[poorgradstudent]

There’s pretty good scientific evidence that romantic love dies at about the 5-7 year mark for a couple. Evolutionary biologists have theorized this would be about the point in time our caveman ancestors would have raised a child together “successfully”, as a 7 year old can run, hide from predators, and pick food from plants and trees on their own.

Obviously there are couples that make their relationship work far past six years. It takes skilled communication, conflict resolution skills, and compromise. We all know the divorce statistics. We also all know couples who are together but not necessarily happy; the sort of couples who file the divorce papers the day their youngest child graduates from high school. There are plenty of couples out there who don’t get divorced that have dealt with infidelity or serious financial deceit.

In short, marriage is hard. It’s a big part of why me and the vast majority of our friends have been extremely gunshy about marriage. Lifelong monogamy just isn’t something humans are naturally very good at. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying it’s all the more impressive by those who accomplish it.

[poorgradstudent]

There’s pretty good scientific evidence that romantic love dies at about the 5-7 year mark for a couple. Evolutionary biologists have theorized this would be about the point in time our caveman ancestors would have raised a child together “successfully”, as a 7 year old can run, hide from predators, and pick food from plants and trees on their own.

Obviously there are couples that make their relationship work far past six years. It takes skilled communication, conflict resolution skills, and compromise. We all know the divorce statistics. We also all know couples who are together but not necessarily happy; the sort of couples who file the divorce papers the day their youngest child graduates from high school. There are plenty of couples out there who don’t get divorced that have dealt with infidelity or serious financial deceit.

In short, marriage is hard. It’s a big part of why me and the vast majority of our friends have been extremely gunshy about marriage. Lifelong monogamy just isn’t something humans are naturally very good at. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying it’s all the more impressive by those who accomplish it.

[poorgradstudent]

There’s pretty good scientific evidence that romantic love dies at about the 5-7 year mark for a couple. Evolutionary biologists have theorized this would be about the point in time our caveman ancestors would have raised a child together “successfully”, as a 7 year old can run, hide from predators, and pick food from plants and trees on their own.

Obviously there are couples that make their relationship work far past six years. It takes skilled communication, conflict resolution skills, and compromise. We all know the divorce statistics. We also all know couples who are together but not necessarily happy; the sort of couples who file the divorce papers the day their youngest child graduates from high school. There are plenty of couples out there who don’t get divorced that have dealt with infidelity or serious financial deceit.

In short, marriage is hard. It’s a big part of why me and the vast majority of our friends have been extremely gunshy about marriage. Lifelong monogamy just isn’t something humans are naturally very good at. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I am saying it’s all the more impressive by those who accomplish it.

[poorgradstudent]

Since the beginning of recorded history, many people have expected, if not hoped, that the “end times” would come during their lifetime. If you read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, the New Testament quite literally expects Jesus to return within the authors’ lifetimes. Empires rise and fall over generations, but our human brains have a hard time conceiving more than a 5-10 year time line.

Also there’s a very common logical fallacy with regards to probability, in that people tend to grossly overestimate the likelihood of a low probability occurrence. If I told you there’s a 5% chance of rain, you might be surprised when it doesn’t rain. Low probability events that actually occur are memorable, high probability events are forgettable.

Finally, those who are most dissatisfied with society often overestimate how many like them there are out there. It’s natural for human beings to think of their own beliefs as mainstream and moderate, even if they are fringe.

[poorgradstudent]

Since the beginning of recorded history, many people have expected, if not hoped, that the “end times” would come during their lifetime. If you read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, the New Testament quite literally expects Jesus to return within the authors’ lifetimes. Empires rise and fall over generations, but our human brains have a hard time conceiving more than a 5-10 year time line.

Also there’s a very common logical fallacy with regards to probability, in that people tend to grossly overestimate the likelihood of a low probability occurrence. If I told you there’s a 5% chance of rain, you might be surprised when it doesn’t rain. Low probability events that actually occur are memorable, high probability events are forgettable.

Finally, those who are most dissatisfied with society often overestimate how many like them there are out there. It’s natural for human beings to think of their own beliefs as mainstream and moderate, even if they are fringe.

[poorgradstudent]

Since the beginning of recorded history, many people have expected, if not hoped, that the “end times” would come during their lifetime. If you read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, the New Testament quite literally expects Jesus to return within the authors’ lifetimes. Empires rise and fall over generations, but our human brains have a hard time conceiving more than a 5-10 year time line.

Also there’s a very common logical fallacy with regards to probability, in that people tend to grossly overestimate the likelihood of a low probability occurrence. If I told you there’s a 5% chance of rain, you might be surprised when it doesn’t rain. Low probability events that actually occur are memorable, high probability events are forgettable.

Finally, those who are most dissatisfied with society often overestimate how many like them there are out there. It’s natural for human beings to think of their own beliefs as mainstream and moderate, even if they are fringe.

[poorgradstudent]

Since the beginning of recorded history, many people have expected, if not hoped, that the “end times” would come during their lifetime. If you read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, the New Testament quite literally expects Jesus to return within the authors’ lifetimes. Empires rise and fall over generations, but our human brains have a hard time conceiving more than a 5-10 year time line.

Also there’s a very common logical fallacy with regards to probability, in that people tend to grossly overestimate the likelihood of a low probability occurrence. If I told you there’s a 5% chance of rain, you might be surprised when it doesn’t rain. Low probability events that actually occur are memorable, high probability events are forgettable.

Finally, those who are most dissatisfied with society often overestimate how many like them there are out there. It’s natural for human beings to think of their own beliefs as mainstream and moderate, even if they are fringe.

[poorgradstudent]

Since the beginning of recorded history, many people have expected, if not hoped, that the “end times” would come during their lifetime. If you read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, the New Testament quite literally expects Jesus to return within the authors’ lifetimes. Empires rise and fall over generations, but our human brains have a hard time conceiving more than a 5-10 year time line.

Also there’s a very common logical fallacy with regards to probability, in that people tend to grossly overestimate the likelihood of a low probability occurrence. If I told you there’s a 5% chance of rain, you might be surprised when it doesn’t rain. Low probability events that actually occur are memorable, high probability events are forgettable.

Finally, those who are most dissatisfied with society often overestimate how many like them there are out there. It’s natural for human beings to think of their own beliefs as mainstream and moderate, even if they are fringe.

[poorgradstudent]

The bill falls somewhere between baby-step in the right direction and band-aid over a flesh wound. It will help cover a lot more Americans who need it. The costs will mostly fall upon the young, healthy, and currently uninsured. For your typical middle-class worker with health insurance through their employer it will be pretty negligible, aside from knowledge that more of our fellow human beings are covered.

It *probably* will be helpful to those who have to buy their own health insurance, such as small business owners.

Would single payer or actually switching to the Canadian style “socialism” Republicans tried to frame this bill as have been better? Yes. Single Payer would have done a lot more to control costs. And universal health care is the morally right thing to do, something every industrialized nation except the US has, and most of those countries enjoy a higher quality of care and life than we do. But change comes incrementally, and this is a step in the right direction.

[poorgradstudent]

The bill falls somewhere between baby-step in the right direction and band-aid over a flesh wound. It will help cover a lot more Americans who need it. The costs will mostly fall upon the young, healthy, and currently uninsured. For your typical middle-class worker with health insurance through their employer it will be pretty negligible, aside from knowledge that more of our fellow human beings are covered.

It *probably* will be helpful to those who have to buy their own health insurance, such as small business owners.

Would single payer or actually switching to the Canadian style “socialism” Republicans tried to frame this bill as have been better? Yes. Single Payer would have done a lot more to control costs. And universal health care is the morally right thing to do, something every industrialized nation except the US has, and most of those countries enjoy a higher quality of care and life than we do. But change comes incrementally, and this is a step in the right direction.

[poorgradstudent]

The bill falls somewhere between baby-step in the right direction and band-aid over a flesh wound. It will help cover a lot more Americans who need it. The costs will mostly fall upon the young, healthy, and currently uninsured. For your typical middle-class worker with health insurance through their employer it will be pretty negligible, aside from knowledge that more of our fellow human beings are covered.

It *probably* will be helpful to those who have to buy their own health insurance, such as small business owners.

Would single payer or actually switching to the Canadian style “socialism” Republicans tried to frame this bill as have been better? Yes. Single Payer would have done a lot more to control costs. And universal health care is the morally right thing to do, something every industrialized nation except the US has, and most of those countries enjoy a higher quality of care and life than we do. But change comes incrementally, and this is a step in the right direction.

[poorgradstudent]

The bill falls somewhere between baby-step in the right direction and band-aid over a flesh wound. It will help cover a lot more Americans who need it. The costs will mostly fall upon the young, healthy, and currently uninsured. For your typical middle-class worker with health insurance through their employer it will be pretty negligible, aside from knowledge that more of our fellow human beings are covered.

It *probably* will be helpful to those who have to buy their own health insurance, such as small business owners.

Would single payer or actually switching to the Canadian style “socialism” Republicans tried to frame this bill as have been better? Yes. Single Payer would have done a lot more to control costs. And universal health care is the morally right thing to do, something every industrialized nation except the US has, and most of those countries enjoy a higher quality of care and life than we do. But change comes incrementally, and this is a step in the right direction.

[poorgradstudent]

The bill falls somewhere between baby-step in the right direction and band-aid over a flesh wound. It will help cover a lot more Americans who need it. The costs will mostly fall upon the young, healthy, and currently uninsured. For your typical middle-class worker with health insurance through their employer it will be pretty negligible, aside from knowledge that more of our fellow human beings are covered.

It *probably* will be helpful to those who have to buy their own health insurance, such as small business owners.

Would single payer or actually switching to the Canadian style “socialism” Republicans tried to frame this bill as have been better? Yes. Single Payer would have done a lot more to control costs. And universal health care is the morally right thing to do, something every industrialized nation except the US has, and most of those countries enjoy a higher quality of care and life than we do. But change comes incrementally, and this is a step in the right direction.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=briansd1]Housing is now living on welfare and you all know that happens when people who depend in welfare. They can’t get off the subsidies. Eventually, the government won’t be able to handle it anymore and the whole thing will come crashing down, if that continues.[/quote]
Slightly off topic, but the opposite is actually true of most recipients of welfare. The majority who use the safety net are actually short timers who utilize the resources available during tough times (job loss, health problems) and return to work in less than 2 years and get off the system. (Note: I’m not looking at things like tax breaks, since if you consider that “welfare” most of the American middle class with kids is sucking at the government teat and living off the childless). Only about 20% actually stay on welfare for more than 5 years. Not a trivial amount, although overall it’s a drop in the bucket of total federal government spending.

The policies of the Clinton and GW Bush administrations helped create and prop up the housing bubble, along with a lot of stupid banks and foolish borrowers. Still, it is the role of the federal government to increase spending and cut taxes during economic downturns (i.e. run a deficit) and (here’s the tough political sell) CUT spending and RAISE taxes during economic boom times. Again, both Clinton and GW Bush screwed up by cutting taxes during their respective good economic years rather than paying down the deficit.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=briansd1]Housing is now living on welfare and you all know that happens when people who depend in welfare. They can’t get off the subsidies. Eventually, the government won’t be able to handle it anymore and the whole thing will come crashing down, if that continues.[/quote]
Slightly off topic, but the opposite is actually true of most recipients of welfare. The majority who use the safety net are actually short timers who utilize the resources available during tough times (job loss, health problems) and return to work in less than 2 years and get off the system. (Note: I’m not looking at things like tax breaks, since if you consider that “welfare” most of the American middle class with kids is sucking at the government teat and living off the childless). Only about 20% actually stay on welfare for more than 5 years. Not a trivial amount, although overall it’s a drop in the bucket of total federal government spending.

The policies of the Clinton and GW Bush administrations helped create and prop up the housing bubble, along with a lot of stupid banks and foolish borrowers. Still, it is the role of the federal government to increase spending and cut taxes during economic downturns (i.e. run a deficit) and (here’s the tough political sell) CUT spending and RAISE taxes during economic boom times. Again, both Clinton and GW Bush screwed up by cutting taxes during their respective good economic years rather than paying down the deficit.

[Author]

Posts