Posted on March 4 at 10:40 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Interesting concept. Rather than allowing children to "choose" their occupation perhaps it would have been valuable to extrapolate the actual Janesville demographics of 20% of the population with 4 year college degrees and ~65% without college degrees. Asign those people median incomes and then see how far their dollar take them.
This is not to say that one cannot make it in society without a 4 year college degree but the odds are much greater with one than without one.
I dont know if the acutal tax tables were used to illustrate the bite the state and federal govt takes out of wages. Perhaps to improve this activity a real accounting of Wages, minus taxes minus consumption will give a better picture of what occurs.
On Community Blog: Good for a personal “brand”?
Posted on March 3 at 12:16 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I think you should write this blog because its a passion of yours and not be consumed by who reads its. You cant please everyone all of the time and if you try you'll end up pleasing no one-including yourself.
If writing this blog takes away from your duties at your current employer or any prospective employers-you have a choice-turn your avocation into a vocation or shut it down and concentrate on your current duties.
Do I think I know you? I think I have a basic understanding of "where you sit" relative to your blog posts-but I dont pretend to know you. I am sure there are topics you wish to keep private or topics that you do not or have not formed an opinion on.
Is the blog good for your brand? Maybe. As long as the blog is representative of you, persoanlly. Take Tiger Woods for example, In October 2009 I bet most people thought that Tiger Woods was this devoted husband and father and the worlds best golfer... a person with the perfect life: fame, money, beautiful family. Now we know the "brand" Tiger is nothing like the "real" Tiger. THe question that you must ask yourself is your community blog representative of you? If it is great-people agree to disagree all the time. If its a charade of who you are then I suspect your time on this site will not be long.
Posted on March 1 at 9:18 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Steve,
The 2000 census data shows that Janesville is 95.27% white. What do you think the racial demographic was in 1990--20 years ago. ~95% white. On the other hand you could say that the hispanic population has increased by50% over the past 10 yeras and you'd probably be correct. But on balance, Janesville, Milton, and Beloit have a very similiar racial mix today as it was 20 years ago.
By diversity do you mean only racial diversity? What about political diversity? Is this an important characteristic?
On Time for COURAGEOUS leadership!
Posted on February 28 at 11:04 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
John,
Why do you assume the democrats are going to fall in line NOW? They couldnt pass the bill with a super majority and clearly the house parliamentarian will not allow the current bill, obamacare 2.0 to be brought to a vote with abortion language as it stands. It will take 217 Democrat votes to pass.
Also don't look to medicare or medicaid as successful govt healthcare programs. They are centers of fraud and waste which cost billions of tax payer dollars----and are nearing bankruptcy. Your blind faith in the federal government to solve the healthcare problem speaks volumes to your lack of understanding the issue. Please stop your childish TACTIC of capitalizing words MID sentence. It makes your blog NEARLY unreadable.
On Health care dominates Feingold listening session
Posted on February 28 at 10:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
A listening session is a tactic used by politicians who wish to appear connected to constituents. It's symbolism over substance. Whether these sessions are led by republicans or democrats they it accomplishes nothing. Meanwhile in other news Russ Feingold raises hundreds of thousands from New Yorkers and Californians. Does Russ offer any "listening tours" to those supporters?
On Time for "RECONCILIATION" on health care reform!
Posted on February 27 at 9:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
John,
Yuo should be ashamed. Not only for using wikipedia as a proof source but also for not defining the real use of reconciliation-
Lets take an objective view of what this steaming pile of healthcare reform really is. First, this is not about improving the health of the American people. It is about passing something — anything — to keep the Obama administration from ending up with egg on its face by being unable to pass a bill, after so much hype and hoopla. Politically, looking impotent is a formula for disaster at election time. Far better to pass even bad legislation that will not actually go into effect until after the 2012 presidential election, so that the public will not know whether it makes medical care better or worse until it is too late for the voters to hold the administration accountable.
First it was supposed to be passed before the August 2009 Congressional recess. Then it was supposed to be passed before Labor Day. When that didn't happen, it was supposed to be rushed to passage before Christmas. Why — especially since the legislation would not take effect until years from now?
The only rational explanation for such haste to pass a bill that will be slow to go into effect is to prevent the public from knowing what is in this massive legislation that even members of Congress are unlikely to have read. That is also the only reason that makes sense for postponing the time when Obamacare goes into action after the next presidential election.
Poll after Poll demonstrate that the public, the tax payer does not want Obamacare. Yet, Obama, needing a political victory of any sorts is determined to pass anything. This is not what our founding fathers had in mind, is it?
On Toyoda, Toyota: One last DC observation
Posted on February 26 at 3:54 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Stevie,
There's a growing anti-trade sentiment in our country. Much of the dialogue is grossly misinformed. Since there is no moral argument for preventing one person from trading with another, anti-traders shift their argument to a patriotic appeal.
When the money you write of leaves the USA do foreigners keep all those dollars they earned under a mattress? They are not that stupid. They use those dollars to import capital goods such as U.S. stocks, bonds and U.S. Treasury notes. They might use some of it to build factories in the U.S. such as Honda, Novartis and Samsung. The dollar amount of those purchases is going to equalize the value of what we import. We sport a huge surplus in our capital account with foreigners. As such, they are dependent on us for a safe and profitable place to invest their earnings. That dependency contributes to OUR economic growth. Anything that increases economic efficiency -- whether by outsourcing or a hundred other things -- is likely to cost somebody's job. The automobile cost the jobs of people who took care of horses or made saddles, carriages, and horseshoes.
Indeed, when protectionists seek to block imports-- often under the banner of "patriotism"-- what they're really blocking is the free exercise of property rights. And there's nothing American about that.
Protectionism is as wrong in practice as it is in theory. Steve just as you're better off "importing" goods into your house from stores rather than laboring to produce everything yourself within the borders of your home, so too is a nation better off observing that same principle.
I am going to go out on a limb and assume you did not type your column on a typewriter. I am correct? Where do you think the vast majority of components come from? Imagine if U.S. computer companies were forced to make all their components at home. The cost of computers would be higher, so U.S. business could not enhance productivity, grow and hire workers. Plus, U.S. computer makers would be priced out of the market and forced to fire workers-in fact you might not even be able to have a blog on the bliss website.
On Legislation could require schools to abandon Indian mascots
Posted on February 26 at 3:14 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
whythink,
Whether YOU consider the symbolism of the mascots offensive or not is not the issue. As I wrote "it's your prerogative to take offense at just about anything, and it's the prerogative of others to reject your complaint if they believe it's unjustified."
I believe its unjustified. Where does this end?
Thousands of geographical names, of our rivers, rocks and rills, our fruited plains and templed hills, are of Indian origin. So are the names of half the states. If commemorating Indian bravery by calling a mascot by Indian names is offensive, how much more offensive to call entire states, the largest rivers and hundreds of whole cities and towns, with all their evil-doers, by Indian names?
On Legislation could require schools to abandon Indian mascots
Posted on February 25 at 8:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Big foot school administrators and other so called "officials" should focus on increasing graduation rates and improving test scores. The nicknames of high school or collegiate sports teams and their mascots have no duty to be all-inclusive, diverse or to indulge liberal guilt.
The foundation of political correctness is the accommodation of unreasonable grievances, like this one, and the false premise that hypersensitive individuals and groups possess some inalienable right to be protected from any kind of speech or expression that might conceivably offend them. Hey, it's your prerogative to take offense at just about anything, and it's the prerogative of others to reject your complaint if they believe it's unjustified. There's a difference between subjective hypersensitivity and something that's objectively offensive to reasonable people why cant these officials see this?
Page 1 of 37 | Next
On Is President Obama too late?
Posted on March 9 at 9:12 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Is Obama too late? Obamas strategy has not changed. Reform sounds great in the abstract. But then the public learns the details of the legislation, the louisiana purchase, the deal in nebraska, etc.-they want reform-but the public hates THIS legislation.
Healthcare reform requires governing- not campaigning; compromising, not promising and meetings with legislators on Capitol Hill or at the White House. Obama would rather read from his teleprompter to the masses, doling out of easy applause lines to an adoring audience. But this is what this president is good at campaigning. Legislating is a different ballgame-a game in which he lacks skill. The real obstacle the democrat on Capital hill.
Shame on you for continuing to perpetrate a lie that the USA does not provide basic healthcare for ALL its people. You can go to any hospital to receive care. You will not be turned away-this is one of the problems. Obamacare is not about providing medical care for free. Its about providing INSURANCE at taxpayer expense. Its a big difference. Obamacare is a ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would endorse.
I can only hope that your students have the courage to hold your feet to the fire when you blatantly define "healthcare" as an all encompassing term that means access to physicians, medical services, pharmaceuticals, and health insurance. Obamacare is health insurance. It does not improve access to physicians, it does not provide for free pharmaceuticals, it doesnt address fraud, it doesnt address tort reform, it does not improve medical care; it restricts it. These are basic economic tenants. The public has sent a consistent message that it opposes the bill, with the Senate election in Massachusetts providing the exclamation point.