right in the middle of Clinton’s “economic miracle.”

In other words, American households may be borrowing more today, but they’re acquiring even more assets. And thanks to low interest rates they’re borrowing in an environment that is particularly friendly to borrowing.

The result of all this is the highest level of household wealth in our nation’s history

I'll take Buffett and Greenspan over him, too.

It's leveraged. They own their assets on margin. That cuts both ways. Make more gain in inflationary times. More risk if things go bad.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Of course huge leverage of assets was a precurser to the stock market crash in 1929 and the start of the great depression. Granted, the theory of monetary policy and corrective action of the fed was not that that advanced back then.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
Agman, this is a joke.....RIGHT????????????? :???: :cry: :? :???:

Surely there are still memories of the 1990s stock market asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!

The 1980 land asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Econ, not old enough to remember the 1929 crash. :lol:

The total amount of a debt is owed regardless of the value of the assets that were borrowed against. Asset values are largely a fictitious value until they are sold for cold hard cash. It's like holding $7.50 beans waiting on $10.00 and selling for $5.00!

If Americans are so wealthy, why aren't they buying more beef?????
Why are daily kill numbers flirting with going below 100,000?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
RobertMac said:
Agman, this is a joke.....RIGHT????????????? :???: :cry: :? :???:

Surely there are still memories of the 1990s stock market asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!

The 1980 land asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Econ, not old enough to remember the 1929 crash. :lol:

The total amount of a debt is owed regardless of the value of the assets that were borrowed against. Asset values are largely a fictitious value until they are sold for cold hard cash. It's like holding $7.50 beans waiting on $10.00 and selling for $5.00!

If Americans are so wealthy, why aren't they buying more beef?????
Why are daily kill numbers flirting with going below 100,000?

I was going to use the Dutch tulip bulb craze in the 1600s but decided it might be called a little dated by some on this board who have no respect for the lessons of history.

Here is a good website for some of the long past and recent past crashes:

http://www.investopedia.com/features/crashes/crashes2.asp
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
RobertMac said:
Agman, this is a joke.....RIGHT????????????? :???: :cry: :? :???:

Surely there are still memories of the 1990s stock market asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!

The 1980 land asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Econ, not old enough to remember the 1929 crash. :lol:

The total amount of a debt is owed regardless of the value of the assets that were borrowed against. Asset values are largely a fictitious value until they are sold for cold hard cash. It's like holding $7.50 beans waiting on $10.00 and selling for $5.00!

If Americans are so wealthy, why aren't they buying more beef?????
Why are daily kill numbers flirting with going below 100,000?

Robertmac, re. the difficulty in increasing beef demand, would you admit that it just might be because too many consumers are believing the fearmongering they hear from a coalition of so called "consumer groups" and a certain cattle producer organization running ads and in the media all too often, inferring that beef in the supermarkets might give them BSE (or vCJD) because some of it is of Canadian origin?

Could it be because a few scientists, including one Walter Willett, a very cridible scientist who hates beef and says it must be harmful to health although he has no proof of that, gets quoted in womens magazines in articles urging people to eat less beef?

Beef Checkoff efforts to counter these stories can only do as much as the dollars available will allow. We are gaining ground, but anti-beef forces have very deep pockets.

Demonstrating the seriousness of attacks on the cattle/beef industry, one speaker at the NCBA convention, Barry Asmus, stated regarding food safety: "There is no finish line--we must always work to advance food safety further. PETA and friends demonstrate their hatred of capitalism, success and freedom. This is a fight, a war. They want us out of business."

MRJ
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
It might be because Johanns said beef prices were too high.

That quote hit the front page of the newspaper here. Consumers like to think they're getting a bargain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MRJ said:
Demonstrating the seriousness of attacks on the cattle/beef industry, one speaker at the NCBA convention, Barry Asmus, stated regarding food safety: "There is no finish line--we must always work to advance food safety further. PETA and friends demonstrate their hatred of capitalism, success and freedom. This is a fight, a war. They want us out of business."

MRJ

And then NCBA sided with the Packers and opposed allowing Creekstone and the small packers to BSE test...Which could have gave a much better account of the BSE problem, demonstrated a more positive image of USDA and the safety concerns of the beef industry as a whole, plus providing the Japanese consumer with a product they requested..... :???: :(
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
RobertMac said:
Agman, this is a joke.....RIGHT????????????? :???: :cry: :? :???:

Surely there are still memories of the 1990s stock market asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!

The 1980 land asset bubble that went POP!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Econ, not old enough to remember the 1929 crash. :lol:

The total amount of a debt is owed regardless of the value of the assets that were borrowed against. Asset values are largely a fictitious value until they are sold for cold hard cash. It's like holding $7.50 beans waiting on $10.00 and selling for $5.00!

If Americans are so wealthy, why aren't they buying more beef?????
Why are daily kill numbers flirting with going below 100,000?

Robertmac, re. the difficulty in increasing beef demand, would you admit that it just might be because too many consumers are believing the fearmongering they hear from a coalition of so called "consumer groups" and a certain cattle producer organization running ads and in the media all too often, inferring that beef in the supermarkets might give them BSE (or vCJD) because some of it is of Canadian origin?

Could it be because a few scientists, including one Walter Willett, a very cridible scientist who hates beef and says it must be harmful to health although he has no proof of that, gets quoted in womens magazines in articles urging people to eat less beef?

Beef Checkoff efforts to counter these stories can only do as much as the dollars available will allow. We are gaining ground, but anti-beef forces have very deep pockets.

Demonstrating the seriousness of attacks on the cattle/beef industry, one speaker at the NCBA convention, Barry Asmus, stated regarding food safety: "There is no finish line--we must always work to advance food safety further. PETA and friends demonstrate their hatred of capitalism, success and freedom. This is a fight, a war. They want us out of business."

MRJ

MRJ, maybe they are starting to see that the USDA is not as worried about food safety as they are the packers who are lining the current power structure's pockets.

Get into the fear mongering PETA if you wish. It will not solve the above stated problem, it will only sweep it under the rug.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
No, MRJ, you can't blame this on R-CALF. :?

The problem is 30+ years of anti-fat (anti-red meat) propaganda from the medical profession and trumpeted by the news media. Last week the results of a long term, high population (read : creditable) study on the effects of low-fat diets shot down all the implied benefits of not eating red meat. THIRTY YEARS OF LIES!!!!!!!! If NCBA and CBB have any balls what so ever, they need to be putting this study in front of the public every chance they get. Then demand similar studies that separate animal fats from processed vegetable fats.

More and more consumers don't trust the corporate packers. It's not because somebody like PETA has influence until the industry gives them credibility with things like meat recalls. And the USDA is right there undermining public confidence in beef with their botching of the BSE cases. Then taking agonizingly long to re-open trade with Japan and almost immediately screwing that up. Without ammunition, the anti-meat wackos would be marginalized.

Food/health facts are on our side when we stress eating food the way Nature produces it!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
RobertMac said:
No, MRJ, you can't blame this on R-CALF. :?

The problem is 30+ years of anti-fat (anti-red meat) propaganda from the medical profession and trumpeted by the news media. Last week the results of a long term, high population (read : creditable) study on the effects of low-fat diets shot down all the implied benefits of not eating red meat. THIRTY YEARS OF LIES!!!!!!!! If NCBA and CBB have any balls what so ever, they need to be putting this study in front of the public every chance they get. Then demand similar studies that separate animal fats from processed vegetable fats.

More and more consumers don't trust the corporate packers. It's not because somebody like PETA has influence until the industry gives them credibility with things like meat recalls. And the USDA is right there undermining public confidence in beef with their botching of the BSE cases. Then taking agonizingly long to re-open trade with Japan and almost immediately screwing that up. Without ammunition, the anti-meat wackos would be marginalized.

Food/health facts are on our side when we stress eating food the way Nature produces it!

Remember, it is the GRAIN Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration. Although I am not aware of the grain part of this outfit, the P&S part is useless and borders(if not right in the middle of) on outright fraudulent, incompetent and corrupt.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
"The Gospel according to RM and Econ" includes too much innuendo, too little fact, and leavestoo much to the imagination, IMO.

I can agree with RM on the anti-fat propaganda, but did the medical profession just dream up the basis for that? I doubt it. I have read that some companies were looking for fats that were more stable and less spoilable than lard, etc., and promoted the seed oils as more healthful than animal fats and sold the government on that idea.

RM, there are disclaimers on that study and we are not home free just on the basis of the one study. Maybe if you "had any balls whatsoever", you would be man enough to check into your facts on what NCBA and the CBB have been doing before you assassinate the character of those who are committing to the research projects that are proving the benefits of beef fats AND will be putting the information where it will do the most good. You apparently do not realize that Beef Checkoff works diligently with food professionals, dieticians and the medical profession as well as getting information before the public directly and through media influencers.

It is really easy to take the cheap shot and blame the glitch in the Japanese beef trade on USDA before the facts are proven as to what really happened in that case. Meat recalls prove the system is working. Packers are doing due dilligence in finding (usually through their own HACCP systems) problems with contaminated meat. Such contamination may be due to a careless employee rather than be a real fault of the "evil packer", for goodness sake!

If someone could wave a wand and eliminate all bureaucratic bungling and suffocation under multiple layers of paperwork, I'm certain the USDA would miraculously improve their record.

Where some of you love to hate packers and USDA and blame them for all problems, some see the nature of bureaucracy stifling modernization and efficiency at every turn, and are actually working to change that situation.

MRJ
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,705
Reaction score
0
Location
Mississippi, USA
MRJ, I'm sure there are good, hard working people at NCBA and CBB and am not personally attacking any of them. I'm sure they are doing what they think is best, but you sound like our liberal Democrat friends...judge me by my good intentions, not by my results. The facts are that beef has lost market share, consumption(total domestic production) has been flat, and USA producers(that's you and me) are being displaced with imports. CBB and NCBA have put themselves in the position for being responsible for correcting these issues for the betterment of THE USA CATTLEMAN!!!!! If you can't produce, be prepared to take the heat. The same for the USDA and packers...they are responsible for making sure that beef is safe AND that the consuming public BELIEVES IT IS!!!!! It's time to be proactive, and not reactive, and counter the thirty years of lies. Do it like Pres. Reagan...take it straight to the people!
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
So, MRJ, are you just ready to sweep the OIG report on GIPSA under the rug because some people like myself don't agree with you and your organization's past leaders bungling of the responsibilities in their positions?

It's too late. The OIG report (and the other reports on the USDA) have shown too many problems of incompetence or corruption. Keep defending these guys but don't say I am the one with too much innuendo, no facts, and an active imagination. Stop projecting the problems with the organization you blindly support onto the critics.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
RobertMac said:
MRJ, I'm sure there are good, hard working people at NCBA and CBB and am not personally attacking any of them. I'm sure they are doing what they think is best, but you sound like our liberal Democrat friends...judge me by my good intentions, not by my results. The facts are that beef has lost market share, consumption(total domestic production) has been flat, and USA producers(that's you and me) are being displaced with imports. CBB and NCBA have put themselves in the position for being responsible for correcting these issues for the betterment of THE USA CATTLEMAN!!!!! If you can't produce, be prepared to take the heat. The same for the USDA and packers...they are responsible for making sure that beef is safe AND that the consuming public BELIEVES IT IS!!!!! It's time to be proactive, and not reactive, and counter the thirty years of lies. Do it like Pres. Reagan...take it straight to the people!


RM, if you are not attacking them, you surely are sounding condescending when you say of the leaders and staff of CBB and NCBA "I'm sure they are doing what they think best" and that they operate under "judge me by my good intentions, not by my results".

First, it is not the staff making the decisions, it is the cattle producer members serving on the board of CBB and the state Beef Industry Councils who make the decisions.

You may have underestimated the forces against beef in this country. That has made the efforts of the Beef Checkoff the more difficult.

You very apparently are unwilling to admit that some of that beef we import actually adds value to our beef trim and that it is better business for domestic producers to import some beef of lower value (extra lean beef to add to our fatty trim meat) so that we may sell more of our domestic beef at higher value (new beef cuts and products AND that fatty trim). We have continually increased our domestic production of beef, so how do you figure that U.S. cattle producers are "being displaced with imports"?

Some on this site have castigated the CBB and NCBA for developing new beef products as "doing what the packers and retailers should be doing".
No one WAS doing those things and beef consumption decreased. We did those things with the checkoff and beef demand is increasing. Consumers want MORE new, convenient beef products and we are working to provide them. Beef demand increased far faster than the previous Long Range Plan projected it to, and the new LRP goal is a 10% increase by the year 2010. Cattle producers in NCBA and the CBB are optimistic we can achieve that goal ahead of time, too. What are you doing besides criticizing those that are working to increase beef demand? You are ignoring reams of information and facts about results of research when you claim that CBB and NCBA "can't produce" results.

The sad and disgusting thing is that it isn't just anti-beef forces working against those of us who have improved the market for beef, you know. There are far too many in the cattle business that are jubilant when there is anything they can dream up or twist to blame those working to benefit all producers, not only through the beef checkoff, but with our organizational dues dollars, too.

Exactly how would you "take it straight to the people" in fixing problems at USDA? I have read quite a few instances where Johanns HAS responded to accusations with action that changed what was wrong. Johanns is being kept so busy dealing with accusations on every side, many of them simple recording errors, that it is a wonder he can accomplish anything positive. Do you really believe none of that attibutable to your "liberal Democrat friends" still in the departments of our government and determined to thwart efforts of this administration to improve government of, by and for the people.

Do you really believe as many consumers will be turned off eating beef by boring news stories of yet another USDAfood recall, usually ending "all of the product was removed from the food system" as will by reading full page ads in the big city newspapers telling them, in effect, BSE tainted beef from Canada is in our grocery stores? And Canadians, please understand I abhor that stupidity by R-CALF and friends in placing such ads.

Working with the system to address problems and improve the work of USDA as NCBA does seems to me a faster, more effective way to implement needed change and to reinforce what is working well than your fault-finding and finger pointing and name calling ever can.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
So, MRJ, are you just ready to sweep the OIG report on GIPSA under the rug because some people like myself don't agree with you and your organization's past leaders bungling of the responsibilities in their positions?

It's too late. The OIG report (and the other reports on the USDA) have shown too many problems of incompetence or corruption. Keep defending these guys but don't say I am the one with too much innuendo, no facts, and an active imagination. Stop projecting the problems with the organization you blindly support onto the critics.

Maybe I'm not up on USDA gossip like you are, Econ. Which "past leaders" of my "organization" are bungling the responsibilities of their positions? Which positions do they hold? Seriously, I do not know! I have heard Beth Johnson is working in USDA, but don't know what she does. Only that she did an excellent job for NCBA when she was on the staff. I don't recall Dales last name, or which staff position he held at NCBA, nor have I ever known what he does at USDA. It would be interesting to hear and update on them and any others you know of in USDA. I've really missed seeing Beth. She was so competent in her jobs with NCBA I can't imagine she would stand for any "bungling", and was interesting to visit with after the work was finished for the day.

BTW, Econ, have you failed to hear any of the news reports of NCBA leaders chastizing USDA for failures recently? I heard some fairly strong language on Agri-Talk.

Do you think it impossible that OIG may be a bit overzealous and that some of the "infractions" are as simple as improper recording and other "paperwork" glitches? That said, I probably more than most people, want any REAL problems addressed and properly accounted for. I do fear that will be difficult, given the bureaucracy of USDA and all govt agencies.

I would like the bureaucracy of the entire government cleaned up and whittled to the bone. Just reading some of the USDA website info on COOL shows the desperate need to use common language and cut the endless detail and minutia of writing rules to implement laws.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
So, MRJ, are you just ready to sweep the OIG report on GIPSA under the rug because some people like myself don't agree with you and your organization's past leaders bungling of the responsibilities in their positions?

It's too late. The OIG report (and the other reports on the USDA) have shown too many problems of incompetence or corruption. Keep defending these guys but don't say I am the one with too much innuendo, no facts, and an active imagination. Stop projecting the problems with the organization you blindly support onto the critics.

Maybe I'm not up on USDA gossip like you are, Econ. Which "past leaders" of my "organization" are bungling the responsibilities of their positions? Which positions do they hold? Seriously, I do not know! I have heard Beth Johnson is working in USDA, but don't know what she does. Only that she did an excellent job for NCBA when she was on the staff. I don't recall Dales last name, or which staff position he held at NCBA, nor have I ever known what he does at USDA. It would be interesting to hear and update on them and any others you know of in USDA. I've really missed seeing Beth. She was so competent in her jobs with NCBA I can't imagine she would stand for any "bungling", and was interesting to visit with after the work was finished for the day.

BTW, Econ, have you failed to hear any of the news reports of NCBA leaders chastizing USDA for failures recently? I heard some fairly strong language on Agri-Talk.

Do you think it impossible that OIG may be a bit overzealous and that some of the "infractions" are as simple as improper recording and other "paperwork" glitches? That said, I probably more than most people, want any REAL problems addressed and properly accounted for. I do fear that will be difficult, given the bureaucracy of USDA and all govt agencies.

I would like the bureaucracy of the entire government cleaned up and whittled to the bone. Just reading some of the USDA website info on COOL shows the desperate need to use common language and cut the endless detail and minutia of writing rules to implement laws.

MRJ

No, MRJ, I don't go onto agritalk much.

I don't think the OIG is a bit overzealous. It is not just simple paperwork glitches. There are real problems with what is going on over there but the leaders of the agriculture committees do not want to hold hearings because they are way too implicated with campaign contributions. It would make the abramhoff deal look like small potatos.

I too would like to see less bureaucracy. I had a friend say who lobbied on the hill quite a bit for producers that the best thing that could happen for farmers was for the USDA to be blown up. I am begginning to agree with him (not litterally where people get killed). We all pay for inefficient govt. bureaucracy and that could be money better spent elsewhere. I think education is not fully funded.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
So, MRJ, are you just ready to sweep the OIG report on GIPSA under the rug because some people like myself don't agree with you and your organization's past leaders bungling of the responsibilities in their positions?

It's too late. The OIG report (and the other reports on the USDA) have shown too many problems of incompetence or corruption. Keep defending these guys but don't say I am the one with too much innuendo, no facts, and an active imagination. Stop projecting the problems with the organization you blindly support onto the critics.

Maybe I'm not up on USDA gossip like you are, Econ. Which "past leaders" of my "organization" are bungling the responsibilities of their positions? Which positions do they hold? Seriously, I do not know! I have heard Beth Johnson is working in USDA, but don't know what she does. Only that she did an excellent job for NCBA when she was on the staff. I don't recall Dales last name, or which staff position he held at NCBA, nor have I ever known what he does at USDA. It would be interesting to hear and update on them and any others you know of in USDA. I've really missed seeing Beth. She was so competent in her jobs with NCBA I can't imagine she would stand for any "bungling", and was interesting to visit with after the work was finished for the day.

BTW, Econ, have you failed to hear any of the news reports of NCBA leaders chastizing USDA for failures recently? I heard some fairly strong language on Agri-Talk.

Do you think it impossible that OIG may be a bit overzealous and that some of the "infractions" are as simple as improper recording and other "paperwork" glitches? That said, I probably more than most people, want any REAL problems addressed and properly accounted for. I do fear that will be difficult, given the bureaucracy of USDA and all govt agencies.

I would like the bureaucracy of the entire government cleaned up and whittled to the bone. Just reading some of the USDA website info on COOL shows the desperate need to use common language and cut the endless detail and minutia of writing rules to implement laws.

MRJ

No, MRJ, I don't go onto agritalk much.

I don't think the OIG is a bit overzealous. It is not just simple paperwork glitches. There are real problems with what is going on over there but the leaders of the agriculture committees do not want to hold hearings because they are way too implicated with campaign contributions. It would make the abramhoff deal look like small potatos.

I too would like to see less bureaucracy. I had a friend say who lobbied on the hill quite a bit for producers that the best thing that could happen for farmers was for the USDA to be blown up. I am begginning to agree with him (not litterally where people get killed). We all pay for inefficient govt. bureaucracy and that could be money better spent elsewhere. I think education is not fully funded.

What do you mean by "I think education is not fully funded"? How much spending per pupil do you feel is needed? And how should it be funded? How much of primary and secondary ed should be funded by federal govt?

In SD we find too much of education with taxes on agriculture, IMO. We are pretty consistently at the bottom of teacher pay, yet rank high on student achieventment, tests and otherwise. While teacher unions prevail, we will not be able to pay the best ones what they are worth, nor to eliminate the poor and mediocre ones, IMO.

Ooooops! probably should have started a new thread for the education subject!!!

MRJ

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ, No child left behind as well as other unfunded educational mandates are common knowledge. No, I don't thing you just throw money at education and solve all its problems. Same thing with the oil business. We need a little bit of real leadership on a lot of issues instead of this trust me but here is the bill BS.
 

Latest posts

Top