The greater depression?

[Tails]

Well i was listening to 700WLW today (they host the reds and bangals games) and my mom said that the guy who does stocks said that two well known banks 5/3rd and national (not sure on the last one) might be going out of business, and that June 2008 was the worst month even worse than the great depression. Do you guys think we are in a great depression? If not do you think we are starting to go into a depression?

[somedude21]

Yes we are, what with the stocks and gas prices these days.

[Timber Wolf]

No, i think it's just correction from an economy that grew faster than it could handle, and over-inflation from an inbalance in distrobution in monetary units...in our case the dollar....

[Dudebro]

We may be in a recession but I wouldn't call it a great depression. We're not having the same problems they did back then. During the depression times were alot harder, the fact that you can walk down the street and get a job proves we're not in a great depression. I wouldn't be shocked if it happened soon though.

[Kugyince]

We are not in a depression nor a recession. To be in a recession the nation would have to have negative growth percentage in its GPD for two or more consecutive quarters. (Resource = Wikipedia)

Last quarter the US gained in its GPD. By a very small margin but it was still a positive gain. (Resource = Bureau of Business Research, Ball State University)

Yes, our economic growth has slowed dramatically. But our economy is still growing.

Unless Tails was referring to listening to a station that hosts Bengals games. That would be greatly depressing I'd imagine.

[Dudebro]

Unless Tails was referring to listening to a station that hosts Bengals games. That would be greatly depressing I'd imagine.

We really do need a laughing smilely(is that even a word?).

But yeah I agree Tenser, we may be almost breaking even as a country but we're no where near the great depression. I'll admit the economy seems messed up and there is alot of people out of work but it's a blip on the radar compared to the late 20s to mid 30s.

[david man45]

USA fails= global depression maybe? With the whole trading buisness. Germany though is doing pretty good.

[Bsmoke]

... and that June 2008 was the worst month even worse than the great depression. Do you guys think we are in a great depression? If not do you think we are starting to go into a depression?


David was right about not being in a depression/recession right now, and what was in the news was that June 2008 was the worst month for the NYSE since the great depression. That fact doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot by itself either, since the NYSE is merely a shareholders' perspective of a handful of major companies. Wait until the jobless rate reaches the rates of the great depression, then you can worry (~25% at its highest, at least according to the statistics).

[david man45]

Tails you mean.

[oasis]

just because its worse numbers than the great depression does not mean that its worse than that time as dudebro said there are still jobs even if people dont want to work them.

also back then the stock market crashed all the crops dried up and there were huge dust storms.

we are nearly at a ressesion but things are going to get better

also that guy should not be talking about banks going out of buisness simply because thats insider information and people go to jail for that stuff. alls we need to do is find out what bank is buying them buy stock and we will make a bundle when the economy goes back up...

I would get fired for even mentioning what my bank does. ;D

[Timber Wolf]

wow, thats kinda sad oasis, the getting fired part, but, even with the Great Depression, it was worse in Europe(Central Powers, anyone?) and they've managed to get back up....
I really think a Marxist/Platonian view on society might help, true communism could solve some of the economic problems with the world, though the oblious flaws are
1. a dictatorship of the prolitariat would fall quickly as people bide for power
2. Greed and monetary gain drive economy
3. a collapse in society would take place before a rise to an ideal society
4. As in Plato's "Republic" the name of the city is Utopia, meaning "no place" saying it would never happen
there are a few other's I'm not going to list just because i think I've made my point, but does anyone else see the pro's in a true communist
society?

[Kugyince]

You make excellent points Timber Wolf. And I soundly agree with your thoughts on some of the flaws of communism. I've always leaned more towards a democratic quasi-socialism. Meaning that the democratic process stay largely in tact with a few minor but needed tweaks and an economic structure where fundamental infrastructures are owned and operated by the government. The idea being the government would own and operate competitive businesses in certain fields such as communications, insurance, health care and resource management.

I've always given out United States Postal Service as an example of this. The USPS provides excellent jobs to society, provides an invaluable service to the country and actively competes with private industries such as UPS and FedEx. All while still allowing growth through capitalistic incentives.

I honestly don't think major oil companies would be raking in their record setting profits every year if they has to compete with a US owned and operated company in the same field. Of course, this is all coming from an active member of the Socialist Worker's Party.

[Kong]

I agree with the USPS analogy. I would like to see something similar to the post office for

1. public mass transit (yes we have one but it is horrible)
2. super fast continental rail system
3. wireless ubiquitous super high speed Internet.
4. ivy league quality full range online college courses.

I think the rail system first two should be ran as non-profits meaning very low fees. The last two should be free.

These items are all very expensive to start but relatively cheap to maintain. Just like roads and power and telephone lines it makes sense for the American people to pool their tax money together and decide that these things significantly improve the our collective lives. Probably a couple weeks worth of war would pay for all of these items combined.

[oasis]

you guys are talking about in the perfect world

yes these things should happen

but the problem is that our tax money is not going to anything good. its going to pay off people and fuel the goverments greed and salery. I mean does the president of the USA need 300k per year salary the dude is president he gets everything handed to him do you think he pays for anything??

so why is 300k of our tax money going into his pocket for no reason.

and for that matter do we even need a president we have congress who vote on matters then it goes to him for final aproval.

[Kong]

I am not talking about the perfect world. All of these things are well within our reach.

1. Public transit system. We had a good one a hundred years ago (GM bought it from the government and then dismantled it to create more car sales). Other countries have a great systems. We have a system in place. We just have to expand on it. If oil prices keep rising and if global warming gets harder to hide then we will upgrade our system.
2. Super Fast Interstate Rail System. Other countries have these. America recently had a plan to create one but it was dropped. We could still do it.
3. Free Ubiquitous Wireless Internet System. Google recently bid 4.6 billion dollars to purchase the old UHF TV air waves. If they had won they would have given free wireless Internet to America. Verizon out bid them. How come the American tax payers couldn't back Google's play and give free Internet everywhere for everybody.
4. MIT started giving away several of their online courses a few years ago. Since then several other schools have followed suit. I can see no argument as to why the government should not sponsor this initiative. It is an investment into the future that will pay for itself many times over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_OpenCourseWare

[oasis]

I completely agree with you and im not argueing with you but why did these things fail

1. Greed
2. Greed
3. Greed
4. not sure acctually sounds like it was a good idea

1. You said it yourself Gm bought the mass transit to sell more cars
2. Gov. does not want to spend that kind of money
3. Verison bought it because they would loose out on the internet sales.
4. hmm I like it The official site (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm) = 1800 courses

[Blue Shoe 2]

i don't really live in america so its not a problem for me, but my relatives live there so, if depression, they come to me.

[Billy Hoyle]

With all of the media focus on the American Economy at the moment, I stumbled across this thread and thought it'd be a good idea to put it back out there to see what everybody's opinion is.

My humble, largely uninformed opinion is that there is no need for all of the fear and panic we are seeing and that the market will eventually bounce back.

However, one thing that that really pissed me off was that it seemed like Congress was playing Election Year Politics last weekend in regards to drafting the "Bailout" Plan. McCain's play might have been genuine, but he should have known that it would be viewed as a political ploy. I still can't understand and have yet to hear it explained, but I can't understand why Pelosi was unable to convince a dozen of her Democratic colleagues to vote for the original bill.

Thoughts?

[Dudebro]

Actually from what I hear it was the republicans who failed to get the votes for the first bailout. Which means McCain is a blowhard, of course everything he's doing is a political ploy.
Doesn't really matter. If McCain got elected we'd be screwed anyways with that nutjob first lady around.

[count100]

personally i dont see what is great about either candidate at all neither one has yet to say anything that would make me want to vote on either one. maybe someone can give me some incite to why either one is a good candidate to elect as president.

[Kugyince]

Actually the system is quite easy to fix. It just wont be fixed properly because of greed. It would only require three strategic strikes.

Step 1: Democratic quasi-socialism.

Meaning that the democratic process stay largely in tact with a few minor but needed tweaks and an economic structure where fundamental infrastructures are owned and operated by the government. The idea being the government would own and operate competitive businesses in certain fields such as communications, insurance, health care and resource management.

I've always given out United States Postal Service as an example of this. The USPS provides excellent jobs to society, provides an invaluable service to the country and actively competes with private industries such as UPS and FedEx. All while still allowing growth through capitalistic incentives.

I honestly don't think major oil companies would be raking in their record setting profits every year if they has to compete with a US owned and operated company in the same field.

Step 2: Semi-Isolationism via active tariffs
America needs to start levying tariffs on goods coming within the US from other countries. The tariffs so be percentage based upon which country they are coming from and that country's minimum wage earnings versus ours. Thus causing it to be less profitable to move large businesses overseas where cheap labor can be had. This will not only allow American companies to compete profitably but also will encourage companies to stay within the US to avoid costly shipping and encourage other countries to raise there minimum wage allowances.

Step 3: Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security
A) Eliminate the 200k/yr tax ceiling on social security tax. (Currently the more money you make over 200,000 a year, the smaller percentage you pay in social security.)
B) Eliminate the ability for the government to borrow money from the SS coffers. (Currently government "borrows" money from SS to fund other programs. This borrowed money is never replaced. The money vault for SS is basically filled with G'ment IOUs. If money wasn't taken out to fund other programs, SS would actually have a surplus!)
C) Eliminate the 60+ age restriction to qualify for Medicaid. Now with a huge funding from the first two steps, the government may provide, very basic, simple health care for all citizens. People may still go out and purchase extra private or company based health care for extra coverage. This will take a VERY large burden off of employers while providing at least the basics for every citizen.

[Billy Hoyle]

Actually from what I hear it was the republicans who failed to get the votes for the first bailout. Which means McCain is a blowhard, of course everything he's doing is a political ploy.
Doesn't really matter. If McCain got elected we'd be screwed anyways with that nutjob first lady around.

While I believe only 60 House Republicans voted for the first draft of the Bailout Plan, there were 95 House Democrats who rejected it. A swing of 12 votes in favor would have allowed for the Bill to move to the Senate. My cynical nature leads me to believe that there could have been partisan politics being played there in order to undermine McCain's play. And what's so 'nutjob' about Palin? ;) I'm curious what about her displeases you.


@Tenser: I don't know how you feel, but I believe the Bailout Plan is a step towards your preferred Democratic Quasi-Socialist State. Personally, I wouldn't trust the government to take care of my dog. Of course, I'm being facetious, but for all of the positives of nationalized health care/insurance/communications/etc., there are inherent dangers associated with each. However, if Obama is elected and he is flanked by a Democratic Congress I see the U.S. moving towards what you describe.

[Kugyince]

@Billy: That's why I use the USPS as an example. There still exists FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc... You're allowed to freely choose between any of them that you wish. If you still wanted to fill up your car at Citgo or Exxon instead of say USOC (US Oil Company) that's your option. If you wish to purchase extra health care coverage from the private sector or your company, that's your choice. The idea is not to force you into using government owned companies but to let the government own and operate companies fairly alongside the private sector.

I would also say that I'm not a Palin fan either. She allows her religious beliefs to affect her politics too much for my taste. I'm not saying that she's not suppose to or shouldn't, I'm just saying the I prefer someone who at least attempts to separate their morals from their ethics.

[Dudebro]

And what's so 'nutjob' about Palin? I'm curious what about her displeases you.
I would also say that I'm not a Palin fan either. She allows her religious beliefs to affect her politics too much for my taste.
That goes for me too. She's a terrible person to lead this country. We're not like the middle east where religious leaders rule the people. That's the stone age.

I'm not saying that she's not suppose to or shouldn't, I'm just saying the I prefer someone who at least attempts to separate their morals from their ethics.
I'm saying she's not supposed to. Religion has NO place in the government. Besides she has some scary beliefs in my opinion. I don't want a hardcore religous person leading one of the most important countries in the world. Sorry that might offend some of you but I think that should disqualify her from office.

About the bailout thing. No point in placing blame, both sides are mostly greedy liars.

[Kugyince]

I think you're letting your bias against religion affect your judgment Dudebro. The citizens are allowed to choose who they wish to represent them. This is how a democracy works. Claiming that someone may not run for political office because they follow Christianity too strongly is just as bad in my eyes as saying someone can not run because they don't follow Christianity enough.

Palin has the right to run for office just as much as you have the right to not vote for her.

(My apologies if I misread the context of "disqualify her from office")

[Billy Hoyle]

@Billy: That's why I use the USPS as an example. There still exists FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc... You're allowed to freely choose between any of them that you wish. If you still wanted to fill up your car at Citgo or Exxon instead of say USOC (US Oil Company) that's your option. If you wish to purchase extra health care coverage from the private sector or your company, that's your choice. The idea is not to force you into using government owned companies but to let the government own and operate companies fairly alongside the private sector.

I just think the nationalization of health care and other important industries has the potential to lead us down a slippery slope. Over a quarter of my salary already goes to the government, what happens if those goverment run entities are mishandled?

@Dudebro/Tenser: Until recently, Palin had about an 80% approval rating in Alaska. I don't think she could have achieved that type of number if she was the religious fanatic some in the media attempt to portray her as. The statements she has made and positions she has taken on issues that involve religion are, in my opinion, just the Republican Party trying to solidify their base. Once again, politics are being played. Do we all realize that these candidates don't write their own material? They certainly play a part in what is included, but the advisors and people behind the scenes control what these candidates do and say.

[Kugyince]

The statements she has made and positions she has taken on issues that involve religion are, in my opinion, just the Republican Party trying to solidify their base.

Well then the question is, if I'm not suppose to base my opinion of her on statements she's made and positions she's taken on issues, what am I suppose to base them on?

[Billy Hoyle]

Well then the question is, if I'm not suppose to base my opinion of her on statements she's made and positions she's taken on issues, what am I suppose to base them on?


That's a great question and I am not arrogant enough to claim to have the answer.

What I will say is that I do not trust either of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates in this election. I know the Obama campaign is hammering the "real change" and "change we need" campaign slogans, but real change is not going to take place in this country until a third party comes to power (unlikely) or some type of unprecedented event takes place (more likely) that forces government as we know it to evolve into something different.

[Dudebro]

Ok I'll admit my resentment towards certain religious beliefs causes me to dislike Palin but I still feel she isn't deserving of being a heartbeat from control of the country.

First, she has laughable experience in a state that barely matters on the national scale.

Second she's ok with creationism being taught in schools.

Third she is/was trying to take polar bears/beluga whales off the endangered list. For this one alone she should be disqualified. Polar bears are dieing off in record numbers. It's one of the saddest things I can think of in recent history.

Lastly she is against abortion except if the mothers life is in danger. That includes victims of rape and incest. This is a terrible thing to support. Also she is against same sex rights. She pushed to deny them medical rights.

I realize that not all of you will agree with my reasons for disliking her. I still think she's a backwards nutjob that doesn't deserve the position she's seeking.

I will say that I used to like McCain. Until he started kissing up to the religious people who are trying to push thier agendas into the spotlight. Basically, if we vote in McCain we can expect 4-8 more years of the same crap Bush has been doing.

[Billy Hoyle]

I respect your viewpoints, Dudebro, but couldn't help myself.


First, she has laughable experience in a state that barely matters on the national scale.
And Arkansas was/is a power player in exactly what aspect of the U.S.? Just sayin'...


Second she's ok with creationism being taught in schools.
People get so upset about this, but it really needs to be no more than a paragraph in a high school biology text. Several polls, including a Gallup Poll, have concluded that approximately 80% of Americans classify themselves as religious. Nine out of ten of those people consider themselves Christian, obviously to varying degrees. I see nothing wrong with presenting Creationsim alongside Evolution in Biology classes, which is where this issue arises. One is a belief; one is a theory. Allow the students to choose which they prefer to explain our existence.


Third she is/was trying to take polar bears/beluga whales off the endangered list. For this one alone she should be disqualified. Polar bears are dieing off in record numbers. It's one of the saddest things I can think of in recent history.
I hadn't heard about this one, but I will research it further. C'mon though, I can think of much sadder things - involving human life - the Tsunami, Katrina, Ike, random acts of violence throughout the world, etc...


Lastly she is against abortion except if the mothers life is in danger. That includes victims of rape and incest. This is a terrible thing to support.
I'd like to see the actual occurences in a year of how often a woman is impregnated as a result of rape or incest, then seeks an abortion. People always use that argument, but I've never seen any numbers. Personally, I'm Pro-Life, but contradictory at the same time because I don't believe I nor anyone else has the right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her own body.


I think people get caught up in issues like this because they evoke such strong emotional responses. We need to get past these issues because they are so divisive. There are certain issues that are of the utmost importance for the U.S. and Global future; when you look at the big picture, these are not. I'd like someone to tell me why any of these issues mentioned in this post have more bearing on our daily lives than the economy and national security.

[Dudebro]

I respect your viewpoints, Dudebro, but couldn't help myself.


First, she has laughable experience in a state that barely matters on the national scale.
And Arkansas was/is a power player in exactly what aspect of the U.S.? Just sayin'...

Are you talking about clinton?
I'm not saying Alaska is worthless overall, I'm just saying a short term governor of a very underpopulated state is not good enough experience to run the entire country.

People get so upset about this, but it really needs to be no more than a paragraph in a high school biology text. Several polls, including a Gallup Poll, have concluded that approximately 80% of Americans classify themselves as religious. Nine out of ten of those people consider themselves Christian, obviously to varying degrees. I see nothing wrong with presenting Creationsim alongside Evolution in Biology classes, which is where this issue arises. One is a belief; one is a theory. Allow the students to choose which they prefer to explain our existence.
You are falling into the crap that creationist cling to. Evolution is a theory sure, but it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. That means it's been tested and put under extreme scrutiny. It's not like a normal theory at all.
Creationism is a STORY. It has no place alongside Evolution at all. Has any of it ever been proven in any way? No. Putting it in a biology class is harmful to our kids education.
Also if you teach creationism stories you have to teach all religious creation stories. Our country is not just about christians.

I hadn't heard about this one, but I will research it further. C'mon though, I can think of much sadder things - involving human life - the Tsunami, Katrina, Ike, random acts of violence throughout the world, etc...
See I feel worse for animals because they can't help themselves like a human can. All those things you listed could be solved by one thing. MOVE AWAY FROM BAD PLACES. If you live in the path of yearly hurricanes then move. If you live in a war torn country then move. Ect Ect.
Btw you realize if we don't worry about the animals now then slowly the whole eco system will die off right? It's not just an animal here and there, everything is connected. Only focusing on human life is arrogant.

I'd like to see the actual occurences in a year of how often a woman is impregnated as a result of rape or incest, then seeks an abortion. People always use that argument, but I've never seen any numbers. Personally, I'm Pro-Life, but contradictory at the same time because I don't believe I nor anyone else has the right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her own body.
The numbers don't matter at all. Are you saying if only 20 women seek an abortion for rape then we should deny them? That's pretty heartless. Face it, rape is a real issue and pregnancies happen sometimes because of it. It's evil to force a woman to carry that baby to term if you doesn't want it.

I think people get caught up in issues like this because they evoke such strong emotional responses. We need to get past these issues because they are so divisive. There are certain issues that are of the utmost importance for the U.S. and Global future; when you look at the big picture, these are not. I'd like someone to tell me why any of these issues mentioned in this post have more bearing on our daily lives than the economy and national security.
Because a canidates stances on important issues like abortion and endangered animals shows his/her character. Would you vote for a person if they said "I'LL KILL ALL THE WHALES AND I'LL CUT TAXES!"? I sure hope not.

[Kugyince]

Creationism is a theological theory, evolution is a scientific theory. Biology is a science class. If schools want to discuss creationism in a theology class, then I'm all for it.

While religious, I am not a Christian. I still would not have a problem with a Christian based theology class being taught in school as long as it was an optional course study.

[Kong]

I haven't read all this topic - been busy/sick this week.

Tenser's point is a very important one. Evolution is a scientific theory. Biology is a science class. Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is not scientifically testable. Evolution can be proven wrong. Example - find a fossil of a complex organism in a strata layer below a simpler organism that should have pre-dated the first.

If you teach Christian Creationism in a public school then you should also have to teach all other creation myths - there are thousands of them. I see no way you could justify teaching only one myth without admitting you are being unconstitutional and pushing one religion over another.

Do the people in favor of this really want to teach Hindu and Scientology creation myths side by side with the Christian one? Seriously if your goal is to make/keep your children Christian then I think this is going to backfire on you. Teaching children about all religions just makes them doubt their own.

Example. When a child learns Santa is not real they might ask if the the Easter Bunny is real and you say no. Then they ask about the Tooth Fairy. And you say no, made that one up too. Then they ask and Jesus too? And you say no, honey, that one is real. If you have a class that teaches about Vishnu, Xenu, and Adam you are going to have the same conversation only stepped up a notch. And there is going to be more doubt in the child's mind. Side note - why do parents lie to children and tell them about Santa and the Easter Bunny. I don't see the point.

So if you want to have a theology class that teaches about every religion, I am all for it. If you want to have a class that teaches only one religion then you are, IMO, un-American. And I said in a theology class - not biology.

Back on topic.

Understanding really big #s is almost impossible. Our national debt is over $10-trillion (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/). That # is so big that it is almost meaningless. Some perspective - find the US on this list (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html).

Most of our debt (http://www.optimist123.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/09/piechart200701.gif) is borrowed from ourselves - as in taking money from social security - which is why when you retire there will not be any left for you - the next biggest chunk is from individuals - such as CDs - the rest is owed to other countries - mainly Japan and China. America buys all of the cheaply made products from China so it is in their benefit to loan us money to keep us doing that. But if our economy gets bad enough that we stop shopping and our dollar falls enough that we are a bad investment then they are going to want their money back.

Governments, just like individuals, should borrow money only if - 1. It is a good investment, you will make a profit after paying the interest - example borrowing money to create a school or go to school or to start a bussiness. 2. To protect yourself example upgrade water treatment facilities, reduce pollution, have an army for defense. That is it. Any other expense should come from interest free money. Borrowing money to buy a car are start a needless war is a poor investment.

We will owe $451,154,049,950.63 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm) - 4.5Trillion - in interest this year. That means if we spent zero dollars all year, just to keep our debt at 10trillion we would have to give away 4 and a half trillion dollars.

Also when we run out of money and can not borrow it then we print it. This causes inflation. Which is a tax on the poor (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul334.html).

On October 10th the inflation rate (http://www.forecasts.org/inflation.htm) was 5.36%. My savings account has a 5% interest rate. So at the end of the year I will have 5% more money but be able to buy .36% less stuff.

We are artificially keeping our economy alive by borrowing money from the future of our country and encouraging shopping (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-1.html).

This system can not last forever - it can last a long time, maybe even my entire life - but the bubble will pop.

I read a story in a magazine once. There was a Russian village that for whatever reason lost all it's food crops that year and they were starving. The only thing they had to eat was the seeds for next years crops. They continued to starve instead of eating the seeds. Many of them died. They said they would not eat the seeds because they did not want to steal from the future.

And slightly on the subject of money and debt, I read the Rich Dad, Poor Dad book several years ago. It was about %99.9 fluff and could be boiled down to one important sentence. Income buys assets; assets buy luxuries. Income (your job) buys assets (investments, business, money that makes money by itself even while you are sleeping or on vacation) buys luxuries (new clothes, car, vacation, things you want but don't need). Your credit card should never buy luxuries.

And about the presidential candidates. I have said this before. I don't like either one of them. A two party system is not a true democracy. We are told we have to vote for one of the two people that have already been bought and paid for. People don't think they can vote for a third party because they are told that is the same as throwing your vote away. I disagree. I know a third part can not win this year. Obama or McCain will be our next president. But if you vote for a third party you are voting for a change. Voting to have a chance to eventually have a third party by showing that you are willing to vote none of the above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster%27s_Millions_(1985_film)).

Third party lists
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_presidential_candidates
http://www.votenoneoftheabove.us/

Ralph Nader and Cynthia Ann McKinney seem like decent choices. I would have voted for Ron Paul but he lost the Republican Primary and he didn't want to run as an independent.

Sorry for the long post. I like to rant sometimes.

[oasis]

So if you want to have a theology class that teaches about every religion, I am all for it. If you want to have a class that teaches only one religion then you are, IMO, un-American. And I said in a theology class - not biology.


I am fine with having religious classes but it should be taught in college not in grade school. There is absolutly no value in teaching kids about religion or evolution in grade school. Parents will teach there kids what they want and kids will naturally learn from the parents its what kids do.

you could still have science class and teach about space and atoms and how things interact in the universe but you dont need to teach about the oragins of things (Big Bang and Macro Evolution). If A kid asks how did we get here just tell them to ask there parents and change the subject... its that simple

And I would vote for Kong as president. and Penn and Teller as presedent and VP

and sorry I went off topic again its just that I was discussing the exact same topic with my class mates just moments before I read this topic.

[Kugyince]

I think Biology is an important subject to teach. I am not paying school taxes to have a teacher tell my son to go ask his parents.

Since Biology is an optional class I see no problem in an optional theology class. I also don't think a theology class should be required to teach every religion or even give equal amounts of time to different religions. That would be near impossible to accomplish. I liken it to asking a Mythology class to discuss every mythos equally.

[Dudebro]

I am fine with having religious classes but it should be taught in college not in grade school. There is absolutly no value in teaching kids about religion or evolution in grade school. Parents will teach there kids what they want and kids will naturally learn from the parents its what kids do.

you could still have science class and teach about space and atoms and how things interact in the universe but you dont need to teach about the oragins of things (Big Bang and Macro Evolution). If A kid asks how did we get here just tell them to ask there parents and change the subject... its that simple

Terrible idea. I don't think we wanna go off about religion vs evolution but Evolution is not on the same level as creation stories. Until creation stories prove anything they don't get the right to be part of basic studies. As optional classes sure.

[Kong]

@oasis I think around 7th grade should be OK for both a theology class and evolution class.

I would definitely vote for Penn and Teller.

@Tenser. I don't think biology is optional. It wasn't in my school. Although I'm not sure if my school taught evolution or not. If they did then they glossed over it and spent no more than a couple days on it.

I agree it would be pointless and near impossible to give every religion equal time but it would violate the separation of church and state if the class was 90% Christianity and 10% everything else. Since most Americans are Christian then it would seem reasonable to devote 10-25% of the class time to it.

@Dudebro. I think the point of this is that creation not be taught as an alternative to evolution. It is for creation to be taught as an alternative to the Earth coming from a lotus that grew out of Vishnu's naval (the Hindu creation story). It should be taught as literature, myth or philosophy and not as science or fact. I had an ancient Greek myth class and American Folk Lore class in 4th grade. Same idea.

[Kugyince]

@Tenser. I don't think biology is optional. It wasn't in my school. Although I'm not sure if my school taught evolution or not. If they did then they glossed over it and spent no more than a couple days on it.

I'm unsure about anything prior to High School as its much too far back for me to accurately remember. I do remember that in NY, at least from 1992-1996 there were four different science classes that you could take, each gave you 1 credit. You only needed 2 Science and 2 Lab credits to pass. The four science classes you could choose from in the order you wished were: Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. Each with their own Lab class to go along with them.

This case was also true with Mathematics. But you needed 4 credits of other things like English, History, and Phys Ed. 1 credit of Health, and so on. But for the most part you got to pick and choose what type of courses you wanted to take, when you wanted to take them. Like I mentioned previously, I was able to take Mythology as an English credit.

I took Honor's Earth Science in my Freshmen year. Honors Biology in my Sophomore year. And a college credit AP Physics in my Junior year.

[Dudebro]

@Dudebro. I think the point of this is that creation not be taught as an alternative to evolution. It is for creation to be taught as an alternative to the Earth coming from a lotus that grew out of Vishnu's naval (the Hindu creation story). It should be taught as literature, myth or philosophy and not as science or fact. I had an ancient Greek myth class and American Folk Lore class in 4th grade. Same idea.

Well yeah I totally agree with that. I'd love to see creationism taught in literature classes and theology classes. That's where it belongs. My point is to keep it out of science classes.
Oasis was saying it's not ok to teach Evolution in grade school. I can't begin to express how much I'm against that. Kids need to learn about life facts, things that can be tested and proven not stories.

Back on topic about the economy. I think we're screwed and I hope it doesn't get too bad before it gets better. I can't see a good way out of all this.