Forbidden Donut

LOL good one

Personally, the educational stuff is where I have a lot of knowledge and a lot of concern.

All I have to say is they need to figure it out, pretty much. A lot of their educational ideas are just a little off-center. They like to push the whole certificate thing for charter and private schools, but the people that are taking advantage of it aren't low income families, who need the encouragement for their children to succeed, but the people who have kids that are doing well and probably come from middle to upper middle class families. We really need a lot more compensatory schooling programs like Head Start, because that's the social and educational reform that's going to break the poverty cycle.

Oh well. I'm a music teacher, and you can't put music on a standardized test, so would you like fries with that?

do you teach guitar?

IN MY OPINIONS, Mccain just looked downright bad tonight. Not 60 seconds after defending the need for political attack adds and being chided for it, he brought up William Ayers, which Obama quickly dismissed. Obama looked like a president tonight and Mccain looked like he was treading water.

Personally I enjoyed Obama's rebutle to Mccain's healthcare plan. When i first caught wind of a $5000 credit to buy health insurance, I knew he couldn't expect a family of 4 to fully benefit from such a thing.

This debate also sparked a lot more interest from the previous one. I acually feel like it was a very good one.

Tuba, actually.

To play devil's advocate, you could then think of it this way. People have more money to spend, thus businesses will get morey. Also, the American economy is spend spend spend, so why not jump start it by giving out money to spend?

I'm glad you've finally come to terms with your inevitable destiny, Nicole. I told you music major was a bad way to go...

-dan

p.s. You're still the coolest tuba player I know.

p.p.s. Only because the only other tuba player I know was actually named Tuba.

I always figured if you throw money at the problem, most American will use that money to either pay their bills that they are in debt to or buy other things that's worthless other than health insurance or buy things to survive for the month.

That's why the money goes straight to the health insurance provider. The American people would never touch it.

McCain's solution isn't supposed to completely cover everyone. It's supposed to allow people to have $5000 (I forget what it was for an individual) to spend in addition to anything the family. His health care plan doesn't limit you to spending $5000. That was the point. I understand that there are many families out there that won't have more money to spend, and I'd like to see the statistics on it. The overall point is that a $5000 health care plan is better than none.

mungo: That's you know... your opinion man. Nobody knows what the effects of either plan will truly be. The situation now is highly volatile and different than anything we've ever seen in this country. McCain supporters seem to suggest that they KNOW Obama's plan will kill jobs by taxing companies' incomes, but I don't hear them wondering what the effects of McCain's plans are. If companies will be so ready to fire people because their taxes on income went up, will they just drop health care because it's being taxed as income under McCain? If not, then why be so concerned about whether Obama's increase in taxes will lead to more unemployment? If so, then which is worse, a bunch of unemployed people, or a bunch of sick people who can't afford sufficient health care.

If you can only afford the 5k plan, you can't afford the deductibles for said plan.

You're so scared of what the democrats plan might do. Where's the (also legitimate) concern for what McCain's plans might do? Especially considering that every 2008 nobel winner endorses Obama, and the vast majority of economists think his plan will work better.

You know better though, right?

/SO tired of the "what about our jorbs!?" argument.

"...than McCain's, but it's not necessarily a good plan overall."

You missed that part!



Break...the poverty cycle? Ha! That's impossible. The very framework of society relies on socioeconomic class structures, and the definition of "poverty" is based solely on the circumstances of the time it is said. "Poverty" will always be applied to the poorest people in a society, and there will always be a whole hell of a lot of them.

I do, however, have a solution to your education concerns: get rid of the department of education. Problem solved; move on.

In a 2 party system where economists have only reviewed 2 candidates plans... I don't need to say it specifically. It's implied. Hence the comparitive form of the word, "better".


You're right. It's not even worth considering... Let's just give money to rich people more and see how that works. We sure haven't tried THAT yet... /sleep.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="-_-" border="0" alt="sleep.gif" /> please... This is the most inane argument against providing a leg up to poor people I've heard in weeks. And the previous worst argument was a troll.


You might want to make sure the state governments are capable (have the right tools and procedures in place) of running their own educational system. You also might want to make sure no wacky state laws make shit worse there. And that wouldn't save any money at all. And state budgets are vastly underfunded (which is why we get earmarks). You can't just eliminate federal beaurocracy and hope for the best in a country this big. There's A LOT of groundwork that needs to be laid all across this continent sized country of ours first.

Best moment of the debate:

Been looking for a screen shot of that moment all morning. Now I can get back to work.

You're just putting words into his mouth now.

So he didn't just dismiss the plight of the poor as being not worth the effort?

I kinda liked the question about bashing other's campaign. Thought that was funny. Maybe I dreamt it...I dunno.

Joe the plumber is an asshat by the way.

"COURIC: Well, he supposedly will raise taxes only on people who make over $250,000 a year. Would you be in that category?

WURZELBACHER: Not right now at presently, but, you know, question, so he's going to do that now for people who make $250,000 a year. When's he going to decide that $100,000 is too much, you know? I mean, you're on a slippery slope here. You vote on somebody who decides that $250,000 and you're rich? And $100,000 and you're rich? I mean, where does it end? You know, that's - people got to ask that question."

good thing he's not registered to vote...
edit: okay maybe he is. But his name ain't Joe. Which I joked about with a co-worker earlier. (next we'll find out he's not a plumber.)

As an added note, Obama will not in fact "raise taxes" on people making more then 250,000. That's the end of the tax CUTS, but tax increases only kick in after 600k. So basically, he's ignorant on the issues and so relies on illogical arguments when confronted. Claims to be an independent who has no dog in the race. And in fact won't be pulling the lever for anybody on the 4th, nor has he in Ohio before.

Will go into more detail when I have time to type up a more thorough answer.

For the mean time, McCain has 5 nobel winners backing his economic plan:

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/P...29f0f0872e6.htm

hm... well the economist did some research of it's own and found that the vast majority of economists support Obama's plan. Making the 5 nobel winners less relevant.


and before you bitch about the skew, note that the number of neithers is equal to the number of dems. And realize that nobody actually calls themselves republicans anymore, while democrats are currently pretty proud of themselves, so most of those neithers are probably republicans.

actually go ahead and bitch about it. I'm not convincing anybody of anything...

/Joe the plumber might be related to Charles Keating. Why does McCain choose to associate himself with economic tur-rists? Betcha he's glad Joe was mentioned 5 times more than Iraq...

//edit: yeah I know both the not registered to vote thing could just mean he's an absentee elsewhere, and that the keating thing is thin... Just bringing it up because the guy has about 3 thoughts knocking around in his head and 2 of them don't make any sense.

Fair enough.



You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say we shouldn't attempt to help the poor; I simply said it is impossible to eliminate poverty from society.



I totally agree. Perhaps I'll add to my signature "if I say something about eliminating any single power of the government, I almost certainly do not mean to imply that it is the only thing that needs to be changed."

Perhaps. you responded to this:
We really need a lot more compensatory schooling programs like Head Start, because that's the social and educational reform that's going to break the poverty cycle.
with this: You can't break the poverty cycle. guffaw.
You would have served the discussion much better if instead you either responded to the crux of the matter, which is that Head Start needs to be expanded to help people break out of poverty rather than shooting down the optimism associated with it.

Pretty nitpicky I guess. I didn't mean to imply that YOU want to help rich people and ignore poor people, but it is, in fact, where that type of logic leads. I just did so with maximum snark. Sorry for that.



Fair enough. And of course I know you're not a stupid person. But for about 6 months your solution to every problem has been to eliminate the federal agency that handles said problem. Never anything about how it would be better to handle it with a state run agency, or how to fund that agency, or how to avoid pockets of corruption with no federal oversight, or how much your state taxes would rise as a result, or really anything that would matter to the debate. We get it. Everything should be run by the state government and we should all pay x% to the federal government to keep an army. I'd like to hear something a little more substantial if you're going to keep bringing it up.
/ya sound like a Paulistinian dewd.

I am aware that there will always be poverty, because there's always someone at the bottom of the barrel. I meant it in reference to the fact that low socio-economic status also leads to other problems like crime, high drop-out rate, teen pregnancy, etc. Children raised in these situations with no assistance are likely to repeat the behaviors of their parents, hence my use of the term "poverty cycle". It feeds itself. Education can provide a lot of motivation to value yourself and your possible contributions to society, so you are less likely to engage in these behaviors.

But I'm so grateful you managed to find many negative faults to my contribution to the discussion. Seriously, thanks.

How it would be better: At the federal level, there is absolutely zero competition. Without competition, regulation is required. When regulation is required, self-interested lobbyists gain influence, and it only takes one person to start rocking the boat, so-to-speak. If something like education was handled on the state level, your state would either compete or it would only attract a low income populous (uneducated or elderly), and the politicians that refused to compete with the rest of the states would be voted out in favor of politicians that want to increase education quality. That is, unless of course the state benefits from uneducated (if its economy is based on manufacturing/farming). And IF that is the case, any education the state does provide can be catered to what is best for that state (manufacturing/farming) as opposed to some imaginary standard that is made up and applied to every state across the entire country.

How it could be funded: Taxes, of course! And since it is at a state level where individual votes are far more influential, people will have more say in how their taxes are used. Add in a proportional tax system, and you will see each state implementing policies that are truly beneficial to the majority of residents as opposed to social programs designed to "help the poor" at the expense of the rich.

How to avoid corruption: In most states, people think and vote in a large majority (that's why we have so many "absolute red/blue" states as opposed to 50 "purple" ones. In those cases, the majority will vote out people that are fucking with their shit. In cases like PA where the opinions and values throughout the state vary dramatically, things will either even out in one direction as the people "not being heard" move to a state where their values are shared or things will be far more localized as no consensus will be drawn on a state-level, so individual votes will matter even more. The more localized influential voting takes place, the easier people will be able to react to corruption in their ranks.

How much state taxes would have to raise: That would really vary quite dramatically throughout the country, I would assume. However, in all cases, given a proportional tax rate, taxes wouldn't raise to a point that it hurt the average joe because it's the average joe that sets the tax rate.

I wasn't aware that pointing out discrepancies or faults in the course of a discussion was so frowned upon. For now on, I will make sure to let people say whatever they want without actually giving any serious thought into the content of their message. That's definitely the best way to discuss such silly topics as the future of our country.

Did you just call manufacturers and farmers stupid?

fake edit: I get your point... just am tired and pointing out the obvious seems to keep me going.

Not intentionally. I meant their requirements from an education are far different than a white color worker like myself.

That was a whole lot of theory you just threw out there. I think the idea is sound. But there's still tons and tons and tons of questions to be asked. What keeps lobbyists from effectively assaulting state government? A large part of you rationale is predicated on the idea of competition. When we opened up state lines for the credit industry, all the credit companies ended up in one state. I don't think this would happen in education as everywhere will have schools, but what about the teachers? Will all the good teachers end up in a state that treats them the best? How will people in agriculture who want to get an education for their kids so they can get OUT of agriculture get that education? They can't just leave the state. Furthermore the voting public usually sucks at kicking out incumbents no matter how much they suck. Also the first guy to say we need to raise state taxes to help pay for some state run shit is not getting elected. Ever.

The only definite benefit I think we could rely on if we let states run education would be the elimination of no child left behind and the introduction of more sensible state by state educational requirements. The rest is wishes and theory.


Snicker... there before you fix the mistake.
/for teh lulz.
//the questions are rhetorical. To point out that no plan can be taken at face value, no matter how ideal it seems.

Ha. I apologize for the unintentional racism :x

Lobbyists can and will attempt to assault state governments, but their impact is far less when the impact of the voting public is far greater. You can't get rid of lobbyists in a democracy, but you can limit their reach and impact. A strong federal government is a breeding ground for strong lobbyist influence.

There's nothing wrong with states promoting specific types of businesses. What's wrong with the credit card companies all being in one state? That doesn't mean competition doesn't exist...

Yes, all the good teachers would flock to states that treat them well. That's kind of the point.

The agricultural family is going to have a tough time getting their kids out of their agricultural society unless they move away from it entirely. I don't really know what you're trying to argue there.

The voting public doesn't suck at voting out incumbents, the political system is just skewed in favor of them. The range of values varies far too much on a federal level, and no one gives two shits about their local politicians because they ultimately have no impact on their lives in our federally-ruled society. George Bush did great things for Texas when he was governor; then he came to the federal scene and fucked everything up. Why? Because his views and values are inline with the Texas society and aren't inline with a lot of other people throughout the country. Unfortunately, it is difficult to vote him out because his values appeal to slightly more people nationwide (at least in 2004) despite the fact that his values are EXTREMELY detrimental to the rest of us.

Where I work, there are plenty of people living in PA. Even though the company doesn't operate in PA at all. The reason for this is education. The schools in DE are bad. Many of the parents that work in the area that I do live in PA so that their children can get a better education.

The competition is already there. Good effects and bad.

But they don't have that problem now.

If you live in ... idk... kentucky. And all the good schools are in say... New Jersey. Your kid is just that much more doomed to sit in agriculture. When everybody's unable to do anything but grow shit, they will vote for education on growing shit, because it helps them the most. 30 years down the road you have an entire state of Waco, TX. Poverty everywhere and escape nowhere.

/Both of my ex's parents were in agriculture here in PA, but since she went to a decent school she's in college. Second person in her family to ever be able to do so. (first was her older brother)

It is definitely true that the circumstances surrounding your upbringing impact the availability of a good education. I still don't understand where the government comes into play with this, though. Obviously you and I have radically different philosophies of government and opinions about who should be responsible for what.

I haven't formed one that I can apply to every situation. I believe the fed has a place as well as the state government. Where best to apply the strengths of each system, while mitigating the weaknesses is an extremely complicated subject, especially given the bloated nature of each. I actually agree from a fundamental perspective that yeah, state government is more efficient, and would encourage an active role from the public in the formation of the states policies. However I am playing devils advocate by pointing out that we've had a steadily growing federal role in our lives fro 200+ years. We have no clue what shrinking that back down would do in our current world.

/The founding fathers had no idea what applying democracy would do in their world either.
//Sometimes bravely moving forward is really fucking awesome.
///Sometimes you get Zimbabwe...