Charter schools get better by getting the best students (or at least the ones who's parents care enough to sign their names) This has a two fold effect: 1) You get better kids who oddly enough, do better and 2) the teachers have to spend less time pulling spitballs off of the back of their heads, handling detention slips and breaking up knife fights.Exactly. Charter schools get to cherry-pick students, keeping the ones that perform and shipping the ones who don't back to the regular schools. Hard to imagine why their performance is, on average, better.
There are charter schools out there that take students from very poor performing districts? Their student's performance is still on average better than that of the public schools they came from.
I don't believe that it's really the teachers fault in all of this, though. Like I've been talking about in this thread, I feel the problem is government inefficiency along with the one-size-fits-all approach of public schooling that corresponds with that.
I don't believe that it's cherry-picking since even public schools are under no obligation to keep troublesome students around. Students that make absolutely no effort to get even reasonably decent grades have a very high percentage chance of doing things that will easily get themselves expelled permanently. I've seen it happen to two friends of mine who are parents of such students.
I do. My mother works in the special needs fields. She is often told by parents of said students as well as other teachers (though not the other special needs teachers in her school system) and occasionally councilors, principles and the like that, "well there is only so much you can expect out of them." or "Besides their special needs, it's not like they can do it (it being the standard work everyone else is doing) anyways -- if they could they wouldn't be in your class."
It's hogwash -- they can do the work. In fact they consistently do the work in this specific school system. The vast majority of the special needs teachers in the system consistently work with and tell the students they can do it and the test scores from this section of that school system continue to prove they are correct.
Careful. I just got burned for saying something very similar to this.
IF these professionals were to just let the parents make the choices these children and future adults would suffer a grave injustice.
I understand the concern but still feel that parents, in general, make better choices for their children than the state.
Just because they are special needs doesn't mean they cannot or will not do the work. It might mean they need some extra help in learning it, but this is not the same as being unable to learn.
I agree and feel that more specialize education would be a great benefit to a good portion of special needs children.
Finally why should the parents get to make all the decisions for a future citizen? Why should they get the choice of royally screwing these people up who's only crime was being born to defective parents (and they are defective -- if they were their children wouldn't have had defective genes).
Because the parents of any child are the ones closest to them. They love their children and want the best for them. I suspect that only a very small minority are a$$hole enough to not want what's best for them. I don't believe that we need the government stepping in and telling people that they know what's best for their children.
"Cater to their needs?"
How does giving them less help them make up for starting out behind? It's like saying, "Oh hey Timmy you were born without legs so we are going to start you fifty feet behind everyone since you know, you can't win anyways."
I'm talking about giving not only special needs children, but gifted children (and every other child for that matter) more help. "Cater to their needs" isn't some derogatory euphemism. I'm actually talking about even more specialized education within custom built schools that specialize in educating children of this nature. I don't see how that's giving them less.
Kindergartners who are reading at a third grade level shouldn't have to wait until third grade in order to start learning in that area again and third graders reading at a kindergartners level shouldn't be hopelessly behind. Every student should be taught and advanced to the best of their ability to maximize the educational level of our country as a whole.
It goes completely against free market principles too. Everyone gets a fair playing field so competition can breed better results and cheaper products right? How does giving them less help them make up for starting out behind? It's like saying, "Oh hey Timmy you were born without legs so we are going to start you fifty feet behind everyone since you know, you can't win anyways."
I think we are misunderstanding each other because we seem to be saying the same thing yet are somehow at odds with each other.
You know, for values of "shorthand" which are "disingenuous, inflammatory generalizations." So you're being a jerk to make a point, instead of being a jerk to annoy people. That's so much better!
Except i didn't come out and say "republicans are evil" thats what ancient sensei took from what i said. Republicans are evil would be a gross oversimplification.
Corporations hate paying so much for education, and the religious base is upset that they can't use peer pressure to convert kids to christianity in the public schools anymore and that an integral, well evidenced part of biology is being taught: so both sides of the republican party are in agreement.
Corporations hate paying so much for education,Yeah, because a well-educated worker base?
No benefits whatsoeffingever for corporations there!
No actually, there aren't. Its much easier for corporations to import people from other countries where THEIR country has spent money educating them.
Also, Corporations are run by people. People who are not going to be running the corporation in 18 years. They want maximum profits NOW. They don't care about funding head start because by the time that program pays off they'll be on a beach of their private island sipping mohetos.
And also, while I detest those stupid "Well the Democrats and the Republicans are just two heads of the same hydra, nyah" smarmy arguments, they do both represent corporate interests, just different corporate interests, so this is just dumb.
As stated above, the democrats have more other interests, like environmentalists, which dilutes it down somewhat. Christianity (as it currently exists) isn't exactly anti business, so the two competing interests don't but heads with each other. A democrat getting money from international paper and the sierra fund has to try to appeal to both.
Because there's nobody else in the Republican Party but corporations and the Religious Right.
Not NO ONE but its the two main components of the leadership. Seriously, if you're going to be pedantic about talking about a population: be it human or otherwise, you're NEVER going to be able to say anything about it. Its a given when talking about a group that you're describing it in general.
Seriously, I know you've got a hateboner for Team Pat Buchanan for your Scopes Monkey Trial grudge, but isn't it a little off topic in this thread?
Its the problem with newt Gingrich. You can't bring in the fiscal policy without also bringing in the religious inanity. They're tied at the hip. The same way i can't vote for a democrat to keep forests roadless without getting obamacare.
One accident (or congential disorder, or unlucky serious illness) and you were bankrupt or homeless. But you know, FUGM.
One accident and your credit is probably screwed for a while. That's all they can do is ruin your credit while you pay them what you can reasonably afford until your bill is paid off. That's the risk that I took and the risk that everyone else that is poor takes. Welcome to reality. I never said it was great or even preferable but that's what us poor people had/have to deal with. Why don't we attack the problem of healthcare being so unaffordable instead of trying to steal money off of people just because they have it?
If you want affordable health insurance, I'm not the person to talk to (although I do have a solution for it). It's our politicians that are failing to deliver this and the PPACA (Obamacare) looks like an enormous failure from my perspective.Oh, do tell.
I call it the Doctors are Only Human Act. It basically states that properly educated and trained doctors can not sued and fined tens of millions of dollars for any little mistake they may make. Maybe certain mistakes would come with meager monetary penalties but they would be defined ahead of time and stay out of the court system. Doctors do not purposely hurt people but are treated as if they do. They, like everyone else, do make mistakes from time to time. If doctors were not faced with such huge liabilities, they would not have to pay millions of dollars a year in malpractice insurance. They wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance at all. This equates to a much, much lower cost for health insurance coverage for everyone.
Doctors would probably even offer some useful information to their patients if they weren't afraid of possibly being wrong about something and facing legal action because they guessed incorrectly. They are not sooth-sayers and more importantly, not mind readers (not everyone actually tells their doctor the truth about everything leading to misguided prognoses).
Now is when you bring up the argument about "how much is a life worth?"
Okay, it doesn't cost $1000 to get your teeth cleaned. And if $80/year to keep your teeth healthy is unaffordable than you're not spending your money wisely enough, IMO.You didn't have any problem with it, and you don't see how anyone, anywhere could have any problem with it!
Oh great! now I have someone arguing with me that either dentists should clean people's teeth for free or that the government (sorry, the American taxpayer) should pay for it. I'm not really sure which or where you're even going with this.
So the American people are supposed to take care of people who live in places that they can't afford? We're supposed to take care of people who live beyond their means? And there is no rule that says you have to live alone. There are these things called girlfriends/boyfriends/roommates that can share rent you.No. In fact, I completely and earnestly believe that we should ship anyone who can't afford even the most meagre residence to a settlements tailored to their current means, preferably with on-site jobs already there for them to take over immediately.
You are equivocating living within your means to selling your children off as indentured servants? Come on man! You either grew up in a poor neighborhood and can afford to live there, you have parents that can help you out so that you don't have to live in such a neighborhood or you suck it up and take step down on the social ladder for a little while while you work your way through school. Boo hoo, I'm crying for ya.
Dude, some people in places more expensive than the (extremely cheap) place where you lived, and cannot afford or are otherwise unable to move away. They are not living in a home that is too nice for their means. They're just living somewhere that rent is more than $450 a month. (Which, holy crap, that is a basement apartment in the ghetto in Detroit.) You were lucky enough to live in a cheap place. Not everyone else is.
I'm talking about 10-15 years ago here. Minumum wage was $4.25 at the time. Don't pretend like I'm talking about 2011. Most people that work at a fast food restaurant make twice that.
I am saying that you are completely ignorant of how and why people become homeless, or you willfully disregard these causes. The former is pitiable, the latter is despicable.
Please enlighten me as to how and why people become homeless.
Welfare queens have never existed. Ever. People who are on welfare are living s+#%ty lives in poverty, and the alternative is to let them just die. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for the kind of choad who suggests that people are "scamming" welfare by using it to survive.
I never said it was a glorious life. Neither is working your butt off for just enough money to get by. One of them requires working to get by and the other requires not working. People will not just die because they have to work. They will choose to work instead of dying.
Your anecdote about your "friend"? That dude has some serious unresolved issues with his life that he hasn't sorted out yet and is almost certainly seriously depressed. He is not a healthy person. Welfare did not put him there. People do not choose to have just enough money to not die unless they feel like they have no options in life. Welfare is keeping him a (barely) contributing member of society instead of a street person. That is what it's supposed to do. For someone who claims to have a friend in that situation, you're awfully short on human compassion.
Actually, I was just making a point and probably should've left my friend out of it. Truth is, he just moved out of his sister's place and has every intention of getting a full-time job to support himself. And no, welfare isn't doing anything but giving him a cell phone that he didn't even ask for and some food stamps that he, again, didn't even ask for but took because, well why wouldn't you? I certainly don't blame him that.
Vouchers are morally bankrupt. That tax is not paying for your kid to go to school. That tax is paying for you to live in a society where everyone is well educated. Everyone pays that tax, whether you have kids or not. There's no entitlement to $X towards an education, there's an entitlement to an education.
So why to give a $h!t where people send their kids to school and why do have such a problem with parents choosing the best school for their child's needs?
Vouchers exist so that rich parents can subsidize expensive public schools and so that religious parents can subsidize religious schools, while everyone else gets the worse education because they get exactly the same quality of education as before, only it's been drained of the money the other groups took away. In fact, if private schools do become a flourishing free market, it could easily become a failure cascade, with everyone who can afford to add some money to their voucher doing so, leaving only people who can't afford any extra money at all with their kids in (now completely impoverished) public schools.
If public schools were faced with competition over the money provided to them based on parents choosing where that money went, I guarantee, 100% that our public school system would become insanely good, insanely fast. This is a really bad argument that doesn't examine the cause-effect relationship that goes with it. And guess what, once the public schools became really good, parents would have much less incentive to send their kinds to private schools. Everybody wins!
School vouchers are a terrible idea. It's the freedom to choose to screw everyone with less money than you, at the cost of ruining the promise of a free education for everyone.
Sorry, I disagree. In fact, I see what you are describing here as what we currently have and school vouchers as a moderate step in the right direction to fix this problem. See, I can't really send my child to a school that can cater to his current education level because I don't have the money. I'm going to have to send him to a public school while still teaching him on my own or just resorting to home-schooling (which I really don't want to do because I still want him to be able to socialize with other children). Allowing parents of school-age children the choice of where the money goes does not screw anybody but poorly run schools. I don't see this as a bad thing. The goal is to improve our children's education, is it not?
Parents don't write IEPs for a reason. Parents are not special education professionals. Again, you have some really weird ideas about special education and you're talking in some really broad generalities. Are you trying to generalize from some sort of specific case or something? What is the deal here?
True, parents are not special education teachers but they have access to them in order to help them make the best choices for their child. Some kids would be better off integrated with the rest and some would not. I believe that the ultimate choice does belong with the parent, though.
Diaper-wearing "mentally challenged" children are being taught alongside other kids, in the same classrooms, dragging down the curve.Of course they are, whenever possible You'd have to be a monster to think it's a bad thing! The whole point is to teach both kids with and without disabilities that you don't hide people with disabilities in a box far away and pretend like they don't exist. Putting kids with disabilities in the same classroom whenever they have the ability to keep up with the same material is a good thing. You don't want to spend 12 years telling these kids that they're cripples and retards that have to be kept away from all the other kids.
I think the point that was being made was that putting children in the same class with others who are at a more advanced level of education is detrimental. Why slow down the pace for those who are able to learn more quickly? This just slows down the learning process is part of the problem of why we are falling behind.
I'm not saying that special needs children should be hidden away, I'm saying that they should be taught at whatever level and whatever speed they are currently at and capable of ... just like every other child in this country. That makes me a monster?
CITATION.
NEEDED.
Because I don't see those results at all.
I'll have to get back to you on this one. I need to get some sleep.
And I love how profoundly vague this is. Not any particular industry, not any particular consortium, not any particular interest, but, you know. Corporations. All of 'em. In concert. Somehow.
The evidence is there, however. It HAS been done across a wide variety of industries- in fact I'm willing to say every industry in this country. Some do it to greater extents than others, however. I mean, I'm not conspiracy theorist, but where is your evidence to the contrary?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself wondering how AMiB defines 'troll', given the snarky tactic of repeating people's statements into his own terms so he can mischaracterize them and then call them a jerk. Miss the bit about friendly conversation, sir?
"a lot of irresponsible friends still avoided homelessness" is not necessarily code for "I have never spoken to a homeless person". I was homeless once. I refused unemplyment and found a job, got a little help from a couple of great friends, and worked my way out of it. It wasn't my fault I got there, but it would have been if I'd stayed there. I suppose you'll say that based on the anecdotal example of actually being homeless, it's only a sample size of one and I still don't know what I'm talking about. I'll try to link you to a source. Oh. Yeah, I AM the source.
Pseudointellectuals, and all that they refuse to learn by listening instead of picking fights with everyone they perceive to be dumber than they.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, you are just the living end. Nothing you said here makes any sense. But more to the point, this (and the rest of your post) is direly lacking in anything worth rebutting or mocking. It's kind of like arguing with a random number generator.
Yawn. Vacuous snark, mi characterization and insults without refutation. "I could do it but i choose not to" was old and tired in the third grade.
You're right. Corporaitons are run by people, not by and most of those people are not cynically greedy nihilists, and even if they were, any politician who knows which side of their bread has butter on it does understand that voters can figure out when little Timmy actually can't read, as opposed to when moral outrage stories in the middle page of the local paper are claiming that it could happen Any Day Now.
Right. Voters are smart and corporations aren't greedy.
I find myself wondering how AMiB defines 'troll', given the snarky tactic of repeating people's statements into his own terms so he can mischaracterize them and then call them a jerk. Miss the bit about friendly conversation, sir?
"a lot of irresponsible friends still avoided homelessness" is not necessarily code for "I have never spoken to a homeless person". I was homeless once. I refused unemplyment and found a job, got a little help from a couple of great friends, and worked my way out of it. It wasn't my fault I got there, but it would have been if I'd stayed there. I suppose you'll say that based on the anecdotal example of actually being homeless, it's only a sample size of one and I still don't know what I'm talking about. I'll try to link you to a source. Oh. Yeah, I AM the source.
Pseudointellectuals, and all that they refuse to learn by listening instead of picking fights with everyone they perceive to be dumber than they.
I'm curious, ancient sensei, were you living on the street or crashing on friends couches /spare bedrooms? There's real difference between those two. I still wouldn't wish either on anyone.
There's nothing wrong with sharing personal experiences, but one should not draw overly broad conclusions from them. Everyone is the author of their own experience, don't try to edit someone down to a paragraph just because their experiences or decisions do not match your own.
There's nothing wrong about talking
You have never had poor credit in your life. You have never met anyone who has been blacklisted from opening a checking account.
Never said that bad credit was a good thing. I've had no credit before and had to manage my finances differently than I do now. If you have a fail-safe plan that would ensure that no one ever gets into financial trouble, I'm all ears.
That's a neat idea. Kind of at odds with your whole libertarian thing, since lawsuits are the tools of individuals against both corporations and governments, but whatever, we'll roll with it.So, that shaves off a little bit of the rising costs of medical care. What are you going to about the rest of it?
Even though I agree with a lot of the libertarian principles, I do still think for myself and feel that the legal problems are a huge expense that end up being shifted back onto the consumer causing health care costs to rise significantly. Sure, if a doctor causes a situation that requires significant medical expenses on their patient, they should correct the problem free of charge. Those damages do not include millions of dollars in payouts because they made a mistake. I know that there are some extreme cases that you will likely bring up in order to attempt to shoot this down but I feel that the overall health of the American people would be much higher with a system such as this in place.
I think you underestimate the cost of these lawsuits. Imagine how insanely expensive it would be to get your car repaired if you could sue your mechanic for a million dollars if they screwed something up. If we could take the insurance cost on doctors from a million dollars a year down to fifty or a hundred thousand, that money would all come off of our premiums. This could cut costs by 50% or more.
Mostly just pointing out your naivety and ignorance, juxtaposed with your sweeping suggestion that you should have absolute personal self-determination.
Funny, I was just offering my best solutions to these problem. I would rather hear yours as well rather than you smart a$$ remarks that add little to the conversation.
Please enlighten me as to how and why people become homeless.
...
...
...tell you what. Volunteer at a homeless shelter for a day.
Can't you just tell me? It might be a while before I have time to not only volunteer at a homeless shelter but to interview everyone there.
Holy crap, dude. Is your position seriously, "Well, if they're lazy, then maybe they should die?" Do you have a shred of human compassion?
There is no one who is do lazy that they would die before working. If this is the case, they have much bigger problems that need worked out and corrected through therapy or rehab or whatever. The goal is to make a better society after all.
And what's wrong with that? Your friend is getting on his feet. That made things easier for him while he got himself together. That's why welfare exists, to make "barely getting by" less of a death spiral while until people turn it around into "getting by". And no, the welfare systems do not and absolutely should not expect that everyone is going to be a perfectly organized case when it comes to getting themselves together, because the alternative is telling someone, "Well, you're not good enough, hope you enjoy a cardboard box."
Like I said, I offered a bad example and don't have any problem with my friend's situation. Thanks for not jumping all over me for that one.
Because vouchers fundamentally undermine the system where everyone gets an education ...
I disagree with your analysis of the cause and effect relationship that would transpire by vouchers or privatization of America's schools. I don't believe that makes me wrong though. I could be but the argument that I'm making (which didn't come directly from me, it's just the best one I've heard to date) makes much more sense to me than yours. I really don't believe that our education system would totally collapse by simply giving parents the power to chose what school is right for their child (ren). In fact, what you describe happening if we did this is exactly what we have today. Do you really think that private schools would all collectively raise their tuition by several thousand dollars and no one would step in and do the job for what they used to charge people? This just doesn't make any sense to me.
For most kids, there's at least some subjects where they can perform at least close to grade level with (or without) assistance, and you get greatly improved educational and social results to mainstream them for these subjects. That is the point. What do you know about IEPs?
If this is the coarse of action that grants a particular child the best education possible than I'm all for it. I have a hard time believing that this is a one size fits all solution that works best for every child though.
I'll have to get back to you on this one. I need to get some sleep.
I was wrong on this one. The inner city charter schools who select their students based on random lottery in fact perform much the same on average as their corresponding school districts (in NJ at least). The argument that supports the existence of these schools is that they provide a much safer and preferable environment than the standard public school that these kids must attend if they aren't lucky enough to get drawn. There are way more parents that want their children to go to these charter schools than spots available lending credence to the idea that parents would like the freedom to choose which school is right for their child.
... but lots of people don't have that safety net.
Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
Frogboy for later.
Oh goodie. I can't wait. /s
... but lots of people don't have that safety net.Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
How?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's just that the particular part that I quoted is gibberish
No, its perfectly legible, it just disagrees with the great and powerful you. You're incapable of comprehending the difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
All too often the only suggestion one hears is to "let private citizens handle it." It seems to me that if that were a truly practical alternative, then we wouldn't have the problem in the first place...
|
Well, It might be shorthand but I'm not trolling.You know, for values of "shorthand" which are "disingenuous, inflammatory generalizations." So you're being a jerk to make a point, instead of being a jerk to annoy people. That's so much better!
. . .
Ahahahahaha!
How?... but lots of people don't have that safety net.Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
The systems we have in place probably works reasonably well for that. I only argued that we shouldn't enable people to stay on welfare for extended periods of time which might not even be the case anymore. Like I said earlier, maybe welfare has been reformed to the point that it can't be taken advantage of now a days.
I would need to review exactly how it works in 2011. The days of taking your food stamps down to the no-name convenient store and cashing them in for less than face value are definitely long gone.
But the best way to get people off of welfare is to create an environment where business shines. A smaller government requires less resources allowing for taxes to be cut significantly on both people and business. I wouldn't mind some incentives that allow taxes on business to be cut even further if they do things that help further boost the economy like hiring lots of workers and definitely for providing health insurance for them.
More and better job opportunities means less reason for anyone to be on welfare. We'd probably even see a drop in people who claim disability just because there would be better options.
Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?All too often the only suggestion one hears is to "let private citizens handle it." It seems to me that if that were a truly practical alternative, then we wouldn't have the problem in the first place...
If we really wanted to tighten things up we could have social workers actually investigate certain options like if any of the recipient's family or friends would be willing to give a helping hand by providing a place to live before offering up Section 8. There are probably more things that could be done to try to find real solutions to these problems (unless we are already doing said things).
|
|
Except i didn't come out and say "republicans are evil" thats what ancient sensei took from what i said.
Dammit that's what I thought but then everyone repeated it and I believed it.
Anyway these posts are getting hella long. When you get two people who refuse to break up their thoughts into little bits, the page gets HUEG> Not sayin you should stop, just . . . it's getting so that I sort of skim through them.
When someone starts out with "corporations want to destroy public schools because they can import workers from another country", trying to refute everything they say comes with a certain amount of diminishing returns.Wasn't he just saying that corporations have no particular need for schools?
Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
What if they are too embarrassed? What if they are estranged from society? What if they fall through the cracks?
F~$!, I hate to bring up homeless beatings and guys dying out in the cold but that is what I am thinking of here. People are not really that nice.
S!#+ this is getting long so I'm spoilering some s%&*.
Okay, it doesn't cost $1000 to get your teeth cleaned. And if $80/year to keep your teeth healthy is unaffordable than you're not spending your money wisely enough, IMO.
I just wanted to jump in here quick and pick on you. No not really.
$80/year is a pittance! I had to have wisdom teeth out last year and it cost well over a grand. I also had a filling fall out the same year, and that cost me about $200. And that's with a dentist who I've known and gone to since I was 12, who understands my financial situation, and actually cut me a break. The wisdom teeth was oral surgery.It costs about $200 without insurance to get my teeth x-rayed and cleaned around here. And you're supposed to get that twice a year. So, barring having to get ANY sort of work done like wisdom teeth, fillings, root canal, crown, let alone cosmetic work* or orthodonture (sp), it's probably more like $300/year. Or $25/month. To have teeth.
*While we think of cosmetic work as being elected procedures, a guy I worked with had all of his front teeth bashed out of his skull when he was 20 by some thugs. It's REALLY hard to find work without teeth, at least in a professional environment. He slowly saved up several grand to get cosmetic surgery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had my wisdom teeth out and it was 1,300 for the anesthetic alone.
Should have gotten my money back. 5 doses and I still wake up to hear "check the restraints! Check the restraints!"
I'm just lucky i didn't get billed for the chair...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then we lend them a hand. No one said that we can't help our people in need. Why are you trying to paint the picture that we are?
This from the guy who can't be bothered to volunteer!
The argument I make about this sort of thing is that, while perhaps inefficient, the government is still a huge body and good at mobilizing people to get stuff done, especially when it's something happening ------>over there out of sight of the rest of us. The government is uniquely qualified to give support aid to people who need it, to be aware of who needs it, and to have the money to give.
@AMIB-Welfare queen is totally NOT a myth. Well okay it is. I know a woman who has two children and lives on welfare/WIC/foodstamps/subsidized housing. Like...no job at all. I mean she can barely afford to feed her kids most of the time, but she has, like, a FRIDGE and a COMPUTER and a CELL PHONE. Gosh, the poor these days just aren't poor enough for my Les Miserables vision of poverty.
I had my wisdom teeth out and it was 1,300 for the anesthetic alone.
Should have gotten my money back. 5 doses and I still wake up to hear "check the restraints! Check the restraints!"
I'm just lucky i didn't get billed for the chair...
Jesus balls! Well to be fair I just had lowers done. Uppers were done like a decade ago when I was on my parents' insurance. I slept like a baby though, or rather had interesting hallucinations that reminded me of the Doctor Who opening tunnel.
But yeah, dentistry is really not cheap.
Gosh, the poor these days just aren't poor enough for my Les Miserables vision of poverty.
Well, its a little annoying that after taxes, I basically get the same amount as someone on public assistance. After Obamacare kicks in I'll have even less.
Gosh, the poor these days just aren't poor enough for my Les Miserables vision of poverty.Well, its a little annoying that after taxes, I basically get the same amount as someone on public assistance. After Obamacare kicks in I'll have even less.
What do you DO for a living?
I'm lucky in that I don't have significant medical problems (though I do have s$+!ty teeth) and I had parents who taught me how to live well below my means. That said, if I went full time at my job, I'd make about 25k/yr. That's enough for rent+food+5% of gross income in a roth deferred 401(k)+car payment+~250/month entertainment budget+10 day trip to europe every year.I'm having a hard time imagining a single person getting more than a few hundred in public assistance a month. Do you have a big family you're taking care of?
edit: the point I'm trying to make though is that, even assuming the numbers are right and working full time at your job only nets you a few dollars in discretionary income vs. someone with all their rent+food+utilities paid for by the state (which is probably incredibly rare), feeling a sort of righteous indignation about people who are in a bad spot financially doesn't really help matters. It just divides those of us who are already near the bottom who should be working together against the top 1%.
Or whatever. Merry Christmas.
Over the last 30-40 years we have cut the top marginal tax rates again and again. Each time we've been promised an economic boom great enough to actually boost revenue. It has never happened. Tax cuts have led to drops in revenue. The economy has grown and shrunk in cycles, the profits have been claimed by a tiny minority at the top and the rest of us, before this recession, have barely held steady. Can't we tell by now that tax cuts aren't the solution?
No, we must have faith. We'll cut taxes one more time, slash social spending even further and this time, this time the economy will boom as conservative orthodoxy says it will.
And if not? It will just need another round of tax cuts.
Raising taxes is going to get the economy going? Maybe another stimulus will give it the jolt it needs.
Our government hasn't made any serious tax cuts in forever. I'm talking about reducing government spending to the point where businesses are only being charged half the taxes with incentives towards practices that further boost the economy. If our government ever had the balls to do something like that and it didn't work, then you can say that I, and every other libertarian out there, am wrong.
2011
Pensions $0.8 trillion
Health Care $0.9 trillion
Defense $0.9 trillion
Welfare $0.5 trillion
This wreaks of government bloat and efficiency, the very thing I've been talking about here.
Frogboy? If you're compiling such huge posts, you do technically have a fair bit of time on your hands (for homeless shelter volunteering). Again, not saying you should.
I was up to until 2:30am (on a work night) arguing with A Man in Black. Not the smartest thing I've ever done.
It's kinda funny, though. One of the first things I did after he brought that up was to check out where the nearest rescue shelter was in my area. I wish I actually had more time to volunteer for something like that. It's not really something that I could take my 4 years old to, though.
It isn't just a personal problem, either. Without a strong, prosperous middle class you can't sustain a consumer economy.
The problem as I see it arises when you look at labor as a commodity. Example I've given in other threads: I know for a fact that my labor earns my employer up to 7 times what I'm paid for that labor. They're a growing company in a growing industry, but the wages they pay their employees are stagnant. Why? Because, while it requires some basic skills (being able to operate a computer and speak clearly) there are 10 people who would gladly take my job if I quit.
I'm not sure there's a solution I'm ready to suggest, but f$~# if there aren't a lot of unemployed people out there. That drives down the cost of labor. Vicious cycle.
I just wanted to jump in here quick and pick on you. No not really.
$80/year is a pittance! I had to have wisdom teeth out last year and it cost well over a grand. I also had a filling fall out the same year, and that cost me about $200. And that's with a dentist who I've known and gone to since I was 12, who understands my financial situation, and actually cut me a break. The wisdom teeth was oral surgery.
It costs about $200 without insurance to get my teeth x-rayed and cleaned around here. And you're supposed to get that twice a year. So, barring having to get ANY sort of work done like wisdom teeth, fillings, root canal, crown, let alone cosmetic work* or orthodonture (sp), it's probably more like $300/year. Or $25/month. To have teeth.
*While we think of cosmetic work as being elected procedures, a guy I worked with had all of his front teeth bashed out of his skull when he was 20 by some thugs. It's REALLY hard to find work without teeth, at least in a professional environment. He slowly saved up several grand to get cosmetic surgery.
I had my wisdom teeth out and it was 1,300 for the anesthetic alone.
Should have gotten my money back. 5 doses and I still wake up to hear "check the restraints! Check the restraints!"
I'm just lucky i didn't get billed for the chair...
Wisdom teeth ain't no joke. Thank God you only have to do that once in your life!
I was only only estimating one dentist visit a year and definitely not getting x-rays both times if you do go twice a year. I don't even do that now since I don't have have any kind of dental. It's kind of like putting oil in your car. You're supposed to do it every 3000 miles but if you go four, you're probably still good. Even $200 a year only breaks down to $16 per month. I know plenty of people who drop that on less than a weeks worth of cigarettes.
Of course, if you have a kid or two that needs braces, you can probably kiss that one goodbye.
Over the last 30-40 years we have cut the top marginal tax rates again and again. Each time we've been promised an economic boom great enough to actually boost revenue. It has never happened. Tax cuts have led to drops in revenue. The economy has grown and shrunk in cycles, the profits have been claimed by a tiny minority at the top and the rest of us, before this recession, have barely held steady. Can't we tell by now that tax cuts aren't the solution?
No, we must have faith. We'll cut taxes one more time, slash social spending even further and this time, this time the economy will boom as conservative orthodoxy says it will.
And if not? It will just need another round of tax cuts.
Bingo!
Though in fairness, not all conservatives are supply-siders.
You keep conflating tax cuts and spending cuts. They're not the same thing. We've cut taxes under the pretense that'll force spending cuts before and it just led to more borrowing. Stop pretending that'll work.
But really, your response is just what I said: "No the tax cuts that led to huge deficits weren't enough. We need really big tax cuts. That'll finally work."
Austerity measures don't work in recessions. Slashing social spending cuts demand, which slows the economy further. Tax cuts, by their very nature return more money to the rich than to those more likely to spend it. The rich collect the money and sit on it, use it gamble on stocks or commodities or whatever. They certainly don't invest it into local business, since there's no demand.
And you are confusing Republican rhetoric for libertarian ideals. It's not good enough to just cut taxes, you have to cut spending as well ... something the Republicans are horrible at. Make government smaller and less bloated. Give the American people the money that they work hard for and let them spend it how they see fit.
You'll notice that Ron Paul isn't just saying, "Let's cut taxes". He's saying, "Let's cut spending by a trillion dollars". "Government spending is just another tax on the American people." The less they spend, the more money we get to keep and use to boost our economy. The government can't get economy going on their own. They have to make the right decisions so that we do it.
When more Americans have money to spend then businesses realize that there is increased demand for their products. The reason you cut taxes on business is mostly for small business, not the huge mega-corporations. Small business is where the middle-class made their home for ages before being sold out by our politicians. With our current economic policies, small businesses are failing to stay afloat or in most cases, not staying afloat at all.
|
|
The evidence is there, however. It HAS been done across a wide variety of industries- in fact I'm willing to say every industry in this country. Some do it to greater extents than others, however. I mean, I'm not conspiracy theorist, but where is your evidence to the contrary?Corporations back the Republicans! PROVE ME WRONG.
You're a Denner, so I have no idea when you're being sarcastic or serious. Just listing a bunch of major corporations that donate to both parties basically equally. As most do, actually.
Microsoft prefers Dems, Big Tobacco Repubs, the rest are evenly split
Seems both parties are knee deep in the muck. Oh, well.
I am fairly certain, however, that none of them intend to destroy the US public education system in order to import educated employees from another country, because that would be a retarded plan by Bond villain standards.
I'll lay it out for you, and I promise to go slowly so that it doesn't look like gobbledygook to you.
Education Costs money.
Public Education costs tax money.
Corporations have to pay that tax money.
Corporations don't want to pay that tax money.
Corporations don't need everyone to have a high school education. Even IF a corporate CEO is looking towards the future, A 6th grade education is fine for most of their workers. The smart and rich will pay for their own education through private schooling.
Welfare, EI, foodstamps, medicaid, these are the plan to lend people a hand. They break the death spiral by making it easier to afford needs and necessities while people find both the wherewithal and the ability to do so on their own.
But I paint the picture that you're the kind of person that wants to abolish or severely slash these already limited programs when I read posts like this one. You haven't proposed any working alternative to these programs, just proposed nonsense about how you've worked your way through hard times and how it worked out just fine for you! (Likewise, Ancient Sensei had friends to lean on, why doesn't everyone just lean on their friends!) That is "F you, got mine!" self-entitlement, the kind of nonsense where you lack so much self-awareness that you don't understand that not everyone shares the advantages that you started out with.
Of course, when actually challenged, you end up saying things like this:
Okay, so you assume that I want to screw the people who are really in need when I say that people shouldn't be able to free-load off the system.
And then you challenge me on something that I didn't even say ...
Which is healthy, I suppose, as long as you understand that yeah, sometimes people do need to be on welfare for extended periods. Sometimes they are parents just barely getting by, sometimes they are mentally ill people who aren't ready to get help, and sometimes they are just people who aren't ready to break the death spiral yet and don't have any moral support to do so. The only other alternative is to dump these people on the street if they don't have anyone to go to. I hold that anyone who argues that this is what we should do is a monster and that it's a daily crime that we currently do it anyway. Every day. Today included.
... with extreme cases. I agreed we should help these people out, not that I said differently earlier or anything.
I'm still not entirely certain if you're calling me a monster or not. You've called me worse, I guess.
Lowering taxes isn't what creates jobs, but I can't drop an economics education in your lap.
Then you clip something that I said and tell me what I'm really saying ... once again.
But you are right in that what gets people out of poverty is spurring economic growth.
Whoa! Then you actually agree with me on something. I think it may be a trick.
Vouchers are still dumb, I've lost the thread on this one. Any new comments here?
That's okay, I doubt it'll make any more sense if you try to explain it again anyway.
Gosh, the poor these days just aren't poor enough for my Les Miserables vision of poverty.Well, its a little annoying that after taxes, I basically get the same amount as someone on public assistance. After Obamacare kicks in I'll have even less.
It already has -- and it's been a boon for you from my family. My sister has multiple pre-existing conditions, and thanks to 'Obamacare' the insurance companies can't simply kick her to the curb and reduce her to being forced on medicare... she and her husband (also with a pre-existing condition that got him medically removed from boot camp) can actually get their own company sponsored health care now.
What's more without the lifetime limit on benefits any more she won't use up all her possible benefits from any specific company (no matter how often or where she changes her job that total would have stayed permanently for that insurance company) she will be able to continue having insurance beyond turning 40, even if her condition worsens.
What's more multiple states are only in the black because of 'Obamacare' providing them the money to pay for their medical programs -- programs that were in danger of bankruptcy precisely because they cut the taxes that supported those programs during the 'sunny' times and when the 'rainy days' came they were woefully underfunded (Indiana is one such state -- the only reason it is in the black is Federal government bail outs for its horribly underfunded programs. Programs that were underfunded precisely because they cut the taxes supporting them specifically to be more 'business friendly'... a move that has failed to bring in more taxes since they also then gave companies years of tax credits and write offs).
I'm curious, ancient sensei, were you living on the street or crashing on friends couches /spare bedrooms? There's real difference between those two. I still wouldn't wish either on anyone.
There's nothing wrong with sharing personal experiences, but one should not draw overly broad conclusions from them. Everyone is the author of their own experience, don't try to edit someone down to a paragraph just because their experiences or decisions do not match your own.
There's nothing wrong about talking
I very much agree there's a huge difference between where I was (floating from house to house every few days, bumming food, and borring a shower and razor to interview for work). But hopefully my point is clear: while a single experence doesn't describe every such experience, every experience has more value. Will I put more stock in my experience as a homeless guy determined not to let a suddenly bad break up get me down? Or in some statistics presented by someone perfectly willing to tell people he doesn't know that they can't post an arguemnt worth responding to.
In fact, those who know me likely know that I agree with amny of the comments AMiB makes, but certainly not the venom with which he makes them. I believe hospitals and corporations are no more corrupt or self-centered than any other endeavor. I have seen teh difference between what demogogues would have us beleive about running a small business, and actually having to run the business. I have seen fake pity for homeless folk turn into cold rumormongering, and also been shown genuine concner by those who believe in the signity of struggle. My life does not make axiomatic my own beliefs and perspective, but in a world full of snark and partisan posts, that experience, and the other expeeirences I've witnessed that are not my own, mean significalty more than a manufactured single indicator used to say whatever the presenter wants.
Look at wealth gap statistics. People point to them as some kind of evidence that society is sick. But that';s not the case. People who never run up credit cards becomes wealtheir than people who do. People who wait to afford kids are wealthier than people who don't. Politicians who give out programs like candy teach people to vote for a living, while politicians who teach self-reliance and promise to use government to remove obstacles rather than increase control teach people to fish. Behavior impacts that wealth gap. You don't ever hear the MSM analyze such a statisitc. They treat it as its own economic law and use it to pick fights among candidates, parties, and voters. You can link a statistic referring to increases in wealth gaps all day. When you compare population explosion in poor communities and evaluate the wuality of cell phone of people working 20 hours a week for $8 an hour, the wealth gap gains some perspective.
And when we look at evidence critically and with reason, we can actually have firendly conversations where we are willing to learn, willing to share without insulting one another and (gasp) maybe even admit we were wrong about something.
Actually, BNW, as indicated by my quotation of Dewey many posts above, corporations want well-educated people. It's the progressive view of government that doesn't. Look at Dewey, and the desire by his crowd to take over education in order to create a docile, easily manipulated workforce. Lenin said "give me your 4-year-olds and I'll make a socialist state". (paraphrase) Marx wrote that public education ranked right up there with seizing private property in the establishment of a social state. Hitler only wanted national standardizing of textbooks.
COnversely, companies make local education AND taxes a huge part of their plans to grow, open new plants, reloacte, etc. Why? Naturally, companies want the best of every possible situtation. They have to compete. Why pay a tax someone else doesn't have to? Equals lobbying. Why not have the brightest and best-motivated hiring pool, with the greatest possibly quality of life for the happiest possible team? That's what everyone wants. Pursuing those goals isn't greed. It's responsible stewardship of the job they're given.
I know of exactly ZERO liberal small business owners that don't have their accoutnants showing as much of a loss as possible every single year. Where's their bold dedication to the collective? If Buffet thinks the wealthy should all be paying higher taxes, why doesn't he just pay more than he ought to help everyone out? Maybe he should start by having his companies actually pay their calculated taxes first.
GOvernment is an obstacle to survival. A rainstorm is nothing to an airline - routine. But LaGuardia darn near closed down last week because airlines can no longer risk a weather delay or other emergency, which will result in huge fines to the government. Not refunded tickets or extended miles or however else a good customer servant would handle disappointed customers. But fines to the government for no good reaon at all. The government gets involved, and everything becomes less efficient. Minimum wage is another great example.
And of course, education. The government gets involved and education sucks more. A series of statistics compiled by the Department of Education between 2001-2003 tell us that American kids in public schools number among the 92nd percentile in science literacy. As fourth graders. They rank at 29% by the time they become seniors. For the same age groups, students fall from 58% to 14% in math. More governemtn, and longer control over our kids' education by that government, is bad for us all.
I can't remember who it was who disagreed with me, but someone made the statement that accountability for teachers requires more staff, so complaining about the increasing amount of bureaucracy in education is hypocritical. But please think critically. 52% of the staff of public schools are teachers. 80% of the staff or private schools are teachers. Where is there greater accountability? Where is the education superior? Now, where are the most dollars-per-pupil spent? Neither moeny nor governemnt are the answer.
And final myth to dispel is the notion that charter schools only perform better because they cherry-pick their students. I hear that all the time, but then when I provide examples of schools built in specifically poor, under-educated neighborhoods, and illustrate how they smoke their public school competition without selecting students, without gaming the system, and with significantly less money, they run out of things to say. Charter school attract students who want to learn, maybe. That is not a detractor form the claim that charter schools do better with fewer resources. Again, my kids have done well at every school they've been in. In ghetto school, they had good grades and learned nothing. In public middle school they had good grades and hated their teachers. At charter school, which the oldest sought, and which did not seek her out, my oldest has great grades, tutors, loves her teachers, etc. The second oldest sought out an engineering program at a public high school and likes it better. Same kids as control, different schools. And the difference is not per capita expenditure or federally controlled curriculum. And no school they have been to has come looking for them to pad their performance.
Anecdotal? Sure, if you want to be merely dismissive. But these aren't aberrations used to justify beliefs. They are experiences that evidence very common claims.