[temeculaguy]

The whole argument is over health care benefits. It’s going to be hard to get public support when most of the country is getting hosed with reduced benefits.

I’m sure it is different now, but when I was young I worked for a time at a grocery store. My mom worked at a hospital and she had to pay more for medical coverage than I did for collecting carts and bagging. I always found that odd.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, raise your hand if you are ready for national health care, like every other 1st world country. Actually that wont help, Europe has way more strikes than we do, so if it’s not this, it will be something else.

[temeculaguy]

The whole argument is over health care benefits. It’s going to be hard to get public support when most of the country is getting hosed with reduced benefits.

I’m sure it is different now, but when I was young I worked for a time at a grocery store. My mom worked at a hospital and she had to pay more for medical coverage than I did for collecting carts and bagging. I always found that odd.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, raise your hand if you are ready for national health care, like every other 1st world country. Actually that wont help, Europe has way more strikes than we do, so if it’s not this, it will be something else.

[temeculaguy]

The whole argument is over health care benefits. It’s going to be hard to get public support when most of the country is getting hosed with reduced benefits.

I’m sure it is different now, but when I was young I worked for a time at a grocery store. My mom worked at a hospital and she had to pay more for medical coverage than I did for collecting carts and bagging. I always found that odd.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, raise your hand if you are ready for national health care, like every other 1st world country. Actually that wont help, Europe has way more strikes than we do, so if it’s not this, it will be something else.

[temeculaguy]

The whole argument is over health care benefits. It’s going to be hard to get public support when most of the country is getting hosed with reduced benefits.

I’m sure it is different now, but when I was young I worked for a time at a grocery store. My mom worked at a hospital and she had to pay more for medical coverage than I did for collecting carts and bagging. I always found that odd.

I don’t want to beat a dead horse, raise your hand if you are ready for national health care, like every other 1st world country. Actually that wont help, Europe has way more strikes than we do, so if it’s not this, it will be something else.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]Over the past 20 years they’ve received $24 BILLION more than they’ve paid out in federal taxes.
[/quote]

Great find pri!

Idaho got $24B more than it put in over 20 years…

Idaho population: 1.5 million
Annual excess fed income per person: $800
($24,000,000,000 / 1,500,000) / 20

California got $336B less than it put in over 20 years…

California population: 33.8 million
Calif annual excess fed income per person: -$487
($-336,000,000,000 / 33,800,000) / 20

If we received $800 excess fed income this year per person, we would have an additional $43.5 BILLION this year alone (($800 + $487) x 33.8 million)!!!

Considering we had a $25B budget deficit in Nov 2010, I’d say we’d have a bigger surplus than Idaho if we got equivalent federal funding!!![/quote]

We don’t need to borrow their legislature, we need to send them their poor people back.

“California’s share of U.S. welfare recipients is disproportionately high: with about 12 percent of the American population, the Golden State shoulders the burden of 32 percent of the nation’s welfare cases according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The result of this is a disproportionate burden on California taxpayers who fund that welfare, who must pay about three times per capita what the residents of other states pay for their own welfare recipients.”

We also get everyone’s hobos, go ask the next hobo if he is a native Californian? They come here because we pay well and it’s a nice place, if you are going to be poor or a hobo on the street, why live in Idaho. I guess the real estate bull mantra “everyone wants to live here” has a negative effect as well.

It pains me to bring this up, because I feel like a dick due to the good life that I lead. It’s just that there are inequities as far as federal return of taxes and the migration of poor people to the land of milk and honey (and it’s not just illegals, it’s domestic migration of the poor). Maybe there is a better system, maybe wherever you are born, then that’s who has to pay whatever your benefits are if you become poor, then maybe other states will get serious about job training in schools. It may also help California schools, who always get a bad rap, but in their defense, they get other state’s and other countries dumb kids midway through their education all the time. I love it when someone claims Arkansas has better test scores than California, my response is, “well, if you send all your poor kids to California in the 7th grade, it’s skewing the stats.” Wherever you went to elementary school should get your stats for the remainder of your education.

O.K. I got sidetracked, and I realize the fed pays for some of the public assistance programs, but not all and not enough. Idaho for example is roughly half the size of San Diego County in population. Of those that move to Idaho from San Diego, and vice-versa, the demographic isn’t equal. We get their poor and they get our retirees with money. It should work like the NBA trade rules, that the trade of players can only occur if their salary is equivalent. If we had 12% of the nations welfare recipients, then there would be bloggers in Idaho asking to borrow California’s legislature and governor. I say that with a straight face and knowing full well that our legislature is filled with buffoons.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]Over the past 20 years they’ve received $24 BILLION more than they’ve paid out in federal taxes.
[/quote]

Great find pri!

Idaho got $24B more than it put in over 20 years…

Idaho population: 1.5 million
Annual excess fed income per person: $800
($24,000,000,000 / 1,500,000) / 20

California got $336B less than it put in over 20 years…

California population: 33.8 million
Calif annual excess fed income per person: -$487
($-336,000,000,000 / 33,800,000) / 20

If we received $800 excess fed income this year per person, we would have an additional $43.5 BILLION this year alone (($800 + $487) x 33.8 million)!!!

Considering we had a $25B budget deficit in Nov 2010, I’d say we’d have a bigger surplus than Idaho if we got equivalent federal funding!!![/quote]

We don’t need to borrow their legislature, we need to send them their poor people back.

“California’s share of U.S. welfare recipients is disproportionately high: with about 12 percent of the American population, the Golden State shoulders the burden of 32 percent of the nation’s welfare cases according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The result of this is a disproportionate burden on California taxpayers who fund that welfare, who must pay about three times per capita what the residents of other states pay for their own welfare recipients.”

We also get everyone’s hobos, go ask the next hobo if he is a native Californian? They come here because we pay well and it’s a nice place, if you are going to be poor or a hobo on the street, why live in Idaho. I guess the real estate bull mantra “everyone wants to live here” has a negative effect as well.

It pains me to bring this up, because I feel like a dick due to the good life that I lead. It’s just that there are inequities as far as federal return of taxes and the migration of poor people to the land of milk and honey (and it’s not just illegals, it’s domestic migration of the poor). Maybe there is a better system, maybe wherever you are born, then that’s who has to pay whatever your benefits are if you become poor, then maybe other states will get serious about job training in schools. It may also help California schools, who always get a bad rap, but in their defense, they get other state’s and other countries dumb kids midway through their education all the time. I love it when someone claims Arkansas has better test scores than California, my response is, “well, if you send all your poor kids to California in the 7th grade, it’s skewing the stats.” Wherever you went to elementary school should get your stats for the remainder of your education.

O.K. I got sidetracked, and I realize the fed pays for some of the public assistance programs, but not all and not enough. Idaho for example is roughly half the size of San Diego County in population. Of those that move to Idaho from San Diego, and vice-versa, the demographic isn’t equal. We get their poor and they get our retirees with money. It should work like the NBA trade rules, that the trade of players can only occur if their salary is equivalent. If we had 12% of the nations welfare recipients, then there would be bloggers in Idaho asking to borrow California’s legislature and governor. I say that with a straight face and knowing full well that our legislature is filled with buffoons.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]Over the past 20 years they’ve received $24 BILLION more than they’ve paid out in federal taxes.
[/quote]

Great find pri!

Idaho got $24B more than it put in over 20 years…

Idaho population: 1.5 million
Annual excess fed income per person: $800
($24,000,000,000 / 1,500,000) / 20

California got $336B less than it put in over 20 years…

California population: 33.8 million
Calif annual excess fed income per person: -$487
($-336,000,000,000 / 33,800,000) / 20

If we received $800 excess fed income this year per person, we would have an additional $43.5 BILLION this year alone (($800 + $487) x 33.8 million)!!!

Considering we had a $25B budget deficit in Nov 2010, I’d say we’d have a bigger surplus than Idaho if we got equivalent federal funding!!![/quote]

We don’t need to borrow their legislature, we need to send them their poor people back.

“California’s share of U.S. welfare recipients is disproportionately high: with about 12 percent of the American population, the Golden State shoulders the burden of 32 percent of the nation’s welfare cases according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The result of this is a disproportionate burden on California taxpayers who fund that welfare, who must pay about three times per capita what the residents of other states pay for their own welfare recipients.”

We also get everyone’s hobos, go ask the next hobo if he is a native Californian? They come here because we pay well and it’s a nice place, if you are going to be poor or a hobo on the street, why live in Idaho. I guess the real estate bull mantra “everyone wants to live here” has a negative effect as well.

It pains me to bring this up, because I feel like a dick due to the good life that I lead. It’s just that there are inequities as far as federal return of taxes and the migration of poor people to the land of milk and honey (and it’s not just illegals, it’s domestic migration of the poor). Maybe there is a better system, maybe wherever you are born, then that’s who has to pay whatever your benefits are if you become poor, then maybe other states will get serious about job training in schools. It may also help California schools, who always get a bad rap, but in their defense, they get other state’s and other countries dumb kids midway through their education all the time. I love it when someone claims Arkansas has better test scores than California, my response is, “well, if you send all your poor kids to California in the 7th grade, it’s skewing the stats.” Wherever you went to elementary school should get your stats for the remainder of your education.

O.K. I got sidetracked, and I realize the fed pays for some of the public assistance programs, but not all and not enough. Idaho for example is roughly half the size of San Diego County in population. Of those that move to Idaho from San Diego, and vice-versa, the demographic isn’t equal. We get their poor and they get our retirees with money. It should work like the NBA trade rules, that the trade of players can only occur if their salary is equivalent. If we had 12% of the nations welfare recipients, then there would be bloggers in Idaho asking to borrow California’s legislature and governor. I say that with a straight face and knowing full well that our legislature is filled with buffoons.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]Over the past 20 years they’ve received $24 BILLION more than they’ve paid out in federal taxes.
[/quote]

Great find pri!

Idaho got $24B more than it put in over 20 years…

Idaho population: 1.5 million
Annual excess fed income per person: $800
($24,000,000,000 / 1,500,000) / 20

California got $336B less than it put in over 20 years…

California population: 33.8 million
Calif annual excess fed income per person: -$487
($-336,000,000,000 / 33,800,000) / 20

If we received $800 excess fed income this year per person, we would have an additional $43.5 BILLION this year alone (($800 + $487) x 33.8 million)!!!

Considering we had a $25B budget deficit in Nov 2010, I’d say we’d have a bigger surplus than Idaho if we got equivalent federal funding!!![/quote]

We don’t need to borrow their legislature, we need to send them their poor people back.

“California’s share of U.S. welfare recipients is disproportionately high: with about 12 percent of the American population, the Golden State shoulders the burden of 32 percent of the nation’s welfare cases according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The result of this is a disproportionate burden on California taxpayers who fund that welfare, who must pay about three times per capita what the residents of other states pay for their own welfare recipients.”

We also get everyone’s hobos, go ask the next hobo if he is a native Californian? They come here because we pay well and it’s a nice place, if you are going to be poor or a hobo on the street, why live in Idaho. I guess the real estate bull mantra “everyone wants to live here” has a negative effect as well.

It pains me to bring this up, because I feel like a dick due to the good life that I lead. It’s just that there are inequities as far as federal return of taxes and the migration of poor people to the land of milk and honey (and it’s not just illegals, it’s domestic migration of the poor). Maybe there is a better system, maybe wherever you are born, then that’s who has to pay whatever your benefits are if you become poor, then maybe other states will get serious about job training in schools. It may also help California schools, who always get a bad rap, but in their defense, they get other state’s and other countries dumb kids midway through their education all the time. I love it when someone claims Arkansas has better test scores than California, my response is, “well, if you send all your poor kids to California in the 7th grade, it’s skewing the stats.” Wherever you went to elementary school should get your stats for the remainder of your education.

O.K. I got sidetracked, and I realize the fed pays for some of the public assistance programs, but not all and not enough. Idaho for example is roughly half the size of San Diego County in population. Of those that move to Idaho from San Diego, and vice-versa, the demographic isn’t equal. We get their poor and they get our retirees with money. It should work like the NBA trade rules, that the trade of players can only occur if their salary is equivalent. If we had 12% of the nations welfare recipients, then there would be bloggers in Idaho asking to borrow California’s legislature and governor. I say that with a straight face and knowing full well that our legislature is filled with buffoons.

[temeculaguy]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]Over the past 20 years they’ve received $24 BILLION more than they’ve paid out in federal taxes.
[/quote]

Great find pri!

Idaho got $24B more than it put in over 20 years…

Idaho population: 1.5 million
Annual excess fed income per person: $800
($24,000,000,000 / 1,500,000) / 20

California got $336B less than it put in over 20 years…

California population: 33.8 million
Calif annual excess fed income per person: -$487
($-336,000,000,000 / 33,800,000) / 20

If we received $800 excess fed income this year per person, we would have an additional $43.5 BILLION this year alone (($800 + $487) x 33.8 million)!!!

Considering we had a $25B budget deficit in Nov 2010, I’d say we’d have a bigger surplus than Idaho if we got equivalent federal funding!!![/quote]

We don’t need to borrow their legislature, we need to send them their poor people back.

“California’s share of U.S. welfare recipients is disproportionately high: with about 12 percent of the American population, the Golden State shoulders the burden of 32 percent of the nation’s welfare cases according to the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The result of this is a disproportionate burden on California taxpayers who fund that welfare, who must pay about three times per capita what the residents of other states pay for their own welfare recipients.”

We also get everyone’s hobos, go ask the next hobo if he is a native Californian? They come here because we pay well and it’s a nice place, if you are going to be poor or a hobo on the street, why live in Idaho. I guess the real estate bull mantra “everyone wants to live here” has a negative effect as well.

It pains me to bring this up, because I feel like a dick due to the good life that I lead. It’s just that there are inequities as far as federal return of taxes and the migration of poor people to the land of milk and honey (and it’s not just illegals, it’s domestic migration of the poor). Maybe there is a better system, maybe wherever you are born, then that’s who has to pay whatever your benefits are if you become poor, then maybe other states will get serious about job training in schools. It may also help California schools, who always get a bad rap, but in their defense, they get other state’s and other countries dumb kids midway through their education all the time. I love it when someone claims Arkansas has better test scores than California, my response is, “well, if you send all your poor kids to California in the 7th grade, it’s skewing the stats.” Wherever you went to elementary school should get your stats for the remainder of your education.

O.K. I got sidetracked, and I realize the fed pays for some of the public assistance programs, but not all and not enough. Idaho for example is roughly half the size of San Diego County in population. Of those that move to Idaho from San Diego, and vice-versa, the demographic isn’t equal. We get their poor and they get our retirees with money. It should work like the NBA trade rules, that the trade of players can only occur if their salary is equivalent. If we had 12% of the nations welfare recipients, then there would be bloggers in Idaho asking to borrow California’s legislature and governor. I say that with a straight face and knowing full well that our legislature is filled with buffoons.

[temeculaguy]

I liked the article and I also have a high school senior so this has been on my mind lately. But I have BG’s rules, almost to the letter. They get to go to the CS or UC school of their choice that they are accepted into, nothing more. It’s not that I think other schools aren’t better, it’s just that I only budgeted for those schools and I can only send them to those schools without taking on debt. BTW, those estimates of 34k a year for UC or 27k for CS are using creative math. They calculate health insurance, vehicle expenses, toiletries, etc. etc. That’s fine and dandy of you give birth to an 18 year old, but for the rest of us parents it only matters what additional dollars I need comparing their senior year and their freshman college year. Tuition, books (used books didn’t kill me), room and board. That’s it, and even then I can deduct what I spend now to feed them and how much they use in utilities. I already pay for health insurance, car insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, proms, dining out, vacations. It’s the same as comparing renting and owning, you only need to look at the differences, not the total, because you already have an electric bill, so only look at the differences. A CS school is just under 20k or thereabouts.

Walter, trash the lifetime community college idea, it sucks. College is 25% coursework, 25% macaroni and cheese/crappy part time jobs, 25% friends/fraternities/alcohol ad 25% the girls your mother warned you about. They have the rest of their lives to be practical and miserable. You think too much of the boy genius, and you should, and his mother doesn’t need to witness the testosterone era, let that happen somewhere else. He’s still a man and he needs to be around a few thousand 18-21 year old girls. There is no price tag for that.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what that piece of paper says, or if you got your money’s worth. All that matters is that when you are sitting in the old folks home and someone asks you that if you could go back and relive one year of your life, what year would it be? I know my answer already, college, Junior year, hands down, every other year, no matter what happens from here on out is a bitter disappointment. Of course I beat the system, because I already did that year twice. And you thought the 5 year plan was because of impacted majors.

My kids think I’m slow, but I already factored in the 5th year from the time they were born. I may have only gone to SDSU, but momma didn’t raise no dummy.

I’m going to have to break out my DVD of OLD SCHOOL with Will Ferrell. It is to men what romantic comedies are to women, we know it’s not real but it makes the pain go away for two hours.

[temeculaguy]

I liked the article and I also have a high school senior so this has been on my mind lately. But I have BG’s rules, almost to the letter. They get to go to the CS or UC school of their choice that they are accepted into, nothing more. It’s not that I think other schools aren’t better, it’s just that I only budgeted for those schools and I can only send them to those schools without taking on debt. BTW, those estimates of 34k a year for UC or 27k for CS are using creative math. They calculate health insurance, vehicle expenses, toiletries, etc. etc. That’s fine and dandy of you give birth to an 18 year old, but for the rest of us parents it only matters what additional dollars I need comparing their senior year and their freshman college year. Tuition, books (used books didn’t kill me), room and board. That’s it, and even then I can deduct what I spend now to feed them and how much they use in utilities. I already pay for health insurance, car insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, proms, dining out, vacations. It’s the same as comparing renting and owning, you only need to look at the differences, not the total, because you already have an electric bill, so only look at the differences. A CS school is just under 20k or thereabouts.

Walter, trash the lifetime community college idea, it sucks. College is 25% coursework, 25% macaroni and cheese/crappy part time jobs, 25% friends/fraternities/alcohol ad 25% the girls your mother warned you about. They have the rest of their lives to be practical and miserable. You think too much of the boy genius, and you should, and his mother doesn’t need to witness the testosterone era, let that happen somewhere else. He’s still a man and he needs to be around a few thousand 18-21 year old girls. There is no price tag for that.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what that piece of paper says, or if you got your money’s worth. All that matters is that when you are sitting in the old folks home and someone asks you that if you could go back and relive one year of your life, what year would it be? I know my answer already, college, Junior year, hands down, every other year, no matter what happens from here on out is a bitter disappointment. Of course I beat the system, because I already did that year twice. And you thought the 5 year plan was because of impacted majors.

My kids think I’m slow, but I already factored in the 5th year from the time they were born. I may have only gone to SDSU, but momma didn’t raise no dummy.

I’m going to have to break out my DVD of OLD SCHOOL with Will Ferrell. It is to men what romantic comedies are to women, we know it’s not real but it makes the pain go away for two hours.

[temeculaguy]

I liked the article and I also have a high school senior so this has been on my mind lately. But I have BG’s rules, almost to the letter. They get to go to the CS or UC school of their choice that they are accepted into, nothing more. It’s not that I think other schools aren’t better, it’s just that I only budgeted for those schools and I can only send them to those schools without taking on debt. BTW, those estimates of 34k a year for UC or 27k for CS are using creative math. They calculate health insurance, vehicle expenses, toiletries, etc. etc. That’s fine and dandy of you give birth to an 18 year old, but for the rest of us parents it only matters what additional dollars I need comparing their senior year and their freshman college year. Tuition, books (used books didn’t kill me), room and board. That’s it, and even then I can deduct what I spend now to feed them and how much they use in utilities. I already pay for health insurance, car insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, proms, dining out, vacations. It’s the same as comparing renting and owning, you only need to look at the differences, not the total, because you already have an electric bill, so only look at the differences. A CS school is just under 20k or thereabouts.

Walter, trash the lifetime community college idea, it sucks. College is 25% coursework, 25% macaroni and cheese/crappy part time jobs, 25% friends/fraternities/alcohol ad 25% the girls your mother warned you about. They have the rest of their lives to be practical and miserable. You think too much of the boy genius, and you should, and his mother doesn’t need to witness the testosterone era, let that happen somewhere else. He’s still a man and he needs to be around a few thousand 18-21 year old girls. There is no price tag for that.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what that piece of paper says, or if you got your money’s worth. All that matters is that when you are sitting in the old folks home and someone asks you that if you could go back and relive one year of your life, what year would it be? I know my answer already, college, Junior year, hands down, every other year, no matter what happens from here on out is a bitter disappointment. Of course I beat the system, because I already did that year twice. And you thought the 5 year plan was because of impacted majors.

My kids think I’m slow, but I already factored in the 5th year from the time they were born. I may have only gone to SDSU, but momma didn’t raise no dummy.

I’m going to have to break out my DVD of OLD SCHOOL with Will Ferrell. It is to men what romantic comedies are to women, we know it’s not real but it makes the pain go away for two hours.

[temeculaguy]

I liked the article and I also have a high school senior so this has been on my mind lately. But I have BG’s rules, almost to the letter. They get to go to the CS or UC school of their choice that they are accepted into, nothing more. It’s not that I think other schools aren’t better, it’s just that I only budgeted for those schools and I can only send them to those schools without taking on debt. BTW, those estimates of 34k a year for UC or 27k for CS are using creative math. They calculate health insurance, vehicle expenses, toiletries, etc. etc. That’s fine and dandy of you give birth to an 18 year old, but for the rest of us parents it only matters what additional dollars I need comparing their senior year and their freshman college year. Tuition, books (used books didn’t kill me), room and board. That’s it, and even then I can deduct what I spend now to feed them and how much they use in utilities. I already pay for health insurance, car insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, proms, dining out, vacations. It’s the same as comparing renting and owning, you only need to look at the differences, not the total, because you already have an electric bill, so only look at the differences. A CS school is just under 20k or thereabouts.

Walter, trash the lifetime community college idea, it sucks. College is 25% coursework, 25% macaroni and cheese/crappy part time jobs, 25% friends/fraternities/alcohol ad 25% the girls your mother warned you about. They have the rest of their lives to be practical and miserable. You think too much of the boy genius, and you should, and his mother doesn’t need to witness the testosterone era, let that happen somewhere else. He’s still a man and he needs to be around a few thousand 18-21 year old girls. There is no price tag for that.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what that piece of paper says, or if you got your money’s worth. All that matters is that when you are sitting in the old folks home and someone asks you that if you could go back and relive one year of your life, what year would it be? I know my answer already, college, Junior year, hands down, every other year, no matter what happens from here on out is a bitter disappointment. Of course I beat the system, because I already did that year twice. And you thought the 5 year plan was because of impacted majors.

My kids think I’m slow, but I already factored in the 5th year from the time they were born. I may have only gone to SDSU, but momma didn’t raise no dummy.

I’m going to have to break out my DVD of OLD SCHOOL with Will Ferrell. It is to men what romantic comedies are to women, we know it’s not real but it makes the pain go away for two hours.

[temeculaguy]

I liked the article and I also have a high school senior so this has been on my mind lately. But I have BG’s rules, almost to the letter. They get to go to the CS or UC school of their choice that they are accepted into, nothing more. It’s not that I think other schools aren’t better, it’s just that I only budgeted for those schools and I can only send them to those schools without taking on debt. BTW, those estimates of 34k a year for UC or 27k for CS are using creative math. They calculate health insurance, vehicle expenses, toiletries, etc. etc. That’s fine and dandy of you give birth to an 18 year old, but for the rest of us parents it only matters what additional dollars I need comparing their senior year and their freshman college year. Tuition, books (used books didn’t kill me), room and board. That’s it, and even then I can deduct what I spend now to feed them and how much they use in utilities. I already pay for health insurance, car insurance, gas, vehicle maintenance, proms, dining out, vacations. It’s the same as comparing renting and owning, you only need to look at the differences, not the total, because you already have an electric bill, so only look at the differences. A CS school is just under 20k or thereabouts.

Walter, trash the lifetime community college idea, it sucks. College is 25% coursework, 25% macaroni and cheese/crappy part time jobs, 25% friends/fraternities/alcohol ad 25% the girls your mother warned you about. They have the rest of their lives to be practical and miserable. You think too much of the boy genius, and you should, and his mother doesn’t need to witness the testosterone era, let that happen somewhere else. He’s still a man and he needs to be around a few thousand 18-21 year old girls. There is no price tag for that.

In the end, it really doesn’t matter what that piece of paper says, or if you got your money’s worth. All that matters is that when you are sitting in the old folks home and someone asks you that if you could go back and relive one year of your life, what year would it be? I know my answer already, college, Junior year, hands down, every other year, no matter what happens from here on out is a bitter disappointment. Of course I beat the system, because I already did that year twice. And you thought the 5 year plan was because of impacted majors.

My kids think I’m slow, but I already factored in the 5th year from the time they were born. I may have only gone to SDSU, but momma didn’t raise no dummy.

I’m going to have to break out my DVD of OLD SCHOOL with Will Ferrell. It is to men what romantic comedies are to women, we know it’s not real but it makes the pain go away for two hours.

[temeculaguy]

Okay, so depression has increased according to some study. And was there a similar study each decade for the last few hundred years using the same criteria? That’s the problem with trying to measure something quantitatively when the measuring stick keeps changing.

I call bullshit on the whole societal decay thing again, especially the argument that because we aren’t affected, we can’t see it happening.

I still didn’t see anyone pick a decade so we can see it’s gone downhill since then. Nobody will, because I will pick apart that decade and bring up all of it’s flaws. We all know that society was worse last year, last decade, last century and so on, picking a date in time is walking into a buzz saw. Sure there are bits and pieces that might be better, but overall, society moves forward and gets better, if you look at the big picture and the individual experience.

Pick a group or a person, throw some labels on them and then plot their experience on a timeline, you tell me when in time their life was better if it is not today. And I’m also convinced that next year and the year after that, it will be even better. Here, I’ll do the first few for you:

Black people-Let’s see the 1700’s and 1800’s sucked pretty hard with that whole slavery thing. The early 1900’s was no picnic but did get better. Segregation went away over time, education began catching up, professional jobs (doctors,lawyers, etc.) starting showing up. They allowed them to play in the professional sports leagues about 60 years ago, they could marry out of their race eventually. Now look at today, the president is black, half of the most powerful and popular media figures are black, most people under 30 cannot even fathom what things were like in the 50’s and earlier. Is it perfect? No. Is it better every day? Yes.

American Indians-similar to the above situation but with some variations, the 1800’s were pretty crappy, with that whole genocide thing. Today many of them have some money, power and influence. Education is starting to happen and they are once again walking around proud of who they are. Has money been the doenfall of some, are some stll living in poverty? Yes. Was being rounded up, having their food supply destroyed and being slaughtered worse? Yes.

Gays-This one is pretty easy, I doubt anyone would rather be gay and live during another decade.

I’ll stop there, but I could detail every racial group, women of those groups and white women. Poor people never really need to worry about dying of starvation anymore.

Do you really think that a black woman in 2011 who takes zoloft for depression would be happier as a slave in 1820 working in a field, or sitting int the back of a bus in 1945. You can exchange the black woman for a gay teenager or whatever you want. Just because people seek treatment for mild depression does not mean we are going to hell in a hand basket. They are merely taking care of minor issues that in previous decades during history they did not have the time or the means to seek treatment. When everything else is so shitty, you don’t notice the little things. If you had four bullet wounds to your chest, you wouldn’t care about needing some stitches for a cut on your arm. Just because more people are getting stitches now doesnt mean they are getting hurt more, it means that they don’t have bullet wounds and they can deal with the minor issues.

It’s still not perfect, but more people today feel that they matter, that they are important, that they are beautiful and they have something to offer than at any other time in history. Chasing ones dreams is no longer something reserved for the elite, reaching your goals is more possible than ever before, for everyone. There is still failure and disapointment, but there less glass cielings, less judgement and less societal pressure to be something you are not and I know that will continue. I’m not being optimistic, I’m being realistic, the evidence is everywhere if you just look.

One group has been getting screwed, smokers. I’m one of those drinker smokers who does it maybe once a month. In social setting or casinos when I’m drinking, I’m smoking cigars or cigarettes. 99% of the time I’m in the non smoking group and 1% I’m with the smokers, it’s like being black for a day and seeing what their experience is like. The last two times this happened I almost beat someone and I got pretty mean both times. A smoking card table in the smoking section of a casino or the smoking patio at a bar are about the only places left you can drink and smoke in public, the other 99.9% of the planet is yours so if you choose to go to that particular spot, I do not give a s^&* if it bothers you. I don’t follow you into the stall in the restroom, put my head next to the bowl while are sitting and ask you if you could please not do anything that smells bad. I can see the smokers starting riots, non smokers are so freaking annoying.

[Author]

Posts