Teacher ‘petrified’ after being attacked by student

[Razor]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

I would also argue that the larger problem is spending, not earning.
Patience, frugality, and long-term planning will make the difference.

Funny you mention that. What does this chart from the U.S. Commerce Dept. say about American saving habits on the whole?

[mdb23]

That we are spending money that we do not have.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Razor

Funny you mention that. What does this chart from the U.S. Commerce Dept. say about American saving habits on the whole?

I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?

IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, equities, money market funds, etc., or just savings accounts?

It could mean that we have transitioned from the conventional passbook savings accounts to a more diversified means of accumulating wealth.

TR

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?

IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, equities, money market funds, etc., or just savings accounts?

It could mean that we have transitioned from the conventional passbook savings accounts to a more diversified means of accumulating wealth.

TR

Beat me to the punch.

To be clear, in the earlier comparison between spending and earning, "spending" was meant to be an idea distinct from investment or debt reduction.

[Radar Rider]

Originally Posted by mdb23

I also agree with what Reaper said in regard to divorce. I remember when I was in second grade, there was that one kid in our class who's "gasp" parents had divorced. Now, in any given class 3/4 of the kids are the product of broken homes. There is no stability, as new boyfriends and girlfriends are marched in and out of the kids' lives, they are shipped from home to home, etc....

That's what I always found so curious about the "defense of marriage act." The Bible condemns divorce as strongly as it does homosexuality, and it is indisputable that far, far, far more children are negatively impacted by divorce than could ever be by two gay people getting a marriage license, yet we are so determined to "protect marriage" by banning gay unions. it's almost laughable.

Over half of all marriages end up in divorce... think of how many kids that screws up....but nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to outlaw divorce... I mean, after all, we might find something younger and better someday, right? But if we are really serious about protecting our children, and "saving the sanctity of marriage," then what actually needs to be looked at? Gay marriage, or the ridiculous divorce rate?

There is a gay couple that lives on my block. Two dudes that have been together for 15 years. They helped me landscape my yard, and we invite them over whenever we have a fire pit going out in the yard. Good dudes... big basketball fans.... they even let us use their pool during the summer with our kid.

I can't see how their getting a marriage certificate would in any way "damage" my daughter's concept of family or marriage. However, should I or her mother pack up and leave, and she had to split time between homes, I can undoubtedly say that she would be damaged by the experience.....

But nobody wants to touch that..... Odd. Anyway, rant over.

You know, I could not care less if two dudes choose to cohabitate. Bringing the bible into the argument is only for those that can't provide a reasonable argument. That is simply an attack on people that have a belief by which they think morals exist.

Marriage is just a word; the reality is what two people choose to do in a committed relationship. That being said, if I choose to have relations with my significant other and another girl, should that also be recognized? Just look at the recently busted cult in El Dorado, Texas. They think that an old man should be able to marry and screw children. Is that right, in your view? The law is the law. We have to draw the line somewhere.

[mdb23]

Personally, I draw the line at consenting adults. Bringing children into the equation is a straw man argument, IMHO.

I only brought it up to demonstrate that if we were really concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, and the survival of the family model, then we should be for more concerned about our astronomical divorce rate than we are about the small percentage of our population that wishes to have a same sex marriage.

The former is much more destructive to the traditional family, and affects far more families, than the latter.

However, I don't wish to hijick the thread with what was, admittedly, a rant. If you want to debate it any more, feel free to PM me.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the source of the chart; sorry for not footnoting that earlier):

Personal saving is the amount left over from disposable personal income after expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfer payments. This amount is available to acquire financial assets such as bank deposits and mutual funds, to use towards acquiring a home, or to reduce liabilities by repaying principle on mortgages or consumer debt.
If expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfers exceed disposable personal income in a quarter, personal saving will be negative. This can occur because current income is not the only possible source of funds for consumption expenditures. Although spending must eventually fall back into line with income, households can spend more than their after-tax income for a time by withdrawing deposits saved in previous periods, by selling financial or tangible assets, or by borrowing.

So I read that to say that personal savings are what you have left over from your gross income after paying all the various personal (i.e., non-business) taxes (not including OASDI), buying "stuff", paying interest on loans and paying off your credit cards. I interpret that to mean personal savings include the money available for investments, but I'm open to suggestions otherwise if someone knows differently. Guy "Gordon Gekko" Jones, any input?

[Paste Eater]

Originally Posted by Surgicalcric

Same here brother. My father would have quite literally beat my ass.

It is unfortunate in today's society that kids are being raised to think this is acceptable, well some kids anyhow.

Crip

Graduated high school in 03, and I'd have had my ass kicked and handed to me if I did anything like that.

The rule in my house was, if you get in trouble at school, you get in more trouble at home...


my kids will be raised the same way

[Radar Rider]

Originally Posted by mdb23

Personally, I draw the line at consenting adults. Bringing children into the equation is a straw man argument, IMHO.

I only brought it up to demonstrate that if we were really concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, and the survival of the family model, then we should be for more concerned about our astronomical divorce rate than we are about the small percentage of our population that wishes to have a same sex marriage.

The former is much more destructive to the traditional family, and affects far more families, than the latter.

However, I don't wish to hijick the thread with what was, admittedly, a rant. If you want to debate it any more, feel free to PM me.

PM you.

In the case of the polygamous sect, what do you think? Remove anyone that is underage. Should the head dude be able to marry 16 women? Why not? Should 17 people be married? There is a line, and that line is one man and one woman. Change that, and you MUST allow polygamous marriages, or admit your hypocrisy.

[Radar Rider]

I notice no opposing responses. I am correct in stating that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Radar Rider

I notice no opposing responses. I am correct in stating that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

I agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

However, the polygamy issue is not that simple.
Technically, what many of them do is not illegal.

Morality cannot be legislated.

I am of the opinion that chaotic behavior in this nation is the natural consequence of godlessness.

The passing and enforcement of laws will never promote good behavior, it can only punish a percentage of "bad" behavior.
Unfortunately, "bad" behavior ends up being measured on a sliding, relative scale.

Lacking an absolute standard, this is inevitable.

[Guy]

Razor,

You're kill'in me!

I did ask this question in class...

"Why would you take on an ARM if; your earning potential will NOT cover your mortgage payments in the future?"

Some people looked at me like was crazy.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Razor

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the source of the chart; sorry for not footnoting that earlier):

Personal saving is the amount left over from disposable personal income after expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfer payments. This amount is available to acquire financial assets such as bank deposits and mutual funds, to use towards acquiring a home, or to reduce liabilities by repaying principle on mortgages or consumer debt.
If expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfers exceed disposable personal income in a quarter, personal saving will be negative. This can occur because current income is not the only possible source of funds for consumption expenditures. Although spending must eventually fall back into line with income, households can spend more than their after-tax income for a time by withdrawing deposits saved in previous periods, by selling financial or tangible assets, or by borrowing.

So I read that to say that personal savings are what you have left over from your gross income after paying all the various personal (i.e., non-business) taxes (not including OASDI), buying "stuff", paying interest on loans and paying off your credit cards. I interpret that to mean personal savings include the money available for investments, but I'm open to suggestions otherwise if someone knows differently. Guy "Gordon Gekko" Jones, any input?

I'll run this by some mentors this week.

Stay safe.

[Radar Rider]

Originally Posted by mdb23

feel free to PM me.

Why do you want a PM? Is it that your shit is so weak that you can't post it? I don't make the rules; I just want you to come on here and defend your bullshit point of view.

[Radar Rider]

Edit by Razor: Be civil, or be quiet.