Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (363975)	12/22/2007 8:19:26 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574638

Its very often that a government approach is taken when it isn't the best solution. No, it's not. In fact the opposite. It can also increase freedom. If not for public schools, an awful lot of folks couldn't afford to educate their kids. ------------------------------------------------------ That would be a benefit that might justify the decrease in freedom, but it doesn't amount to an increase in freedom. The freedom for non-wealthy folks to have their kids educated isn't a 'freedom' to you. You would have them be 'free' to not have education as an option. Makes a lot of pragmatic sense Mr. Libertarian. Good for the country as well </sarcasm>.

To: TimF who wrote (363975)	12/22/2007 4:11:11 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574638

Also there is no need to have public schools in order to have public financing of education (at least for those who can't afford it, but even public financing for everyone who wants it). Yes, there is....the majority of public schools are better than the majority of private schools, esp when you consider they are the educators of the poorest people in a community.

To: TimF who wrote (363975)	12/22/2007 4:31:51 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574638

Fertility rate in U.S. up to 2.1 That figure means one generation can replace itself December 20, 2007 USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- The fertility rate among Americans has climbed to its highest level since 1971, setting the country apart from most industrialized nations. The lifetime fertility rate hit 2.1 in 2006, according to preliminary estimates released this month by the National Center for Health Statistics. It's the first time since the end of the baby boom in 1964 that the nation had enough births for a generation to replace itself. Fertility in the United States went up in every age group from 2005 to 2006, the biggest jump coming among those 20 to 24 years old. Last year, the country topped 300 million in population, and the Census Bureau projects growth to 400 million by about 2040. "What matters is that the U.S. is probably one of very few industrialized countries that have a fertility rate close to or at replacement level," said Jose Antonio Ortega, head of the fertility section at the United Nations Population Division. Low birthrates mean fewer people to fill jobs and support elderly people. Developed nations in Europe and Asia have tried to encourage births, offering financial bonuses, extended family leaves and subsidized child care. With the wide availability of birth control and more career opportunities for women, fertility rates have hit low levels in Japan, at 1.3, South Korea, 1.1, Italy, 1.4, Germany, 1.3, and Russia, 1.3. France is the exception with a rate of 2.