Bin Laden is still dead. Jon Stewart's take.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Sure, but some rich people fall into that category as well.

Who are they leeching off? The tax payer?

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

All I am saying is we have 50 States with 50 departments of education, then we have the federal department of education, with one education standard. I think most everybody would agree the competition is good. Competition breed efficiency and everyone strives to provide a better product than their competition. Each state should be running their own public education system, it would be the best way to make them better. Also people should have a choice to move their kids to a different school, and their tax dollars should be routed to the school their child is at. School will then actually try to improve where they are lacking in order to get people to move there kids back to that school. No choice, unless you're rich or want to take out personal loans to send your kid to a decent school. ( like the rich and politicians do, anyone have examples of politicians who send their kids to their local public school?)

So you still want a "socialist" education system, just one run entirely by the states.

Besides if you left it entirely to the states what about standards across the country? How do you compare candidates from different states?

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Who are they leeching off? The tax payer?

Effectively yes, as someone else could in theory put their resources to better use.

Its hardly fine to be able to bum around if you are rich, but not if you are poor.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

So you still want a "socialist" education system, just one run entirely by the states.

Besides if you left it entirely to the states what about standards across the country? How do you compare candidates from different states?

Bottom line is I don't want to federal government involved and directing. If they have any part in the system at all it could be to rate school/states.

As for a "socialist" education system. I would like to see it streamlined, but there probably isn't a better way to pay for the system than to have everyone involved. It does seem to be the case here that the more children you have the greater chance you don't pay school taxes.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Effectively yes, as someone else could in theory put their resources to better use.

Its hardly fine to be able to bum around if you are rich, but not if you are poor.

Right, so they are using the money that they put into the system. How awful, since the government could be directing it to someone who didn't put anything in the system.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Bottom line is I don't want to federal government involved and directing.

Why?

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Right, so they are using the money that they put into the system.

Not if they inherited the money.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Why?

I've explained it already, Constitution and competition, not to mention the high inefficiency of our federal government. Nothing like states sending money to the federal government so they can send it back to us and tell us how to spend it, most likely taking 50% out for their cost.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Not if they inherited the money.

If they inherited the money, taxes have already been paid on it from the person who earned it!!! Not sure where the complaint is there.

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

I've explained it already, Constitution and competition, not to mention the high inefficiency of our federal government. Nothing like states sending money to the federal government so they can send it back to us and tell us how to spend it, most likely taking 50% out for their cost.
.

One problem with charter schools is that they can cherry-pick students. What happens to the average, below average and the disabled? Tough crap? There already is competition - it's the public and private option and it's by far the best way to go. Why? COMPETITION. Everyone knows they have another option. This is why having public and private health care is an awesome way to go. Private can't take advantage the way they do without a public health care option.

As for your previous assertion that public is rubbish and that's why rich kids go to private school - I had a pretty privileged upbringing. I went to public school because it's a well-rounded education, and having had it both ways, I actually preferred public school. I don't understand all the histrionics with this.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

If they inherited the money, taxes have already been paid on it from the person who earned it!!! Not sure where the complaint is there.

The complaint is that we have double standards if we complain about the poor not putting in the effort without holding the rich to the same standard.

Inheriting wealth is essentially down to chance.

Originally Posted by iBlue

One problem with charter schools is that they can cherry-pick students. What happens to the average, below average and the disabled? Tough crap? There already is competition - it's the public and private option and it's by far the best way to go. Why? COMPETITION. Everyone knows they have another option. This is why having public and private health care is an awesome way to go. Private can't take advantage the way they do without a public health care option.

As for your previous assertion that public is rubbish and that's why rich kids go to private school - I had a pretty privileged upbringing. I went to public school because it's a well-rounded education, and having had it both ways, I actually preferred public school. I don't understand all the histrionics with this.

++

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The complaint is that we have double standards if we complain about the poor not putting in the effort without holding the rich to the same standard.

Inheriting wealth is essentially down to chance.

Any investment made with that "wealth" will be taxed. If he gets a free ride so be it, someone paid the taxes on it and his money will runout (maybe not in his lifetime). If he invest it, taxes will be paid.

----------

I wouldn't call it competition private vs public, or at least not a fair competition. I have to pay around $5000 a year in school taxes alone. If I chose to send my daughter to public school I still have to pay for public school, and private school. That $5000 or come on, at least half should go to the school I send my daughter to.

Originally Posted by iBlue

One problem with charter schools is that they can cherry-pick students. What happens to the average, below average and the disabled? Tough crap? There already is competition - it's the public and private option and it's by far the best way to go. Why? COMPETITION. Everyone knows they have another option. This is why having public and private health care is an awesome way to go. Private can't take advantage the way they do without a public health care option.

As for your previous assertion that public is rubbish and that's why rich kids go to private school - I had a pretty privileged upbringing. I went to public school because it's a well-rounded education, and having had it both ways, I actually preferred public school. I don't understand all the histrionics with this.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Any investment made with that "wealth" will be taxed.

And any expenditure by the "poor" lazy person will be taxed too. So what?

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

I wouldn't call it competition private vs public, or at least not a fair competition. I have to pay around $5000 a year in school taxes alone.

Public education has always worked like that since it was introduced in the 19th century.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

And any expenditure by the "poor" lazy person will be taxed too. So what?

Everyone pays sales tax, not everyone pays federal taxes, school taxes, or property taxes. Not to mention if a poor person pays their "8%" sales tax with the free money (welfare) they got from a rich person's tax money who is that benefiting?

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Public education has always worked like that since it was introduced in the 19th century.

Where? In the UK? The US department was formed under Jimmy Carter in the 70's. That was slightly after the 19th Century.

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

...I wouldn't call it competition private vs public, or at least not a fair competition. I have to pay around $5000 a year in school taxes alone. If I chose to send my daughter to public school I still have to pay for public school, and private school. That $5000 or come on, at least half should go to the school I send my daughter to.

The same way every working Briton pays for the NHS but if you want private as well, you pay. You just pay a lot less for the private because they have to keep their greed in check when people have options.

Edit: and you never did answer me about what should be done with the average, below average and disabled children without a public option. Prefer not to think of logistics like that?

It sounds like you're bothered that you're not wealthy enough to pay for the common right to education while also paying to send your kids to a private school. If you can afford it, stop being so goddamn selfish. Not everyone is so lucky. Everyone benefits from education.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Not to mention if a poor person pays their "8%" sales tax with the free money (welfare) they got from a rich person's tax money who is that benefiting?

Who is that benefitting?

The store owner, his employees, his suppliers, etc.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Everyone pays sales tax, not everyone pays federal taxes, school taxes, or property taxes. Not to mention if a poor person pays their "8%" sales tax with the free money (welfare) they got from a rich person's tax money who is that benefiting?

And the money the poor person doesn't pay back in taxes goes to may the wages and profits of the people who they spend all their money on.

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Where? In the UK? The US department was formed under Jimmy Carter in the 70's. That was slightly after the 19th Century.

Are you arguing that schools taxes in the US are new? There was surely publicly funded education in the US much before the 1970's, although it may have been paid for by the states.

[ericrwalker]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Who is that benefitting?

How about the shopkeeper?

The shopkeeper is? The shopkeeper is paying taxes, that goes to the poor who then returns the money right back to him. The poor person is essentially spending the shopkeepers money that was confiscated from him in the first place. Not to mention, prices are higher on products when demand is higher, and welfare programs create artificial demand.

EDIT: and I will tap out here, because it's probably beyond comprehension for some.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

The shopkeeper is? The shopkeeper is paying taxes, that goes to the poor who then returns the money right back to him.

The shopkeeper doesn't pay all of his money in taxes...

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

Not to mention, prices are higher on products when demand is higher, and welfare programs create artificial demand.

It totally depends on the product. There are a lot of economies of scale if lots of people buy the same thing.

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

...
EDIT: and I will tap out here, because it's probably beyond comprehension for some.

You mean it's beyond comprehension for you.

I understand your stance completely. I just disagree with it.

But go ahead and downvote me on every post if it makes you feel big and clever.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

EDIT: and I will tap out here, because it's probably beyond comprehension for some.

Be patient.

You'll eventually get it.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

If they inherited the money, taxes have already been paid on it from the person who earned it!!! Not sure where the complaint is there.

Well, the complaint I have is that you are wrong. The person who earned the money was taxed on the income they received. To that person, that money can be used in any way they see fit. Just keep in mind, that EVERY time that person spends the money or transfers it, the person who receives it, has income that would be taxed.

Why, oh why, is a transfer to a child tax free? It is a transfer of money to someone who upon receipt, has income. Why is that income not taxed?

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by iBlue

I agree, news outlets shouldn't be biased but they are. I've given up on what I think is right ever becoming a reality, especially when it comes to the media and their precious sponsors. I can't begin to explain how sick of the media I am....

First, I think you've just described television news, which is structurally designed around fear-based reporting. (It doesn't need to be, but it works so very well as a business model). Second, there's a difference between biased towards a business model (1. Scare viewers. 2. Keep them watching. 3. Profit!) and being ideologically biased.

Outlets can operate, even effectively, with an obvious and well-stated bias (see Mother Jones for example), but they cannot do this effectively if they're simultaneously making that bias opaque.

The problem with Fox News is its claim that it's fair and balanced while being completely partisan operating under the classic television news paradigm. It's not wonder it's an effective ratings machine, but it also tells us a great deal about why so many Americans are so relentlessly ill-informed. They're basically getting the news diet equivalent of a Shamrock Shake delivered to their brain daily.

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

...
What about public schools? Did we not have an education before the federal government got involved?

Historically, schools were rare and typically only took students to sixth-grade equivalencies and was structurally defined by the farm seasons. A modern society cannot operate with such a model.

Why can't the states run their own education programs? Why can't we have more charter schools? If public schools are so great why don't rich people use them? If I don't want to send my daughter to my local public school, why can't my school taxes go toward the school of my choice?....

For all intents, your school taxes go to schools near you, which is a choice based on locality. Or, as the Libertarians would say, "If you don't like the schools, you're free to move." Generally speaking, good schools and bad schools are separated by parental involvement and funding. Good schools are in good neighborhoods with involved parents and backed by luscious local and state funding. Bad schools lack parental involvement and are often underfunded, with overtaxed teachers and broken down facilities. The current tax system based on locality drives this to a significant degree. You are paying for the schools near you.

Fire department, police, EMS are run by your states and local governments. Nobody is complaining about that, and like I said some social programs are needed.

So, some pooling of resources works, you just disagree about certain programs.

...Britain is a lot of socialist programs, why are you not suffering miserably? Time will tell, I think it was just last year riots broke out there because Britain finally decided to tighten their purse strings. Time will only tell if you're the next Greece. Socialist systems depend on large strong base and a strong economy.

Well, the Greeks are pissed because they're getting screwed out of their retirement while the country refuses to tax the wealthy to cover its debts. Structurally, Greece is in trouble because of its social system and deep-seated corruption in the tax system. If Greece could recover taxes at near the full rate, the country would be far more solvent. The Olympics is a significant contributor to this, BTW.

The moment you take away an "entitlement" you bread rage.

Is it yeasty?

...There are a lot of leeches here in the USA. You can see it all over cities, especially in NY. Here in Albany, Buffalo and I am sure in NYC too.

Sure. That's true in any system because people suck. A well-designed program would eliminate leeches or at least make things difficult for them without punishing others who honestly need it.

Originally Posted by ericrwalker

...Also people should have a choice to move their kids to a different school, and their tax dollars should be routed to the school their child is at...

Generally speaking, this already happens at district levels and through the magnet system. It can be successful, but competition isn't a magic wand. You need an involved community, good teachers and principals, and money.

The charter system in Arizona used the principles you've argued for and largely speaking, they've been ineffective at student achievement at the risk of significant corruption.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Well, the Greeks are pissed because they're getting screwed out of their retirement while the country refuses to tax the wealthy to cover its debts. Structurally, Greece is in trouble because of its social system and deep-seated corruption in the tax system. If Greece could recover taxes at near the full rate, the country would be far more solvent. The Olympics is a significant contributor to this, BTW.

The other problem for the Greeks is that their pensions are insane. The Greeks have cut by 25% their pensions over €1000/month (so if their pension was €1200/month it is now €1150/month). For a country as poor (and under-developed) as Greece €1000/month is a lot of money and they should be happy with that.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The other problem for the Greeks is that their pensions are insane. The Greeks have cut by 25% their pensions over €1000/month (so if their pension was €1200/month it is now €1150/month). For a country as poor (and under-developed) as Greece €1000/month is a lot of money and they should be happy with that.

So, are you going to send me some of your money? I mean, you earned it, but just because it's a lot of money, you should be happy with less. Right? I'm sorry, but that's just silly.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The other problem for the Greeks is that their pensions are insane. The Greeks have cut by 25% their pensions over €1000/month (so if their pension was €1200/month it is now €1150/month). For a country as poor (and under-developed) as Greece €1000/month is a lot of money and they should be happy with that.

Sure, the pension system is ridiculous, but it's also the agreement that Greek workers operated under for years. No matter the necessity, Greek workers are getting screwed, which is why they're angry.

This isn't emblematic of flaws in socialist states, it's emblematic of a basic human response.

[iBlue]

Originally Posted by hulugu

First, I think you've just described television news, which is structurally designed around fear-based reporting. (It doesn't need to be, but it works so very well as a business model). Second, there's a difference between biased towards a business model (1. Scare viewers. 2. Keep them watching. 3. Profit!) and being ideologically biased.

Outlets can operate, even effectively, with an obvious and well-stated bias (see Mother Jones for example), but they cannot do this effectively if they're simultaneously making that bias opaque.

The problem with Fox News is its claim that it's fair and balanced while being completely partisan operating under the classic television news paradigm. It's not wonder it's an effective ratings machine, but it also tells us a great deal about why so many Americans are so relentlessly ill-informed. They're basically getting the news diet equivalent of a Shamrock Shake delivered to their brain daily.

I agree. And yes, mostly I refer to television news but in any form it tends to go to dramatics and often fear tactics. It seems bad (and slanted) news captivates more than good (and non-biased) news. Have you ever read a headline that said "Everything is as expected. Enjoy your day."? Because really, I wish there were a lot more of that mentality in life.

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by iBlue

I agree. And yes, mostly I refer to television news but in any form it tends to go to dramatics and often fear tactics. It seems bad (and slanted) news captivates more than good (and non-biased) news. Have you ever read a headline that said "Everything is as expected. Enjoy your day."? Because really, I wish there were a lot more of that mentality in life.

Part of this is a "if it bleeds it leads" mentality and part of it is an understanding that novelty is news.

From the front page of the local paper is a story about Payday Loans and large banks (a service story), a story about healing in a community after a 30-year old crime, and a review of six rail line possibilities between Tucson and Phoenix.

Sure the first story is about corruption and the second is a crime story, both aren't fear-based stories. And, the Times is similarly complex.

The service of the news isn't a emotional salve, it's information that describes a difficult world.

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by hulugu

Part of this is a "if it bleeds it leads"

<aside>

Too bad this does not also apply to politicians.

</aside>