Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are some from other places too, but you would be surprised how many "pants to the ankles wearin', ebonic speaking, bass blasting, crooked hat wearing, " little bastards are running around in Gallatin County. I understand the parents trying to help their kids out by moving, but it really does cause problems in the schools here.
I don't see a fix for that so long as our OWN kids think that's cool (as kids often will about anything that's "rebellious").
But if our OWN kids act as social brakes, and provide peer pressure to behave more like civilized Montanans, maybe that will make a difference... since the parents of these ebonikids don't seem to have any control over them, and haven't taught them anything.
And to the other response, it's not a race thing; it's a personal responsibility thing. Montanans have traditionally instilled this in their kids, but it's being diluted by the kids of parents who've come to rely on the state being the nanny instead.
I don't see a fix for that so long as our OWN kids think that's cool (as kids often will about anything that's "rebellious").
But if our OWN kids act as social brakes, and provide peer pressure to behave more like civilized Montanans, maybe that will make a difference... since the parents of these ebonikids don't seem to have any control over them, and haven't taught them anything.
And to the other response, it's not a race thing; it's a personal responsibility thing. Montanans have traditionally instilled this in their kids, but it's being diluted by the kids of parents who've come to rely on the state being the nanny instead.
Why is talking differently, and wearing a different style of clothes 'not civilized'?
Unless someone is causing problems, who is harmed?
As for your second comment, it very much seems like a 'race' thing (ebonics, 'urban dress'...now you refering to people as 'welfare users'...all stereotypes of particular nonwhite races). I went into that with timber a little more in another thread.
As I told Timber, I doubt anyone ever moves to montana to 'rely on the state'. Why would they, there is less state care in MT than there is in the states you guys seem to be insinuating these 'other people' come from.
Likewise, most of the people who 'rely on the state' both nationally and in the state of MT tend to be the very people you just suggested should be 'social breaks'. Small town, working class unemployed people.
This 'these people want to move here and take our tax money' is both silly and a red herring. It makes about as much sense as saying people move from Florida to Alaska to enjoy their warm beaches. I just isnt the case.
Why is talking differently, and wearing a different style of clothes 'not civilized'?
I don't mean just "being different". I mean acting like a bunch of hoodies whose goal is to prove that being an ignorant punk is great stuff.
People complain about how schools have gone downhill, but I think it's all connected: When I was a kid, schools were highly disciplined and we LEARNED there, we didn't go there to talk in ebonics or flaunt our $200 sneakers. Undisciplined kids whose parents let them thumb their noses at all their parents' traditions will also thumb their noses at institutions of learning, and after a time this undisciplined atmosphere negatively impacts the school system, as it tries to cope with the "new style of kids".
Don't think so?? MY very disciplined and traditional high school, back before the hoodie era, had only TWO dropouts from a graduating class of 562 kids (total kids about 1500). How many did yours have??
I don't mean just "being different". I mean acting like a bunch of hoodies whose goal is to prove that being an ignorant punk is great stuff.
People complain about how schools have gone downhill, but I think it's all connected: When I was a kid, schools were highly disciplined and we LEARNED there, we didn't go there to talk in ebonics or flaunt our $200 sneakers. Undisciplined kids whose parents let them thumb their noses at all their parents' traditions will also thumb their noses at institutions of learning, and after a time this undisciplined atmosphere negatively impacts the school system, as it tries to cope with the "new style of kids".
Don't think so?? MY very disciplined and traditional high school, back before the hoodie era, had only TWO dropouts from a graduating class of 562 kids (total kids about 1500). How many did yours have??
My graduating class had the same about, in a school 3+ times larger, in poor city, so it had a much larger drop out rate. It had nothing to do with how the kids dressed. The 'wannabe cowboys' had as many dropouts at my high school as the 'wanna be gangsters' and the atheletes, popular kids, even (especially in my school) the Church kids had a few who did not graduate. Applying a general reasoning to various individual groups is an oversimplification of a problem, and never leads to a positive solution (abstinence programs and DARE are good statistical examples).
The description you just gave IS just being different. By the very literal definition. Its probably why its growing more popular in the first place.
How someone dresses or even the slang they use in friendly crowds does not determine whether they are an 'ignorant punk'.
How would you feel if you (I assume you are a native montanan) were in a city, and people looked at the way you dressed and how you spoke and assumed you were an 'ignorant hillbilly' or a 'violent racist/homophobic/aantisemite/whatever redneck (please note I am not calling you that, I am giving an example I have heard and seen...and yes when I see that example I make the same 'difference does not equal ignorance/dangerousness' argument to them as I am here) It doesnt follow. Again, applying a general precept to differing individuals will usually lead a person astray.
I see the argument you are making, but look in the big picture. I GUARANTEE your parents probably thought the same about your generation growing up, as theirs did to them. Older folks see younger folks doing things differently, living by different rules, and tend to judge on what those older folks did in that situation. Its natural for the young to rebel and seek out change. Just like its natural for the older to seek to hold on to the way they do things.
It may not seem like it, but the change in culture of modern young people is a good thing. Things older people cant get seem over (xenophobia, race relations, religious differences, even accents according to a few studies) younger generations are able to move past.
If Montana ever wants to compete economically, or even keep up at its current state and not become another louisiana or mississippi or (sorry Dakotans) North Dakota, change must happen. The old ways that didnt work or dont work for modern times must make way to new ideas, new people and new identities.
Sorry to rant. This just reminds me of a conversation Ive had with my uncles.
My graduating class had the same about, in a school 3+ times larger, in poor city, so it had a much larger drop out rate.
Comparing dropout rates these days to 20 years ago isn't anywhere near valid. School administrators are under tremendous pressure to give anything that can walk on two legs a diploma these days. Go to any college and sit in on a remedial math or English class where they are -- literally -- teaching the kids how to do basic addition and subtraction. And then weep when you realize that YOU will have to support these dimwits for the rest of their sorry lives.
No, it doesn't have anything directly to do with how the kids dress. That's a symptom. But it is a real symptom of a real problem.
A HS diploma means nothing these days. A Bachelor's degree is the new HS diploma. I've seen this get worse and worse for the past 10 years at least. Our public schools are churning out a generation of illiterates.
Will these kids bring "change" with them? Absolutely they will. And none of that change will be for the better. These kids aren't qualified to do anything more manual labor, but most are too lazy to even do that. So then, what kind of change are they going to bring? What kind of change is so desperately needed in Montana that can only come from this generation of misfits?
All of the things you mention (xenophobia, race relations, religious differences, even accents according to a few studies) I have yet to see in Montana. The people here are genuinely nice people for the most part - FAR FAR FAR more so than any more "diverse" city I've been to, and I've been to a LOT. Are there certain individuals who have some of those bad traits? Of course there are. But you cannot go to anywhere in this world and not come across a jerk of one flavor or another. And I guarantee that a sizable percentage (about the size of the general population - where they come from) of these young wannabe gangsters has those very same traits.
People harp and harp that Montana needs to "change". Yet they refuse to get specific and, instead, rely on the idiotic generic "change". "Change is good". This or that, here or there needs to "change". And they never get around to specifying exactly what "change" is needed. NOT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD. CHANGE FOR THE SAKE OF CHANGE IS, IN FACT, PROBABLY A BAD THING. If you cannot articulate a perceived problem, tell me why that problem is a bad thing, defend your assertions with actual facts, and tell me what specifically should be changed to make that problem go away, then there probably isn't really a problem.
I don't mean to come down on you as much as everyone who harps and harps about Montana being some backwater state in desperate need of sort of "change". It gets frustrating.
We've already tried that. It's called California, or sometimes New York.
California and New York have never tried that. They have never been a haven for businesses. Ever. From the recent study, "Freedom in the 50 States" www.mercatus.org/PDFDownload.aspx?contentID=26154 (http://www.mercatus.org/PDFDownload.aspx?contentID=26154 - broken link)
"Contrary to popular perception, California not only taxes and regulates its economy more than most other states, it also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens."
"New York has the highest taxes in the country. Property, selective sales, individual income, and corporate income taxes are particularly high"
Corporations don't stay in California or New York because they want to be there. They stay because they think they have to be there. Some stay because they don't think they will be taken seriously or attract the business they want to attract without a main corporate office in Manhattan. Some stay because enough key employees are located there.
There have to be enough economic incentives for a company to uproot itself (or a portion of itself) and move everything and everyone to another state. About 15 years ago, a company I worked for was able to relocate sizable part of the company from California to Oregon. The jobs moved were mostly medium skill jobs typically given to recent college graduates. They relocated a core group of employees and hired locals for the majority of the rest of the jobs. The company saved a huge amount of money and the local community's unemployment rate saw a nice drop. [The rest of the company is still in California because the key employees who actually design and produce the products don't want to leave.]
Quote:
Regulation should be purely what's necessary and nothing more, but the problem with dereg as it's presently practiced is you get situations like Montana Power, and Socal Edison (and skyrocketing rates).
Like Free Trade, Deregulation doesn't really exist, has never really existed, and will probably never really exist. There will always be regulations of some form or another. Reducing regulations to only those that are actually necessary is what I'm referring to.
Thinking of it as, "Joe Schmoe wants to start a new business making WhosiWhatzits. Joe Schmoe will have to jump through xxxx number of hoops to get his business off the ground and then another xxxx hoops per month/year for the life of his business" can help. If that number of hoops is 10,000 per year in Montana and only 1,000 per year in Wyoming (or wherever), Joe's probably going to give some consideration to Wyoming. If, on the other hand, Montana cuts back to 500 hoops, they've now got a leg up on Wyoming.
I'd say that removing unneeded regulations would be more likely to attract smaller businesses than larger businesses as larger businesses would just hire someone to jump through the hoops for them.
Quote:
Sales tax hurts the poor the worst, and REALLY hurts marginal businesses in a tight economy. Yuppies and tourist traps won't mind, but it will hurt locals, and the businesses who rely on locals.
The purpose of moving away from an Income Tax is to attract businesses to the state - businesses with higher paying jobs. With the state hurting and businesses closing down left and right, solutions are needed. Citizens need jobs. Businesses create jobs. Make Montana attractive for businesses so that they will bring jobs. There are other ways to attract businesses (North Carolina created a new method of taxing certain businesses in order to get Apple Computer to build a new data center there). Maybe most citizens of Montana don't want the type of businesses who would be attracted by that, which is fine. As stated, deregulation will attract businesses as well, but probably a different type of business.
Yes, a sales tax can certainly hurt the poor. But are the poor better off paying neither income tax nor sales tax because they have no job? There are two problems here that probably shouldn't be linked:
1. The state needs to attract businesses to create jobs for its citizens.
2. The state needs a certain amount of income for vital state functions.
In my opinion, attracting businesses should be given the most attention. A new business will generate revenue for the state in one form or another. A new business will create jobs. More jobs created means less required government services for the unemployed. The newly employed will generate revenue for the state in one form or another.
The purpose of moving away from an Income Tax is to attract businesses to the state - businesses with higher paying jobs. With the state hurting and businesses closing down left and right, solutions are needed. Citizens need jobs. Businesses create jobs. Make Montana attractive for businesses so that they will bring jobs. There are other ways to attract businesses (North Carolina created a new method of taxing certain businesses in order to get Apple Computer to build a new data center there). Maybe most citizens of Montana don't want the type of businesses who would be attracted by that, which is fine. As stated, deregulation will attract businesses as well, but probably a different type of business.
Just to clarify. I don't need a job. I'm fine and will be fine. Moving from an Income Tax to a Sales Tax probably would have zero effect for me, but I'm not really sure.
But, as more and more residents of Montana are finding themselves out of work, more workable solutions are needed. It would be a shame if Montana natives had to move to an even poorer state just to reduce their cost of living. It would also be a shame if the only solutions state officials could come up with involved sucking off the Federal Government teat. Bringing in new businesses with new jobs to make up for the jobs that are leaving is about the only way to do that.
California and New York have never tried that. They have never been a haven for businesses. Ever. From the recent study, "Freedom in the 50 States" www.mercatus.org/PDFDownload.aspx?contentID=26154 (http://www.mercatus.org/PDFDownload.aspx?contentID=26154 - broken link)
"Contrary to popular perception, California not only taxes and regulates its economy more than most other states, it also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens."
"New York has the highest taxes in the country. Property, selective sales, individual income, and corporate income taxes are particularly high"
That's exactly what I was talking about. CA and NY both have high sales tax (9 to 14% depending on where you are) and arseloads of regulations on everything from breathing on down. When heavily regulated industries get a sudden "deregulation" like happened with the power industry, consumers get screwed. So ... yes, we have already tried sales taxes and "deregulation" (in the usual way gov't implements it) and if business-friendly is your measure, the CA/NY experiment is a dismal failure. If your measure is huge money flow (tho no one can afford to save any of it) and an ungodly amount of waste, then both are flaming successes!
I agree that taxes need to be reduced -- as has been pointed out, business pays no tax anyway, since of necessity they must pass it along to their customers, just as they must ANY expense. So a tax on business IS a tax on citizens. Whether it's a fair distribution of tax burden is uncertain -- yes, only those who buy from said business will pay it, but it also costs in jobs that business no longer has the funds to create -- unless it raises prices, which slows sales and again may lead to layoffs.
Sales tax seems fair until you realise that 10% of $100 can be the difference between eating this week or not, while 10% of $1000 is unlikely to force that kind of decision. And if we had a national sales tax -- the most conservative estimates, were it to replace the income tax and provide the same revenue, put it at 25%. I've seen estimates as high as 34%. I think it would kill all the marginal and middle-class businesses overnight (the kind that rely on the middle class' discretionary income), leaving behind only the commodities and upper-class luxury items (much of which would go overseas, like the yachtbuilding industry did when the 38% luxury tax was applied to its products).
Regulations based on corner cases (as most regs seem to be) wind up being painful for the majority, and that does indeed drive business away. I remember reading something written by Sen.McCarthy (the more recent one, not the 1950s guy) -- when he retired from politics, he decided to indulge his lifelong dream and open a nice midsize hotel. Turned out it was impossible -- due to the very regulations he himself had pushed through Congress. He said that if he'd known how hard he was making life for business, he would never have backed any of that legislation!!
No, it doesn't have anything directly to do with how the kids dress. That's a symptom. But it is a real symptom of a real problem.
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I agree with the rest of your post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fodderman
I don't mean to come down on you as much as everyone who harps and harps about Montana being some backwater state in desperate need of sort of "change". It gets frustrating.
As the old saw goes:
There are two kinds of fools:
One says, "This is old, and therefore good."
The other says, "This is new, and therefore better."
I agree that taxes need to be reduced -- as has been pointed out, business pays no tax anyway, since of necessity they must pass it along to their customers, just as they must ANY expense.
It depends on the elasticity of demand as to whether the business entity's extra cost of taxes is paid for by the consumer or in reduced wages for the employees or by reduced profits for the owners of the business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
