...Perot was 19% less of a loser...
Future bumper sticker? :P
"Corporations" aren't a single entity (yet!) -- meaning they don't act collectively.
Corporations collude all the time when it's in their best interests. You really think it's pure coincidence that Coke and Pepsi take turns "going on sale" every other week. They have an agreement not to engage in price wars with each other. These are rival businesses to. I highly doubt that symbiotic businesses such as automobile and oil don't work together to ensure maximum profits. You're fooling yourself if you actually believe they don't act collectively.
Frog: If the definition of libertarianism is the bare minimum amount of government regulation in order to function then some could argue that, given our broken system, we need to regulate more in order to reach it.
You mistakenly added "in order to function" which is misleading. The government's purpose is to regulate people and business so that its citizens aren't harmed and corporations play fair. That's it. There's a reason the US was shop successful in the beginning and so ineffective now and its because this is what they believed and implemented.
Most corps now invest (donate to the campaigns of) in both Reps and Dems becasue one of them will will. Guaranteed. A third party won't.
Why on earth would they pull all of their donations from those two, and back a third party? How does even remotely make sense?
From a business standpoint, the payout isn't worth the risk.So Perot was 19% less of a loser?
How soon we ignore history and rename it baseless propoganda.
A third party would win seats in congress and sometimes the presidency if they were given a fair shot. Perot proved this with his strong show in the '92 election. He claimed 19% if the vote because he was given the opportunity to partake in the presidential debates and had his own money to drop down on his campaign. In '96, he was arbitrarily cut out of the presidential debates by the Democrats and Republicans who have 100% control over them which shaved am entire 11% off of his total.
And if a third party would offer corporations more advantages than the Democrats and Republicans, you can make a safe bet that they would. The altruistic notion that they want the government to regulate them more because they know its what's best for them (as someone mentioned earlier) is absolutely preposterous. There is no noble reason why large corporations donate huge sums of money to the two dominant parties. Trust me on that one. It's all about scratching each others backs and nothing more.
What percentage of America identifies itself as or more importantly is registered to vote as Libertarian?
I think the answer to this question will answer all the "whys".
...Perot was 19% less of a loser...Future bumper sticker? :P
"Third place is just another name for the 2nd loser."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that everyone seems to think that Ron Paul is the crazy one is so troubling to me. I've never before seen so many people (not here, just in general) flaunt our freedom and democracy then turn around and fight against those very things ... in the name of freedom and democracy! Every time I talk politics, my brain hurts.
Ron Paul is only slightly more out there than McCain used to be ...
I don't think Ron Paul is all that out there. At least on most things. He's the one that I'd vote for if I had a gun to my head. But he wants to dismantle the department of education, the EPA, and a lot of other safeguards we have in this country.
If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, groundwater contamination, etc. you don't start by dismantling the EPA. Libertarians have a very naive stance on environmental issues. I would know, I was a card-carrying LP member for years and stopped due to these issues.
I'm libertarian on social issues. I'm libertarian on foreign policy. But when you start dismantling the only infrastructure that keeps us from being an utter oligarchy, i.e. social safety net, education, environmental protection, you lose my loyalty.
You mistakenly added "in order to function" which is misleading. The government's purpose is to regulate people and business so that its citizens aren't harmed and corporations play fair. That's it.
So no roads, no scientific research, no checking the food for safety, no CDC or FDA?
There's a reason the US was shop successful in the beginning and so ineffective now and its because this is what they believed and implemented.
Right. They believed that unless you were white you could either have your land stolen or be forced to work for white people with no pay. They then stole the land from the red people and put the black people on it and made them farm it. Belief to implementation and glory! All hail the superior morals of our founding fathers!
Corporations collude all the time when it's in their best interests. You really think it's pure coincidence that Coke and Pepsi take turns "going on sale" every other week. They have an agreement not to engage in price wars with each other. These are rival businesses to. I highly doubt that symbiotic businesses such as automobile and oil don't work together to ensure maximum profits. You're fooling yourself if you actually believe they don't act collectively.
Sometimes. But as I implied by mentioning the prisoner's dilemma, in this case they can't be sure that doing so would in their best interest.
But since you seem to be pretty sure you have all the answers, and meet anything you perceive as disagreement with belittlement, I think I'll opt out of any further conversation with you. :)
Ever hear him talk on foreign policy and domestic race relations? The man is naive at best, a truly poor student of history at worst.
The fact that everyone seems to think that Ron Paul is the crazy one is so troubling to me. I've never before seen so many people (not here, just in general) flaunt our freedom and democracy then turn around and fight against those very things ... in the name of freedom and democracy! Every time I talk politics, my brain hurts.
Ron Paul is only slightly more out there than McCain used to be ...
Frog, re: coke and pepsi - last time I checked, price fixing was illegal.
What percentage of America identifies itself as or more importantly is registered to vote as Libertarian?
I think the answer to this question will answer all the "whys".
Almost 50% of the population doesn't even vote probably because they've already thrown in the towel. The percentage has mostly been going down over time. They've been told that if you don't support the Democrat or Republicans, you might as well not bother. The idea is growing though. There's reason that Ron Paul has so much support from the people these days and it's because of these ideals.
I'm libertarian on social issues. I'm libertarian on foreign policy. But when you start dismantling the only infrastructure that keeps us from being an utter oligarchy, i.e. social safety net, education, environmental protection, you lose my loyalty.
These are horribly run, inefficient government programs that could shine if handed over to privately run businesses. You really think our education system here in America is good? Competition makes businesses better. Government control equals no competition.
So no roads, no scientific research, no checking the food for safety, no CDC or FDA?
Now how would eliminating all of these help protect people from harm?
Right. They believed that unless you were white you could either have your land stolen or be forced to work for white people with no pay. They then stole the land from the red people and put the black people on it and made them farm it. Belief to implementation and glory! All hail the superior morals of our founding fathers!
You're going to go there? Really? Do you realize that it's non-conforming people like me who are the reason that all of these things changed? Our founding fathers still created the most free society that existed in those times. I don't think we should jettison the ideals of freedom and liberty just because they didn't enforce it across the board like they should have. Our constitution still reads true. It doesn't say anything about it only applying to white males.
Sometimes. But as I implied by mentioning the prisoner's dilemma, in this case they can't be sure that doing so would in their best interest.But since you seem to be pretty sure you have all the answers, and meet anything you perceive as disagreement with belittlement, I think I'll opt out of any further conversation with you. :)
True, they can't be sure that teaming up will help. Someone could always stab them in the back especially if they believe the other partner is going to. This probably happens. It doesn't mean that the perceived benefits don't temp many or even most corporations to do it though.
I'm just debating my point. Is saying things like "you're fooling yourself if ... " really that offensive? I apologize. There are some things that seem so overtly obvious to me that I'm kind of surprised that anyone is arguing against me on those points.
Ever hear him talk on foreign policy and domestic race relations? The man is naive at best, a truly poor student of history at worst.
I would like to know more about you're thoughts on this.
Frog, re: coke and pepsi - last time I checked, price fixing was illegal.
When was the last time you heard about anyone getting busted for price-fixing?
.
PS - I'm doing all of my posts on my phone right now using the Swype keyboard so please excuse what are probably some very strange typos.
Now how would eliminating all of these help protect people from harm?
Well, they're government agencies that, people have argued, can be handled by the private sector. Beef producers for instance don't want to poison their customers, so if we eliminate testing the beef companies that maintain the standards will stay in business and those that poison their customers will loose business, so we don't need a government agency telling us you can't scrape meat off the slaughter room floor.
Everything that the government does it started doing for a reason. Someone, somewhere, took their license to act and did something stupid with it, the government said "lets prevent that from happening again" and passed a law.
What precisely do you want the government to scale back on?
These are horribly run, inefficient government programs that could shine if handed over to privately run businesses. You really think our education system here in America is good? Competition makes businesses better. Government control equals no competition.
You know you're making absolutely no sense now. You have to see that. You just said that businesses collude with one another to reduce competition. Businesses can only be expected to do what is in their best interest-making money. How exactly do you model a private company that maintains ecological stability across our nation...AND makes money? How do you then regulate that business that is in charge of the most important thing we have, natural resources and the public commons? We need more, stricter, and enforceable regulations where it pertains to the environment.
Competition usually makes businesses better for the consumer, but not necessarily better for the businesses. Thus it is inherently in the best interest of business to collude, and if collusion is impossible then to gobble up all their competitors. WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING WITHOUT REGULATIONS!
I don't think our education system is perfect, but it's because it's not funded, not because it is TOO funded. Privatizing schools with, absolutely and instantaneously, make education a commodity. Not only that but it will be a leisure good. No, free, good education FOR EVERYONE is absolutely vital for the function of our democracy, our economy, and our society.
Now how would eliminating all of these help protect people from harm?
Well, they're government agencies that, people have argued, can be handled by the private sector. Beef producers for instance don't want to poison their customers, so if we eliminate testing the beef companies that maintain the standards will stay in business and those that poison their customers will loose business, so we don't need a government agency telling us you can't scrape meat off the slaughter room floor.
Everything that the government does it started doing for a reason. Someone, somewhere, took their license to act and did something stupid with it, the government said "lets prevent that from happening again" and passed a law.
What precisely do you want the government to scale back on?
My argument with the quote you commented on was that most of these regulations and services are necessary. Totally dropping these would obviously be harmful to the population.
I would personally like to see the government massively cut back on military spending. I'm not sure how much the Obama administration spend but Bush was spending $800 billion a year. The number 2 country in military spending is China at $100 billion. That leaves a lot of room to chop. I subscribe to the theory that the main reason we are being targeted with "terror" attacks is because of our constant need to meddle in everyone else's business.
Welfare is a huge one. People can take care of themselves (and each other) if they need to. All we are doing is enabling people to be lazy and removing any desire to work hard and get ahead in life.
Drug enforcement is totally unnecessary. It does absolutely nothing except create crime by creating black markets. Prohibition is never a good solution. Regulation is the answer. Treat people like responsible adults. Maybe they'll start acting like it.
Education is is totally unnecessary. Give people the money that you'd normally spend on their public school and let them send they're child where they see fit. Private schools get half the funding and give twice the education. Bad school districts will shape up really fast. New Jersey spends more on public schooling than anybody and they have some of the most poorly run, corrupt, wasteful inner-city schools in the country. We shouldn't subject our children to this.
Foreign aid to mostly a waste. Is it really our responsibility to spend $30 million to help some African country to root out 200-300 rebel outlaws? We also have no business funding foreign regimes just because we feel they might turn out a little better than a competing regime. Humanitarian aid is the only thing that's somewhat noble but only if it goes to people using that money to help others ... and only when we have the extra cash to spare.
I'm sure there are more things I can think of.
"I subscribe to the theory that the main reason we are being targeted with "terror" attacks is because of our constant need to meddle in everyone else's business."
...
Is there a link to unsubscribe?
You realize this is the same as "she wanted it, or she wouldn't have dressed that way?"
...
Gonna take a breather before I go clean the hell off.
We're never going to agree on this, so I'm just going to let it go now.
We're never going to agree on this, so I'm just going to let it go now.
Well, al qaeda have as much as said they hate us because we're in their holy land and we have done the things thejeff listed.
Wait...you're not one of those "they hate our freedom" bozos are you?
I recognize that I wasn't going to agree with anyone on this subject, and bow out, and you antagonize me with condescending remarks?
Who's the bozo?
I recognize that I wasn't going to agree with anyone on this subject, and bow out, and you antagonize me with condescending remarks?
Who's the bozo?
Of course you're not going to agree with anyone, not 100%. The fact that you're unwilling to share probably means your beliefs are pretty out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Education is is totally unnecessary. Give people the money that you'd normally spend on their public school and let them send they're child where they see fit. Private schools get half the funding and give twice the education. Bad school districts will shape up really fast. New Jersey spends more on public schooling than anybody and they have some of the most poorly run, corrupt, wasteful inner-city schools in the country. We shouldn't subject our children to this.
I see no scenario to ever justify making basic education -- the most critical, essential part of any person's effort to improve their life and the lives of their family -- a luxury to be afforded only by the monied class.
If you want to talk about substituting grades 10-12 with trade schools, that's worth considering. But pulling the rug out from under public schools entirely? Wow.
EDIT: Meh, whatevs.
I'm sorry, but a lot of this comes off as "it's okay when he does it". Gingrich is just as dirty a politician as the next.Worse.
At least the democrats don't think that sex drugs and rock and roll make you a bad person. They don't tout their need for spiritual purity in order to be a good person or a good leader. Republicans do. When republicans cheat they're undermining their own arguments for why they should be in power: that you need a morally superior person in a position of power and they're it.
Fellas, with respect, it comes off as hypocrisy because you choose to label it hypocrisy. You've been told how it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything to you. Cause you want it to be hypocrisy.
Let's make it simple: 1. Infidelity not good for anyone. 2. Clinton thing is not about infidelity, but about perjury and manipulation of the system to cover his behavior.
Okay - so in review, no one defends the infidelity of Newt Gingrich, and Clinton's infidelity was not why he was impeached or despised by conservatives. At least not any more than anyone else's infidelity.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to education, I want to say something to the "we don't spend enough" crowd. We are 4th in spending (over $6,000 per student, trailing only Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), but we are (to quote AFP)
"The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics."
So, the problem isn't money, it's something else. Maybe we should be examining the problem instead of throwing more money at it.
Carry on with everything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, al qaeda have as much as said they hate us because we're in their holy land and we have done the things thejeff listed.
Wait...you're not one of those "they hate our freedom" bozos are you?
Bad meatrace! No cookie!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to education, I want to say something to the "we don't spend enough" crowd. We are 4th in spending (over $6,000 per student, trailing only Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), but we are (to quote AFP)
"The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics."
So, the problem isn't money, it's something else. Maybe we should be examining the problem instead of throwing more money at it.
Carry on with everything else.
Maybe the problem isn't how much we're spending, but how we're spending it? I couldn't be a teacher if I wanted to -- I couldn't take the pay cut.
You've been told how it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything to you. Cause you want it to be hypocrisy.
Or because, again, you didn't address the argument and instead need to make insulting people with your mind reading powers your entire argument.
Newt Gingrich repeatedly says (and still says) over and over that we need moral leaders... and then isn't one. Democrats argue for ideas. You might not LIKE those ideas, but they're far less dependent on the person making them than the republicans alleged pushes for moral, christian character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the problem isn't how much we're spending, but how we're spending it? I couldn't be a teacher if I wanted to -- I couldn't take the pay cut.As to education, I want to say something to the "we don't spend enough" crowd. We are 4th in spending (over $6,000 per student, trailing only Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), but we are (to quote AFP)
"The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics."
So, the problem isn't money, it's something else. Maybe we should be examining the problem instead of throwing more money at it.
Carry on with everything else.
We're wasting a ton of money on bureaucracy. Europe doesn't suffer a 1:1 ratio to teachers/administration, like a lot of American school districts do. Most of the money spent in Europe actually makes it to the classroom. Teachers are paid more there (in Northwestern Europe anyway, Southern Europe and Eastern Europe lag behind us considerably), for one, and apparently they have far lower bureaucratic costs than we do.
Part of the problem (and I'm sure I'm going to annoy someone above) is the NEA. They protect too many unneccessary bureaucrats to the detriment of actual teachers. We don't need as many administrators at the Federal, state and local level as we have, they just suck resources away from their purpose (educating children) to create a "job welfare" environment in government.
Seriously, we spend about 60 bucks a student less than Austria per year, but they eat our lunch. Money is being wasted here, frankly.
You know you're making absolutely no sense now. You have to see that. You just said that businesses collude with one another to reduce competition. Businesses can only be expected to do what is in their best interest-making money. How exactly do you model a private company that maintains ecological stability across our nation...AND makes money? How do you then regulate that business that is in charge of the most important thing we have, natural resources and the public commons? We need more, stricter, and enforceable regulations where it pertains to the environment.
Just like schooling, privatized environmental enforcement could do more with less funding. If one company can't then another will step up and do a better job. Often times, government agencies purposely overspend just so that they won't get their budget cut. I find this wasteful and just plain unacceptable.
Competition usually makes businesses better for the consumer, but not necessarily better for the businesses. Thus it is inherently in the best interest of business to collude, and if collusion is impossible then to gobble up all their competitors. WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING WITHOUT REGULATIONS!
We have lots of government regulation right now. The reason why corporations are often so anti-competitive is because they've bought off our politicians so they won't enforce many of these regulations ... but only for them. The rest are stuck with them which unfairly sets them back. The only time favored corporations don't get their way is when there is a huge public outcry about something that they are trying to do. The AT&T/T-Mobile merger is a good example of this. The government basically gave them the green light to pursue the merger but the public backlash ended up being so great that they reneged on the deal and are likely to block it. If the government were doing its job properly, there would be a simple set of rules laid out that were fair and consistent for everyone. This would inspire the most competition given logical and sensible rules were set. These regulations wouldn't need to be all that heavy or require huge amounts of money to enforce.
I don't think our education system is perfect, but it's because it's not funded, not because it is TOO funded. Privatizing schools with, absolutely and instantaneously, make education a commodity. Not only that but it will be a leisure good. No, free, good education FOR EVERYONE is absolutely vital for the function of our democracy, our economy, and our society.
Education can and should still be required for all of our children. This money shouldn't go straight in the hands of possibly irresponsible parents to do what they please with. It should only be usable towards whatever schooling each parent or family decides is best for their child(ren).
My son is a good example why this is necessary (or at least ideal). He doesn't start Kindergarten for another year but already has [most of] the educational level of a second or third grader [with a few gaps, I'm sure]. Public schools in my state don't even offer advanced classes until third grade and I can't take my tax money and put him in a school that would advance his education level. I have to pay for both and currently don't make enough money to do that. Even if I did, the nearest Montessori is so far away, it's not even feasible. I have very few options and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this boat.
Is there a link to unsubscribe?
You realize this is the same as "she wanted it, or she wouldn't have dressed that way?"
Sorry, I'm totally not seeing the connection here.
I'd complain that you guys are derailing the thread, but can you really 'derail' a thread that's in the Off-Topic portion of the boards?
I thought of this too. I'll stop if you guys want me too, which you probably do. For some reason, I get the feeling that everyone here is seeing me as a huge douchebag for some reason. The original topic was more of humorous joke without much focus (which isn't a bad thing) which is the only reason I let it get this far.
No, not at all. At least not if phrased with a little more detail. "meddle in everyone else's business" is a little vague.
1) How about "prop up their dictators with our money and arms" -> Half the middle east countries. Saddam, until he got too independent to control
2) Overthrow their democratic governments and then see 1) -> the Shah of Iran (which led directly to the Iranian revolution) and half of south/central America at one time or another.
3) Israel, which is far more arguable, but sure does piss a lot of people off.
I'm not saying any of that justifies terrorism, but our position is not at all like a girl walking innocently down the street in a pretty dress.
That theory would be more like they're targeting us because of our freedom or our riches or even our power.
The concept is blowback and we ought to think a lot more before we throw our weight around. The results may not be justified but they are certainly predictable.
This very accurately represents what I meant by meddling. I agree that some may target us because of our freedom or our riches or even our power but I believe those numbers would be very minute. For the most part, if you don't mess with people and try to control them, which is what many perceive we are doing by overthrowing regimes and putting in our own puppet governments and supplying their enemies with arms, they will most likely leave you alone. If someone is bullying me, I'll take a stand. If they are cool with me or even just leave me be, I have no beef. I imagine this is a pretty universal opinion.
We're never going to agree on this, so I'm just going to let it go now.
I'm really not trying to offend you or anyone else. I'm just stating my opinion on matters and my personal, preferential solutions. Please don't take offense. If I was overly snarky in some of my statement, I apologize. I really do want to hear competing opinions as it chalanges my own arguments.
Obvious to you perhaps. Obvious to all those blathering about how regulations are crippling business? Maybe not. They certainly don't seem to be making any real distinction in the rhetoric.
Fair enough. I concede to the fact that I don't view the world through the same eyes as many of you. My concerns about crippling business mostly lies more with small business which doesn't seem to get to play on an even field with the giant mega-corporations. This will happen by default because they don't have the same capitol but I believe that it's tilted way more because of the government playing favorites.
Agreed. Military spending needs to be slashed. We don't need bases and troops all over the world. The founding fathers warned against a standing army. I wouldn't go quite that far.
Sweet, some common ground. Haven't had much of this in this debate.
What do you mean by welfare? Just the SNAP program (food stamps, essentially) which is all that's really left of traditional welfare. Or the other benefits that poor and/or unemployed people can get: MEdicare, unemployment insurance, etc.
I don't mind assistance to get someone back on their feet. I don't believe that this should be available as a lifestyle. Growing up, we rented to a family (who were friends of ours) that totally mooched off the system. The spent [most of] their entire lives on welfare and often worked under the table to double up on income. I don't find this acceptable. When you hear common, everyday terms such "welfare warrior" and "funemployment", you know there's a problem with abuse.
What do you mean by welfare? Just the SNAP program (food stamps, essentially) which is all that's really left of traditional welfare. Or the other benefits that poor and/or unemployed people can get: MEdicare, unemployment insurance, etc.
Because frankly if that's your attitude I don't think you've ever been on welfare or known anyone who has. From what I've seen it's miserable. You can eat and, if you're lucky, stay off the streets, but that's about it. And it's degrading. You have to beg for every scrap of assistance and prove over and over that you actually are in need, that you're not trying some kind of scam to get that $20. It's not some easy vacation where you just laze around because life is so great there's no point in working. ...
The problem is mostly due to the implementation of some of these programs. There's no reason besides pride to leave welfare to get a minimum-wage job when you are going to be taking a pay cut in doing so. No one should be allowed to free-load off the system and then receive better medical coverage than working citizens. I'm starting to sound like a broken record but I also find this unacceptable. I believe that giving money to people for doing nothing is a horribly bad solution to a problem.
Give these people jobs. There are parks that need cleaned, neighborhoods that could be watched for crime, public buildings that could use painted or cleaned, woodworking, sellable crafts and art, administrative work, educational assistance, computer skills etc. Everyone has skills and talents. We can make America a nicer, safer, cleaner place while giving pride to people who might normally feel degraded by not contributing.
Quick synopses of my life:
My mother was on welfare briefly after Reagan broke the air traffic controller's union which also had a profound effect on the grocery store unions. She lost a good paying job that she worked at for many years which made us about as poor as you could possibly be. We didn't stay on it long as she had too much pride. I grew up my entire life with a single mother making minimum wage. She also had too much pride to have child support raised on my father. We didn't live any better or worse than our welfare friends I mentioned earlier mostly due to child support or medical coverage for my older brother and I from my father.
A month before my 18th birthday, my mom had fallen in love and decided to move halfway across the country and get married. I decided to let her go and start living my life on my own. I spent my entire senior year of highschool on my own while working full time. I even had my own apartment before winter was through. I had no government assistance to fall back as I wasn't my own legal guardian until after graduation.
I decided that I needed to go to college to have a shot at living comfortably. No problem, right? I've been poor my entire life, I'll get a free ride. The government has got my back. Nope. My mom happened to marry someone who makes good money ... money that I all of a sudden have to claim as parental income even though I had only met the guy literally a few times in my life and couldn't even consider asking him or expecting financial assistance from him. Because of this, I received virtually no financial assistance for school and had to take loans that didn't even cover enough to pay for all of my tuition let alone books and lab fees.
Am I bitter about all of this? Maybe a little. But you know what? This made me the person that I am today. I worked hard, made mostly good choices and got slightly ahead [financially] in life. Thankfully, I even managed to keep my job when the economic crisis ravaged my area. I was only one of two people in my department who was spared out 15 employees. Everyone else wasn't so lucky and ended up jobless. I sort of feel that our irresponsible government played a huge hand in allowing such a crisis to happen and hit us as hard as it did. Maybe I'm wrong on this but that's how it looks from where I'm sitting.
Now before you say, "Cool story, bro", please note that I'm sharing this with you and everyone else here to give a baseline for why I feel the way I do. I succeeded possibly because I didn't really feel that I had a choice (especially when I accrued tens of thousands worth of student loan debt). I wasn't given anything. I wasn't even really offered anything. I feel that this made me a better person than I might have been. I'm proud of my accomplishments. I also freely admit that I lack a lot of sympathy for those who choose not to walk the same path and instead expect government hand-outs with no intention of ever working or putting in the effort to advance their income level enough to sustain themselves or their family. I hope this doesn't make me a douche.
For the purposes of the budget discussion, giving people the money you'd normally spend on their public school doesn't save the government a penny.
You got me there. I suppose cutting education isn't really what I'm after at all. I guess I really meant reformation in order to improve education which doesn't apply to what we were discussing. If we could cut enough elsewhere, I actually wouldn't mind dumping more into education as long as the money was used properly (advancing this funding to the college level would be nice boost that would advance our society in the long run).
Foreign non-military aid is peanuts.
Maybe in the grand scope of things but every little bit the government takes is a tax on the American people. More money in the consumer's hands means more spending power to boost the economy.
Foreign military aid is done for strategic purposes and thus falls into the military category. We're not funding foreign regimes because we think they'll be a little better. We're funding them because they have resources we want access to or because they'll do what they're told as long as we keep doing so. So we can have bases from which we can do whatever it is we want our military to do in that area. And of course, so they can buy arms from us.
You got me again! This falls under meddling and just makes the rest of the world hate us even more.
I see no scenario to ever justify making basic education -- the most critical, essential part of any person's effort to improve their life and the lives of their family -- a luxury to be afforded only by the monied class.
If you want to talk about substituting grades 10-12 with trade schools, that's worth considering. But pulling the rug out from under public schools entirely? Wow.
I wasn't clear enough in what I said initially. Please sift through the two posts of directly above for more detail on my views for education. I will point out that I was successfully called out on that one though. I wasn't really proposing to cut education, simply reform it at equal cost. Although there could be an opportunity to save a small amount of money there, it wouldn't really be anything significant enough to make much difference.
As to education, I want to say something to the "we don't spend enough" crowd. We are 4th in spending (over $6,000 per student, trailing only Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), but we are (to quote AFP)
"The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics."
So, the problem isn't money, it's something else. Maybe we should be examining the problem instead of throwing more money at it.
Carry on with everything else.
Totally agree 1000%. I chalk it up to government inefficiency and a failure to regulate properly. The educational system, like any government-run system that is effectively a monopoly is way too prone to corruption and [money] waste in my opinion.
Very interesting documentary about this if you have Netflix (US).
I see no scenario to ever justify making basic education -- the most critical, essential part of any person's effort to improve their life and the lives of their family -- a luxury to be afforded only by the monied class.
If you want to talk about substituting grades 10-12 with trade schools, that's worth considering. But pulling the rug out from under public schools entirely? Wow.
I wasn't clear enough in what I said initially. Please sift through the two posts of directly above for more detail on my views for education. I will point out that I was successfully called out on that one though. I wasn't really proposing to cut education, simply reform it at equal cost. Although there could be an opportunity to save a small amount of money there, it wouldn't really be anything significant enough to make much difference.
As to education, I want to say something to the "we don't spend enough" crowd. We are 4th in spending (over $6,000 per student, trailing only Denmark, Switzerland and Austria), but we are (to quote AFP)
"The three-yearly OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics."
So, the problem isn't money, it's something else. Maybe we should be examining the problem instead of throwing more money at it.
Carry on with everything else.
Totally agree 1000%. I chalk it up to government inefficiency and a failure to regulate properly. The educational system, like any government-run system that is effectively a monopoly is way too prone to corruption and [money] waste in my opinion.
Very interesting documentary about this if you have Netflix (US).
Hi there.
Aren't you afraid that a purely private education sector would flounder on the same reef as your healthcare, that is increased costs induced by the added level bureacracy linked to the multiplicity of offers/companies/schools, PLUS the distribution of dividends to shareholders?
Bureaucracy isn't a monopoly of governments, you know : private ones can be as wasteful and bloated as the public ones. And at least, the public ones are nonprofit organizations.
|
|
Hi there.
Aren't you afraid that a purely private education sector would flounder on the same reef as your healthcare, that is increased costs induced by the added level bureacracy linked to the multiplicity of offers/companies/schools, PLUS the distribution of dividends to shareholders?
Bureaucracy isn't a monopoly of governments, you know : private ones can be as wasteful and bloated as the public ones. And at least, the public ones are nonprofit organizations.
Personally, I don't care who gets the money, but if we're going to spend the same amount per student as Austria spends, I want Austrian results for that money.
Personally, I don't care who gets the money, but if we're going to spend the same amount per student as Austria spends, I want Austrian results for that money.Hi there.
Aren't you afraid that a purely private education sector would flounder on the same reef as your healthcare, that is increased costs induced by the added level bureacracy linked to the multiplicity of offers/companies/schools, PLUS the distribution of dividends to shareholders?
Bureaucracy isn't a monopoly of governments, you know : private ones can be as wasteful and bloated as the public ones. And at least, the public ones are nonprofit organizations.
Agreed, it's a pragmatic question. The increase in efficiency you hope to get must counterbalance (with a wide margin, else why bother?) the money going to the shareholders, which by definition won't be spent on teachers, classrooms and other teaching materials.
It can be argued that the government backed public schools have an headstart here, as multiple teaching companies would mean multiple bureaucracies, plus one to ensure that education money would be properly distributed between them (the same way that with your zillion different HMO, your healthcare waste a lot of money in redtape). A more centralized system has its advantages in terms of scale.
|
|
...if we're going to spend the same amount per student as Austria spends, I want Austrian results for that money.Perhaps a little less money to the athletics department might make a difference..?(Different allocation of funds in Austrian schools, I imagine...)
Um, high school football isn't the problem. Try again.
The different allocation would be they spend on teachers and classroom materials, not on 1:1 teacher/administrator ratios.
|
|
Personally, I don't care who gets the money, but if we're going to spend the same amount per student as Austria spends, I want Austrian results for that money.Hi there.
Aren't you afraid that a purely private education sector would flounder on the same reef as your healthcare, that is increased costs induced by the added level bureacracy linked to the multiplicity of offers/companies/schools, PLUS the distribution of dividends to shareholders?
Bureaucracy isn't a monopoly of governments, you know : private ones can be as wasteful and bloated as the public ones. And at least, the public ones are nonprofit organizations.
Agreed, it's a pragmatic question. The increase in efficiency you hope to get must counterbalance (with a wide margin, else why bother?) the money going to the shareholders, which by definition won't be spent on teachers, classrooms and other teaching materials.
It can be argued that the government backed public schools have an headstart here, as multiple teaching companies would mean multiple bureaucracies, plus one to ensure that education money would be properly distributed between them (the same way that with your zillion different HMO, your healthcare waste a lot of money in redtape). A more centralized system has its advantages in terms of scale.
Problem is, here, private education (which costs, on average, $2k -$3k less per student*, and is demonstrably better) is a much better value than public education, per dollar spent, here. They tend to have more teachers and less bureaucrats. Our public sector is completely bloated, inefficient and wasteful, unfortunately, and institutional inertia (some of which is enforced by the public sector union dude was going on about somewhere) prevents much improvement.
I have no idea what we can do to solve the problem, but I am disappointed that our left leaning pols blame a lack of funds, when it is evident, based on our #4 ranking globally on per student spending, that funding education isn't the issue.
*Does not count ritzy yuppie prep schools that super rich kids go to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I missed all the good commie talk!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, here, private education (which costs, on average, $2k -$3k less per student*, and is demonstrably better) is a much better value than public education, per dollar spent, here. They tend to have more teachers and less bureaucrats. Our public sector is completely bloated, inefficient and wasteful, unfortunately, and institutional inertia (some of which is enforced by the public sector union dude was going on about somewhere) prevents much improvement.
I have no idea what we can do to solve the problem, but I am disappointed that our left leaning pols blame a lack of funds, when it is evident, based on our #4...
Okay, got it now. The 1:1 ratio between administratives types and teachers seems unbelieviably high though (I'm not saying that you are making it up, just that it is ludicrously too much).
Just for the sake of comparison, here is a document (in french) about our own situation on this regard, with a ratio of almost 1:9 in favour of teachers (said otherwise, they represent 87% of education employees). Our educational system is also much more heavily centralized than yours, with the government deciding on everything, so it wouldn't probably fit a federal state.
We have got more or less the same efficiency as yours according to PISA, maybe a little better in mathematics but nothing significant. On the other hand, we spend 33 % less per student (all ages included) with a little less than 10k to your 15k; that's 7,2% of your GNP and 6% of ours (source OECD). So our issue here is to raise funding (our teachers are grossly underpaid, among others things) to improve results. Yours is different.
As a rule of thumb, ediucation is quite easier to manage in smaller countries with an homogenous population (in terms of social categories mostly, but not only). I doubt we could ever do as good as Singapour, or Denmark in this regard.
It can be argued that the government backed public schools have an headstart here, as multiple teaching companies would mean multiple bureaucracies, plus one to ensure that education money would be properly distributed between them (the same way that with your zillion different HMO, your healthcare waste a lot of money in redtape). A more centralized system has its advantages in terms of scale.
Our healthcare system has much, much bigger problems than bureaucracy. This is probably a thread in and of itself.
One of the biggest advantages with privatized businesses in the US is that they have a greater flexibility to change when things absolutely need to. They can hire, lay-off and reorganize way easier than government run institutions can for some reason. Most times when, say, a school district is running short on money (even if they're in a shrinking district) they opt to push for levies to tax the community more as opposed to restructuring. When they can't get more money, they have a very bad tendency to start cutting from the bottom up which is why we end up with this disproportionate teacher/administrative ratio (although probably not really 1:1). Being a monopoly, there's absolutely nothing to stop them doing this as they can't go bankrupt. This makes the district perform poorly which they blame on lack of funding and continue to push for more levies as a result.
Privatized business have to be more responsible or they will go under. They also have another advantage: specialization. If our education system was constructed how I proposed, I wouldn't have a problem finding an affordable school for my son where he could actually learn at the level he needs to learn at. There would likely be one within a reasonable distance and I wouldn't have to pay another $6000/year on top of what I already pay in taxes to send him there.
This would also work better in other areas as well. We could have schools that specialize in teaching autistic children or ones with physical disabilities. Sure, we have have specialized programs within certain public schools that handle this but I believe that special needs children would get a better quality education at a school which focused 100% of their money, attention and curriculum on those special needs as opposed to just having their own room or two within a much larger building. Note, some areas do indeed do this for physically disabled children but with the same bureaucratic bloat as tradition public schools.
I know this may fall contrary to popular opinion. There's been a big push to go the opposite direction then what I've proposed where special needs children are mixed right in with rest but I fear that this is mostly to appease parents who are in denial more than to give the best quality education to our children.
Age is a terrible benchmark to break children into learning groups. The ultimate goal should be to educated each child as much as possible (within reason) for the time they're within the system. Some kids learn faster; some learn slower. It doesn't matter if every child has exactly the same level of education when they become adults. What's important is that every child has the highest level education possible. To me, age is highly irrelevant. We need to stop worrying about bruising a few parents egos and do what's best for our future generation.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Maybe the problem isn't how much we're spending, but how we're spending it? I couldn't be a teacher if I wanted to -- I couldn't take the pay cut.
I agree we don't spend wisely. Money is essential for education, bu building state of the art schools doesn't educate kids. Most of us were educated in schools that would be considered dumps these days. A bronze statue or wall full of hi-def tvs for announcements does not an education make. The standards are too low and the system is a grant game, with poor accountability.
The argument about teacher pay, though, is inaccurate. Teacher pay is higher than average household earnings, with more protection for your job if you screw up and significantly better benefits. And of cours,e in most school systems, this competitive salary and benefits package is for nine months of work, and amounts to 10-15% higher than median incomes across the nation.
When you hear conservatives complain about modern education, teachers' unions and the like, consider this quotation from John Dewey, the father of American public education. It says a lot about what public education is designed to accomplish, and how much conern there is for whether actual education is occurring. I recognize that the goals of bureaucrats and demogogues are not necessarily the same as actual teachers that may be reading this.
"You can't make a Socialist out of individuals - children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent."