|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted August 04, 2002 07:36 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 4 Aug 2002
|
Privatehudson
Giving the land back to Israel I am sure one aspect of a guilt trip….but still good overall in my thinking. I do think that it goes to highlight…the “best intentions” saying….how we as humans often screw things up when we try to fix things….Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, a lot of our humanitarian aid to Africa, welfare in US and our aid to American Indians ahs created devastating dependency, etc. etc. Don’t get me wrong I think we should try to improve the world but the situations are typically too complex for us to ever make a truly good solution.
Personally I don’t know what the solution is for the whole Palestinian /Israel thing. I think it would be great if the Palestinians had there own land….but I think one thing for perspective is size. Israel has a sliver of land…barely any land mass at all. If Israel was say the size of the US I would be saying…dudes just give them some land….but any land given to the Palestinians would have an impact on Israel’s already scarce land.
The whole Arab and Israel conflict is so old and hard to understand...who started it…who has a claim to what…I mean this thing broke out when like 3-4000 years by biblical account (not old?)? Granted there were periods of helping each other such as the prophet Mohamed had Jewish people help him and isn’t it in the Koran that Muslims should treat “people of the book” (Christians and Jews) with respect plus the time period you described in your post.
In regards to the IRA situation…I am pretty ignorant about that subject so I will not open my mouth Setting the IRA situation aside…I don’t think Israel’s reaction has been that out of line…they aren’t just callously shelling innocent towns to my understanding…they are hitting places that they have confirmed terrorist/enemies. Now if someone could prove that Israel was just randomly killing Palestinians in retaliation then I would see your point.
To bring back the OBL thing…what should Israel do…ask nicely for the killing to stop? Yeah they could give them land…but that seems like a high price to pay since they also strongly believe the land is theirs. What sovereign nation would just give up land to stop terrorist attacks?
You may be right that “Not all Arab nations want to remove Israel”..that is a wide brush I used…but lets say the majority.
Regarding Bush….well I think most of the world has stereotyped him as dumb…but very few people could do what he has done (Graduated from both Yale and Harvard, been an air force pilot, had a multitude of successful political and business ventures, etc.)…so I don’t think you have to worry about him forgetting which button is which PS I find it very interesting that people claim Bush is stupid when graduating from such prestigious institutions while Al Gore flunked….get that failed Divinity School.
Private Hudson we don’t seem to be agreeing so much as of late…hehe…doesn’t make the whole separated at birth thing impossible though given the whole genetic vs. environment debate
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 04, 2002 02:38 PM |
|
|
hmm Nice points, but Israel may not be directly killing wantonly, but they do shell and bomb areas where there are large civilian populations, with no real check on what they shell or bomb. Now there is an argument for saying that is the fault of the Arab terrorists for risking their civilians by operating from that area, but I repeat other nations have dealt with a problem like this in peacefull and less bloody means. The Israeli actions may not be on the scale of say Russia in Hungary and kosovo, but it is hardly peaceful.
I was sounding off about the history thing. Just merely pointing out that there hasn't been constant warfare for 2000 years and these 2 sides have lived peacefully for some time.
What nation would give up land? Ask the palestinians - they have as much right to it as anyone, yet the are denied it. I geuss the question would be more accurate as What people would give up land. In answer to this the Americans did this in the Independance war - sacrificing Canada in return for a settlement over the US states.
Regarding Bush that's just a stereotype we brits have of him. He's probably very intelligent, but his policiies are often very isolationist and looking after America only. OK that's part of his job, but as the world's only real superpower he has a duty to the world as well as his people.
Just my thoughts. Israel is a difficult issue. The main thing is to analyse Sharon. The man is a hardliner - he argued with his own government during 1973 and almost resigned because they would not let him launch a sucidal attack. He has never liked the palestinians and never made this a secret. His government has always been right wing and reactionary and probably always will be. There is still some discussion as to whether he was involved in war crimes in the lebanon - I don't know how much foundation it has, but hardly a friend of palestinians. Arafat is no saint either, but the Country of Israel needs to take a long hard look at it's policies and decide whether it is being as civilised as it can be.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 04, 2002 05:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regarding the first Bush...man we just can't agree on anything...lol. I didn't care for him for two reasons...one he didn't complete the job with Iraq...I know it was a complex situation but none the less if he would of finished the job we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in today. Second and more importantly in my opinion...he lied. He said he wouldn't raise taxes and he did.
Wow... we really can't agree. Those are precisely the reasons that I approved of the first Bush.
1. Iraq - I think the first Bush did the most masterful job of demonstrating that the US does NOT act as a lone cowboy ever. If the US had been following it's own agenda, Saddam would have been toppled. However, that was not what the coalition was assembled to do and not what the UN has mandated. The allies went in, did what was supposed to be done (according to international opinion) and then stopped. I think that "finishing the job" would probably have caused more problems in the long run than it solves. (remember, any government that was set up in the place would automatically have been considered a "puppet government" with all the problems and commitments that implies)
2. Taxes - I hate paying my taxes as much as the next guy, but I think there needs to be some perspective on taxes. I don't know all the tax tables, but I think if you have about 65,000 taxable, you're going to be paying around 15,000 in taxes. Now, 15,000 dollars is a lot of money, until you start thinking about what you're getting for it. If you took that 15,000 and, say tried to hire police officers, how many could you hire? Not even one. How many fire trucks will 15,000 buy? How many soldiers can that hire? How much road does 15,000 pave? My point is that the US tax burden is almost absurdly low. The economy was in trouble, the government needed money, what were the choices? Even more deficit spending? Everybody likes to say "cut spending" until it's their favorite program that is going to be cut. The other thing people LOVE to bandy about is "make the beaurocracy more efficient" without giving any suggestions about HOW to do so. Generally it involves cutting jobs and making the remaining people do twice as much work which, since they are now overburdened and stressed out, they do 1/4 as well which can hardly be efficient. I gave Bush credit for swallowing his pride and doing what needed to be done.
(On a related note, I got a letter from the IRS the other day. In turns out they checked over my tax return and found out that, are you ready for this... I had mistankenly OVERPAYED. They sent me a check for $207.81. Go IRS!)
Quote:
Also I can never quite enjoy a cigar the same way after hearing what kind of abuse he perpetrated upon those poor innocent cigars.
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Call a cigar a cigar?)
Quote:
Thanks for the pizza description...both brilliant and eloquent What is your career anyways? If you are not in some form of writing career you should think about picking it up...you would be huge in advertising also
Biochemistry, but thank you.
And, on the Israel debate, I think my girlfriend came up with the best solution:
From now on, any babies born in the region would be redistributed to a random family - of both sides, Israeli and Palestinian. That way, the Israelis would be reluctant to shell villages since they might be killing their own children and the Palestinians would be reluctant to do suicide bombings because the child they kill may be their own. Draconian, I know, but desperate times...
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2002 07:03 AM |
|
|
Bort how I wish your example about taxes was true. In your scenario it appeared that you included federal, state, and county taxes all under just federal tax. If taxes totaled 25% of ones income that would be near bliss.
You seemed to forget all the other great taxes besides federal income tax…..you have a gas tax, state income tax, death tax, cigarette tax, business tax, license/registration taxes, sales tax, luxury tax, gift tax, utility tax, etc…and those are the only ones I can think of right now. When you total all the taxes up…it easily can become up to 45-50% of your income (if your earnings are middle class and above). That is equivalent to working for the government for 5-6 months a year. When you also consider the top 1% earners in America pay almost 60% of the taxes for Americans one comes to realize we are very much nearing a socialist state.
Now where to cut taxes….that is a good question. Of course we would need to keep the basics that you listed in your example: military, roads, police/fire, etc. I am not a libertarian, but I do think starting with the Constitution would be a good place to start. Of course there is all the pork that politicians accumulate….but as a society we have become quite dependent on our gluttonous appetites and safety nets…so cuts will start to hurt our current way of thinking.
I have worked for the county government and I believe some of the services provided were redundant and typically inefficient. Now I am not advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water but we have to make some changes. Just look at how awesome welfare reform has been for our nation…a truly great impact that occurred from people thinking out of box of the birth to death welfare state mentality. Even FDR stated “to dole out relief….is administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit”
Also it is a generally agreed upon that the government is a very poor steward of our money. The private and charitable sector as a whole is much more efficient and responsive to the needs in general. For every dollar we send to the government a small percentage actually goes for the work it was intended (i.e. about 30 cents of every welfare dollar gets to the recipient vs. about 80 cents of every dollar the Salvation Army gets goes to the recipient). I don’t know about your state…but the department of motor vehicles here is just a nightmare…if you can get a hold of someone on the phone you are a truly blessed person. The road department out here is ridiculous…to extend two lanes on a freeway about 15 miles by my home…it was projected to take like 4 years…which is outrageous in itself…but then they actually take 6 years. Just the other day I was driving past the road department installing a chain link fence….it took about 6 guys 2 days to install a very basic 25 foot fence…something is very wrong with that. Take public schools…on average we spend like what 6-8 grand a year on educating our children…yet private schools do a far superior job for about 3 grand…the government is just not good at getting their monies worth.
In regards with how to make the bureaucracy more efficient…I think there has been many attempts to do so from consolidating, to analyzing, to doing outcome based research, to taking customer satisfaction surveys. The private sector generally finds ways to streamline the bureaucracy so why don’t we implement some of their methods.
As far as the first Bush and Iraq…yes he followed the UN mandate…but that is sometimes why I wish we were more like Israel and not so enslaved by world opinion. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do whether you get the big stamp of approval from the world. Now look where we are with Iraq…we are going to need to invade and how many more lives may be lost.
Your girlfriends solution to the Isreal/Palistine situation was quite interesting. I think generally speaking to solve major problems you have to take major steps which may include “draconian” measures. For example…I worked with abused children for many years and what amazeed me is that we don’t somehow license or set some basic prerequisites for rearing children. To drive a car you have to get a license, but have a child…well the only requirements there are any two idiots who have a sperm and an egg. So much of crime, poverty, abuse, can be strongly correlated with impoverished parenting. Now how to implement that goal can border on serious “big brother” issues…but I wish we had the courage to at least bring it to the public forum to discuss.
Some thoughts I have are drug testing potential parents, mandatory birth control for all under age 18 (statistics strongly indicate that teenage parents have basically no skills to adequately rear children thus children born of children have much higher rates of violence, poverty, etc.). I don’t have the answer to how to implement it…but why hasn’t there been a serious discussion about it in the political scene since we know bad parenting is usually a vicious circle.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2002 07:05 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson
Since you earlier brought up IRA I did some very brief reading and a couple things struck me….one how correct you are in general that Britain has taken some very peaceful measures. The other thing I noticed and I could be incorrect is that Britain has given a lot to the terrorist/political demands. The question I guess I would have is has it worked? Historically it seemed like that even when they compromised with the IRA political demands that the violence continued to occur. Well just some brief thoughts and maybe you can educate me more on the subject.
As far as Bush as an isolationist…that seems like a stretch. He is extremely pro-global trade, he has made a lot of good connections with other nations (i.e. England, Russia, Mexico, etc), we continue to spend an a lot of money in aiding other nations, and lastly the whole Afghan situation was a huge undertaking of world cooperation….we took a long time to build world consensus and didn’t just attack them in an isolationist manner (though I think we would have been justified in doing so). From what I viewed of the European press…they seem even more un-objective about Bush then our own press (who typically smear Republicans).
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted August 06, 2002 01:18 PM |
|
|
I found this image on the net and thought it applied 
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 06, 2002 04:00 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 6 Aug 2002
|
Welfare reform - I'm actually interested in seeing how well this continues to work with the economy crapping out (it's easy to demand that people get jobs when plenty of jobs are available, when the jobs simply aren't there, well. Don't get me wrong, I think that the welfare reform was a good thing, although I have seen cases of, as you say it, throwing the baby out with the bath water (a really good at risk youth summer job program in Fairfax County was for all intensive purposes eliminated in the process)).)
Taxes - Well why shouldn't the wealthy pay more taxes(for the record, my parents are in the top tax bracket, so I'm not just saying "how come somebody else can't pay for my stuff")? They, quite simply benefit more from the government's services. Who benefits more from police protection - somebody who doesn't have anything that is worth stealing or somebody who has 4 porsches and 3 factories, all of which benefit from police protection? Who benefits more from the Federal Highways - the merchant who can ship his products cheaply and easily from location to location or the person who doesn't even own a car? Who gets the tax levied to build a new stadium for the football team that they own? Who gets free worker training through the public school systems? I understand that everybody benefits from all of these things, but who, when it comes right down to it, benefits more and I think it is reasonable for the people who benefit more from something to shoulder a greater burden for its maintainance.
Government efficiency - The thing is, the US government was very specifically designed to be INefficeint. The most efficient government would be a tyranny. Decisions would be made almost instantly and the orders carried out quickly as well. All those checks and balances and multiple levels of government and multiple branches of government are designed to slow the government down - ie, to introduce efficiency. Efficiency means you can improve/react quickly, but it also means things can go to the toilet just as fast. The private sector is a great thing, but it's not the miracle cure that some people think it is - Enron and Worldcom show that the private sector can have catastrophic failures. (and remember, both Enron and Worldcom's failures have at least part of their roots in DEregulation which was supposed to, and did, improve efficiency) Like I said, I think the private sector is a great thing, but I think that it is and should be a very different thing from the public sector. In the public sector, I'd rather have inefficiency that comes with safety and stability than efficiency that comes with the risk of collapse.
Edit : With regard to poor roads - I've lived in the third world. Even the most poorly maintained roads in the US don't hold a candle to the level of crappiness on third world roads nor to the slowness and innefficiency of the repairs there.
Also, with respect to the tax levels, I was referring solely to the federal income tax. I am aware of the other taxes, but people normally moan about the main income tax the most. My point still remains valid when you're trying to figure out how many of the services the government provides can be paid for with $30,000.
Edit #2 : As to the private schools that do a better job for cheaper, students in private schools perform only MARGINALLY better on those assesment tests - for instance, the one I'm citing below they only scored 6 points higher on average on a 350 point scale. Now that included ALL private schools, including the expensive hoity-toity ones that almost certainly brought the private school stats up . Unfortunately, I don't know where information is regarding the cheaper, voucher type schools so I can't cite that, but I find it hard to believe that they perform better than the private school population as a whole.
Source. The State of Mathematics Achievement: NAEFs 1990 Assessment of the Nation and the Trial Assessment of the States, US. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, June 1991, Table 2.6 and Executive Summary, pp. 6-7.
(For the record, I am a product of public schools and feel that I received a good education.)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 06, 2002 05:33 PM |
|
|
Well.....
Stretch - I meant largely foreign policy. He has pulled out troops from Kossovo and has shown an interest in leaving it to the Europeans to solve, which is fine attitude, but I think it would be largely the British who would take the major responsibility. Perhaps this is a pre sept 11th view that i meant sorry as he did seem isolationist before that. His attitude over Iraq is slightly suspect though as the UN, most of Europe and Russia has disagreed with war, even the brits are re-thinking now that sadam has agreed to let in weapons inspectors. Cynical plot by sadam perhaps, but to act when The UN and most of your partners are in disagreement would be showing arrogance and isolation.
The british press is clouded by the current way that Blair seems to allow us to be used by the USA. This is because Blair is often seen as going against the wishes of the British people, just to please the USA. Perhaps this may not be entirely Bush's fault, but in the past US presidents have seemed to take British help as a foregone conclusion and not as something you have to request and prove there is a good reason for action. The european view is largely ignored as many European nations were against some of the recent actions in Kossovo or Afghanistan. Personally I wasn't but it is often the case that the British and Americans flaunt world and UN opinion and do as they please and that is isolationist from both sides.
Britain has given in to some terrorist demands, but not when faced with a do it or we will bomb you situation. The demands have been made during the Cease-Fire period when the main parties finally realised that blasting two types of hell out of eachother was getting everyone nowhere fast. Personally the only demand I have a major problem with is releasing terrorist prisoners from either side as I consider them to be scum. The other demands largely center around de-commisioning and the right of the Sinn Fein (appologies to Irish people if that is incorrectly spelt) to have a say in the government, most of which I would say where reasnoble given the climate.
Perhaps in the past we may have given in to some demands, but Britain has recently taken the view that NI future lies with the people of NI and therefore a political refferndum is the best policy. Our aims have been to reach this without violence, and this has nearly been achieved. I believe part of the reason for this is our stubborn refusal to react in a way the Israeli's have and to deal with the threat largely within the law.
We have learnt this the hard way through 30 years of violence. We have not been perfect, but we have learnt from many of our mistakes, which seems to be the problem in Israel. You have to at some stage negotiate with terrorists or there will never be peace. At the present time the IRA and other republicans have reduced their claims from a United Ireland to a refferendum on a united Irealand and a voice in local government. Had Israel and the palestinians continued with their talks in a similar way then today's world would have been a better place
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2002 06:26 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 7 Aug 2002
|
If you think this is long you should of seen it before I downsized it;)
Bort
Welfare reform
You are right it will be a lot more difficult once there are less jobs…but I think the standard expectation of welfare reform is twofold- 1. if you are able to work 2. if there are jobs. So I think it is to be expected that the statistics regarding Welfare Reform will diminish if there aren’t jobs.
Government efficiency –
The US government was very specifically designed to be inefficient in only specific ways. It was designed to be slower in manners that affect truly political areas (i.e. creation of laws)thus the 3 branches of government. But I don’t think that applies to most of the areas I spoke of….I mean the department of motor vehicles does not have the 3 branches of federal government involved…they only have one level….state. So they should be able to be efficient. But that begs the point….if the government was meant to be inefficient…than anything that the private sector can do they should (i.e. schooling, road development, etc.)
I do think the private sector has its weaknesses…as Enron and WorldCom show (but even these are excptions to the rule). I don’t know if it is fair to associate deregulation with unethical/illegal behaviors that Enron and Worldcom engaged in. Accounting guidelines need to be tightened but in general these people broke the law….so they were already regulated in that manner. Laws were in effect….they just decided to ignore them and see if they could get away with it. Having said that I do think accounting type regulations need to be reinforced especially considering these companies impact on the stock market. Deregulation in general has more to do with price regulation, competition, and consumer choice…not accounting.
Things can be efficient and safe it is not an either or choice. The government scandals and failures should assure us that they are not necessarily safer than the private sector.
Regarding “ how many of the services the government provides can be paid for with $30,000”…. that seems circular…it can pay for all the ones we currently have. My argument is that we 1. have too many government programs and 2. that they are inefficient with the dollars we give them.
Taxes
First lets look at the examples you gave:
“police protection”- the rich don’t need more protection….for two reasons…one there is less crime in rich areas and two they often hire private security.
“Federal Highways” – roads are typically paid for by gas tax- so the merchant who has 8 trucks pays 8 times the taxes for his trucks to be on the road….its not like he only has to pay gas tax on the 1 and gets the other 7 trucks thrown in for free. Furthermore the merchant is producing jobs and moving the economy through their business/goods…so there again they more than pay for the roads in other ways.
“Free worker training”….your example was confusing….it seemed to argue against itself…it is the worker who gets free worker training not the employer/rich. Often programs such as the old JTPA cost the employer money in training youth as they recieve little in return given the temporary nature of these programs (i.e. some teenager is trained for a job for the summer and then the child quits once school resumes). Often times JTPA provided jobs for youth to work doing menial tasks for public schools so it really didn’t benefit the private sector….though I am sure there are exceptions.
To address your premise that “whoever uses the most services should pay the highest tax”. The only problem with that premise that those who receive the most services are EXACTLY the opposite of who you identified. The poor receive the most benefits by a HUGE margin: Housing, medical costs, transportation and utilities are all subsidized. Welfare and social services costs. Crime-poorest neighborhoods have highest crime rates thus higher police personnel. Schooling-poorer children have more special education needs and more behavior problems (thus more school detentions, suspension hearings, truancy police interventions, school counselor interventions, etc.). Add to that many rich are sending their kids to private schools thus they are virtually contributing all the public school funds allocated for their children to services they will never receive.
So to follow your premise…it is actually the poor who should be paying the highest rate of taxes since we give them the most. But that is obviously impossible.
Now the middle class….again I think dollar for dollar it is easy to see that they receive more bang for their tax dollar buck than the rich also. Granted it is not as drastic as when comparing the poor but none the less they use more services (i.e. they use public schools, pay less taxes, have more aid in buying houses, sometimes use government subsidies in transportation and medical needs, etc.).
Also regarding the rich….consider who contributes more to our economy. If you suddenly lost at one time either the Top 5% earners, the middle 5% earners or the lowest earning 5% …who would have a greatest impact on the economy. Obviously the rich people would have a far more drastic impact on the economy if they lived in another country…..because they spend more and provide more jobs. It is the Bill Gates of America who provide thousand of jobs. So not only do they have to pay more in taxes but they also are the bedrock of our economy.
Education
Before I rant I want to acknowledge two things. One both private and public school teachers work their butts off in the classroom. Two there are many fine public schools, but I am talking more generally about the system as a whole and more specifically about inner city schools.
I have not read the study you mentioned…but I would seriously have to question its methodology. I will admit it was put out by the government who theoretically should be objective. Who sponersed it? What was its sample? How did they measure things? 350 point scale? Why didn’t they solely rely on something more objective like the SAT scores or general aptitude tests? What is the 350 point scale comprised of? Even if the study represented reality…..still for less results you have to pay 2-4 times more money to educate a child in a public school than a private school!
The reason I question the results is two-fold. One, it flies in the face of common sense and secondly the reports I have heard to the contrary. Just look at all the voucher initiatives that have arisen in the states. Very rarely if ever has the opposition to the voucher program cited that they produce similar results in public schools. I have never seem them state that…it is almost a forgone conclusion by both sides that public schools in general underperforms. Look at the national outcry we have for educatinal reform. The very fact that there are so many school voucher program initiatives indicates that people KNOW that public schools in general are not effective. The main thing the opponents of vouchers cite is that if vouchers are approved that they will drain funds from the public school system….kind of backwards logic but none the less that is their central theme.
I can only speak very knowledgably of California….but get this….this is the amazing….in Los Angeles Unified….guess where the MAJORITY of public school teachers send there children? To private schools! Now if that doesn’t shout volumes I don’t know what does. Case and point my brother….some demographics regarding him: One of the most liberal people I have met, a public school teacher for over a decade, a Master Teacher, the head of his local school union….well guess where he is sending his 5 year old son….you got it a private catholic school….and my brother isn’t even catholic. Why did Clinton send his child to private schools?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2002 07:01 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson
If Sadaam allows the UN to inspect and UN backs away is going to really piss me off. How many times can he do this and the world look the other way….don’t we EVER learn from history? He could play this game endlessly. We need to remove him…he had his chances.
US and Britain may be isolationist as compared with the other wimpy nations that would rather sit on the sidelines and point fingers instead of actually have the courage to act. Churchill is an excellent example…he was hollering about Hitler before anyone…and what did people do…even England…they ignored him. We must learn from history….evil dictators will not change….they will only try to manipulate the world to lay down their arms before they crush it.
Thanks for the Britain/IRA education. I am happy for you guys if it ends up working out! Some extraordinary patience on Britain’s part in my opinion.
Though it seemed from my understanding of the IRA that they usually went for either military or commercial targets (agreed that is bad enough)…whereas the Palestinians intentionally kill civilians. Is that correct?
As you know the USA just lost civilians due to the Palestinians savage attack.
Regarding Israel though I just don’t see how you are suppose to negotiate with people who are slaying civilians regularly. It seems like every week I read of another terrorist attack in Israel. It seems to me that Israel has a very reasonable expectation….stop murdering our people and we will sit down at the table to discuss the situation with you.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 07, 2002 03:59 PM |
|
|
don't have much time, so i'm going to give you quick responses that will undoubtedly be unsatisfactory.
Quote:
Welfare reform
You are right it will be a lot more difficult once there are less jobs…but I think the standard expectation of welfare reform is twofold- 1. if you are able to work 2. if there are jobs. So I think it is to be expected that the statistics regarding Welfare Reform will diminish if there aren’t jobs.
yay! finally an agreement between us.
Quote:
Things can be efficient and safe it is not an either or choice. The government scandals and failures should assure us that they are not necessarily safer than the private sector.
there are government scandals, but my point is that it is exceedingly unlikely that our government will collapse in the manner that enron or worldcom did, both of which were, quite frankly, highly effecient companies. i also know that they are the exception and not the rule, but with certain things, avoiding catastrophic failure is more important than maximizing return and the government is one of them. also, i'm trying to point out that people always say "let the private sector handle it" and there's always the assumption that the private sector is a miracle cure.
Quote:
First lets look at the examples you gave:
“police protection”- the rich don’t need more protection….for two reasons…one there is less crime in rich areas and two they often hire private security.
1. why is there less crime in rich areas? better police coverage
2. my point was not the protection of their homes or whatnot, it was the protection of their assets as a whole, which includes things like protection of the country as a whole by the military (who's going to lose the most if the US is invaded?) protection of the financial network as a whole (ie, SEC, fraud protection) currency stabilization, etc. etc.
Quote:
“Federal Highways” – roads are typically paid for by gas tax- so the merchant who has 8 trucks pays 8 times the taxes for his trucks to be on the road….its not like he only has to pay gas tax on the 1 and gets the other 7 trucks thrown in for free. Furthermore the merchant is producing jobs and moving the economy through their business/goods…so there again they more than pay for the roads in other ways.
I did not know this, I withdraw this argument then. (but on a side note, the earlier example you mentioned about slow road workers - generally (at least in the DC area) things like road repairs are handled by private contractors - so the people you are complaining about may well have been part of the private sector.
Quote:
“Free worker training”….your example was confusing….it seemed to argue against itself…it is the worker who gets free worker training not the employer/rich. Often programs such as the old JTPA cost the employer money in training youth as they recieve little in return given the temporary nature of these programs (i.e. some teenager is trained for a job for the summer and then the child quits once school resumes). Often times JTPA provided jobs for youth to work doing menial tasks for public schools so it really didn’t benefit the private sector….though I am sure there are exceptions.
I refer to general education that everybody (allegedly) in the us is supposed to receive - ie, elementary school and high school (junior high isn't education, it's just a way to keep the evil ones away from the population as a whole).
fact : a worker is paid less than he produces. if you're paying your workers more than they produce, you go out of business. (note: I'm NOT saying this is a bad thing. If this wasn't true, the system would collapse. I do think capitalism is a good thing, I thing what we disagree on is unbridled vs. bridled(?) capitalism)
fact : in general, more educated workers are more productive than uneducated workers (for instance, it helps to be able to read)
fact : that greater productivity in workers translates to greater profit for the employer.
so what i'm saying is that the employer is being enriched by say, 1,000,000 by the public education system while the worker is being enriched by 60,000. the worker certainly should be paying taxes, but i do think that the employer is benefiting more.
Quote:
The poor receive the most benefits by a HUGE margin: Housing, medical costs, transportation and utilities are all subsidized. Welfare and social services costs.
what about corporate welfare? oh, I mean "subsidies to improve the economy"
Quote:
Crime-poorest neighborhoods have highest crime rates thus higher police personnel.
but the point is, they DON'T get more police, they just have to fend for themselves more - from the DC point of view, there are always cops stationed like every 2 blocks in old town alexandria or georgetown (affluent areas) but people who call them in southeast have to wait long periods of time and even then get less attention.
Quote:
Schooling-poorer children have more special education needs and more behavior problems (thus more school detentions, suspension hearings, truancy police interventions, school counselor interventions, etc.).
once again, but the poorer areas also have less funding for their public schools, not more. (in virginia, public schools are paid for by property taxes. so the schools in the rich areas are vastly overfunded with respect to the poorer areas. i don't know if this is true all across the country)
Quote:
Education
Before I rant I want to acknowledge two things. One both private and public school teachers work their butts off in the classroom. Two there are many fine public schools, but I am talking more generally about the system as a whole and more specifically about inner city schools.
I have not read the study you mentioned…but I would seriously have to question its methodology. I will admit it was put out by the government who theoretically should be objective. Who sponersed it? What was its sample? How did they measure things? 350 point scale? Why didn’t they solely rely on something more objective like the SAT scores or general aptitude tests? What is the 350 point scale comprised of? Even if the study represented reality…..still for less results you have to pay 2-4 times more money to educate a child in a public school than a private school!
it was a standardized MATH test that was graded on a 350 point scale. you don't get more objective than that.
the sample included both less expensive and more expensive private schools, including the ones that cost upwards of $20,000, which is much, much more than the cost of public school.
Quote:
The reason I question the results is two-fold. One, it flies in the face of common sense and secondly the reports I have heard to the contrary.
you can't discount it just becuase you don't want to believe it.
Quote:
Just look at all the voucher initiatives that have arisen in the states. Very rarely if ever has the opposition to the voucher program cited that they produce similar results in public schools. I have never seem them state that…it is almost a forgone conclusion by both sides that public schools in general underperforms.
see, the report i wanted to find is the one that showed that the kids in the Milwaukee voucher experiment were underperforming relative to the kids who were not in the voucher program (heard about it on cnn and got nice and smug) but a quick internet search couldn't find the reference and i didn't want to refer to something without corraboration. I've heard people question whether or not it would improve things many times - the big problem is that you're comparing public schools who have to take EVERYBODY to schools that don't and also people seem to be thinking that these kids are going to be sent to those upper class prep schools, which in absolutely not the case. (also, a lot of people are pushing vouchers because of the religious aspect - not all, but quite a few, even if they won't admit it). Referring to things like Clinton sending his daughter to a private school also doesn't work because i guarentee you that the one Chelsea went to wouldn't accept vouchers. People always seem to assume that you're going to get the same education at a voucher school that you would at Eaton.
damn. i used up more time than i was supposed to. boss is going to kill me.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 07, 2002 04:31 PM |
|
|
Sorry Dargon I think you misunderstand me on Sadam. I agree with you We should remove him, but Britain and Europe would prefer a non invasion option. Assasination/kidnap may be immoral, but would save lives overall. I agree he is scum, my point was that to ignore the UN, Europe, Russia and China on this issue is making the Brits and Americans look arrogant and is isolating them from international opinion which is still in my view wrong, but to ignore it is unwise.
It's nice to see someone not interested in writing on subjects they know nothing of and admiting it like you did over the IRA. I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of the conflict, but have lived through times when terrorist attacks were a real threat. As far as Millitary targets I'm sorry to say that this has not been the case. The IRA and the Unionist (protestant) terror gangs have frequently bombed city and town centres, without millitary objectives. One incident involved a terrorist (I've forgotten the side, and frankly it doesn't matter really) walking into a crowded Public House with an AK47 and opening up on full automatic killing an maiming most of those present. Presumably there was someone there he wanted to kill, but the method is indicative of terrorist activities in the country.
Be careful though with the statement about palestinians attacking the USA as this does not give carte blanche to be anti Palestinian.
As far as Israel, well the same could be said for both sides really. The palestinians are loosing just as many innocents to stray arty shells and bombing. Who started this is now irrelevant, what is needed is an end to the fighting from both sides.
Which brings me to my next point. Neither side in my opinion may have complete control other the situation. On the Israeli side they allow Right Wing settlements into land occupied and promised to palestinians, knowing the trouble this will cause. No-one dares to stop them, and they are out of control.
On the Palestinian side they have created a monster in the suicide bombers. I am honestly not sure if Arafat can stop them, their mindset is so much about sacrifice and killing that they have gone beyond reason now.
These two are just some of the many problems inherent, but clearly neither side can control the situation. I seriously think that if it was not for Israel's influence over the West then the West would have sent the UN in long ago to seperate the two sides and force them to come to terms with eachother.
Oh and I don't know anything about american politics or your economy so I'll stay away from arguing with Bort on that one!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2002 08:18 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Aug 2002
|
Bort
First I got to say it is not at all fair if you are writing these things from work…lol…and second is your employer hiring
Well glad we finally agreed on something… though we disagree lot I find your comments reasoned and find it enjoyable to debate you…ok enough sucking up
K when you say that the government scandals don’t produce a catastrophic failure….I will have to strongly disagree…the only difference is the government has an ENDLESS revenue supply. Those other companies are limited by the market…the government knows no such bounds. Case and point….in California…our bonehead governor made some very hasty and horrible decisions in handling our electrical power needs …long story short…he came in with huge surplus and now we are in a major deficit…so what does the government do….they sure as heck don’t file chapter 11….they tax….that’s right…Governor Bonehead Davis is now finding all sorts of creative ways to tax us for his mistakes.
I don’t think the private sector is the end all miracle….I just think it is generally preferable. Kind of like the old quote….I am going to totally paraphrase and get the butcher this..but hopefully the meaning remains…”we have the worst political system in the world…save all the other political systems”…so while the private sector definitely has its weaknesses it is generally preferable to the government running things that the private sector can do.
I won’t continue to debate the rich and police issue as I think we are debating from different planets.
I think you are correct that the so called “private” contractors are doing the major road projects…but that is actually incorrect upon examination of what is meant by “private”. The government sets an AMAZING set of requirements before they will even consider allowing them bid the project….requiring the company to pay your workers a very high wage…making sure that all ethnic groups get an equal amount of grants…etc. They turn the private sector into but a socialist puppet company. I don’t know if you saw LA after the huge earthquake…you should of seen the destruction of our highways….and then these things were rebuilt at an astonishing speed. It can be done and it should be done on a more regular basis.
I thought you were referring to specific job programs. I think it is somewhat unfair to suggest that the private sector benefits from education more than anyone else….the government is probably the biggest benefactor (higher education= generally less crime and chaos…better economy means more taxes), but also big benefactors are the family (better educated people generally are better parents, etc.) and the citizens in general (when people are educated it leads to a better economy…a better economy leads to better pay and more things that citizens can provide for themselves).
I had to laugh at your junior high statement….I have to agree See there now we have agreed twice.
”A worker is paid less than he produces”….well yeah that is called capitalism….if you want a worker to earn what they produce you would have to ascribe to a communist political philosophy….but I see that you ascribe to capitalism so a mute point. But your last point “greater productivity translates into greater profit for the employer”…well that is that is actually a wash…cause it also translates into greater wages for the employee. In capitalism the business MUST earn more than the employee produces or it falls flat on its face….and then the worker would be unemployed and can’t feed their children, etc.
Corporate welfare…well I don’t think that can be compared monetarily wise with social welfare…but I could be wrong. I am personally against some cooperate welfare (i.e. farm subsidies…we pay them to not grow food…amazing!)…but if there is a business that is spurring the economy and providing needed jobs then I think an argument can be made to assist the company to stay on its feet as it helps all of America…whereas social welfare rarely contributes America as a whole (actually if you believe in evolution…we are actually weakening humanity when we assist those who are not as strong). Don’t get me wrong I think there needs to be social welfare but not to the overwhelming mass it has become.
I do not believe the poorest don’t have more police protection…there are all sort of federal subsidies to accomplish this…but I will have to see specific statistics to really stand behind my point. From personal experience…whenever I am in a “bad” neighborhood I see police everywhere…but when I am in a richer area…I rarely see police. And even inside each city there is a breakdown…in the city I lived there were good and bad neighborhoods….the vast majority of the police were stationed into the poor/bad areas while we had like one cop per shift assigned to our area.
If you are basing your argument on property taxes alone regarding funding for education you would be correct…the problem is there are an AMAZING number of federal subsidies for poorer schools…believe me..most of my career I have worked with poor kids…there is plenty of money particularly for Special Education.
Regarding the study you mentioned…one thing that one must take into account. When you are comparing private schools…most people think of the affluent schools. I went to a pirate school in high school….guess who was attendance…the kids that were kicked out of public school (granted this is not always the case)…so some private schools are educating the most troubled kids around. Also if they did include voucher schools…well there again think about the demographics…who qualifies for vouchers if at all…it sure isn’t the child of Mr. and Mrs. Middleclass…it is the poorest of the poor….so there again they are educating the most difficult population.
Regarding private schools another thing has to be mentioned…if the public schools are working out so well…why has even the public school system indirectly admitted their inadequacy by starting a HUGE chapter school movement….these things are popping up all over the place. If the regular public school system was really doing so well…then there would be no need for chapter schools. Back to Clinton and the rest of the hypocritical pro-public school politicians….WHY WOULD he place his child in a private school if public schools are so good? Why SHOULD he be able to get the best education just because he is rich….isn’t the basic idea of public sponsored education to give every child the best education possible?
Regarding the education study, I agree you can't discount evidence just because you don't want to believe it..but that is not why I have questions regarding it. Now I will admit one my reasons for wanting private schools is for the religious reason you mentioned…but what the heck is wrong with that??? It is MY money that they are taking to fund public education…so if I want my children to be educated in my religious tradition why would big brother not allow me to do so with MY money. I know it is thought to be quite disturbing that a child might actually be praying in school versus doing drugs….just amazes me that some people are so self righteous as to know how to educate MY child the best. Where parental rights ever went I will never know.
In the end I would like to really know what school system is doing the best (though from all my reading it is the private schools)…I think that the subject is so emotionally charged on both sides that is difficult to find a truly objective study…and as I am sure you are aware….Studies that appear scientific on either side can easily be manipulated by the study design or methodology.
See I think also when you and I are talking about private schools we may be envisioning different things….you may be thinking about the elite ones where all the guys have a roman numeral after their name…..I am thinking about the private schools that educate the common person and have very meager means (for example the private school that I attended the teachers earned substantially less then their public school counterparts…they only taught at the private school as it aligned with their value system…to me that is very admirable)
And if you are getting your news from The Clinton News Network….well no wonder you have the beliefs that you have…haha.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2002 08:40 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 8 Aug 2002
|
Privatehudson
Thanks again for the IRA information.
Well glad we agree Saddam. But why do we care what the UN wants? We are all sovereign nations. We all have our own understanding of right and wrong….as long as we rely on universal census we will be ineffective. Consensus is typically the worst method to achieving anything worthwile. The guy is building weapons of mass destruction and he is evil/crazy. At what point will the UN grant us an invasion…after he starts killing thousands of Europeons? I agree we should listen to world opinion…but I think we should not have our actions dictated by the UN. History seems to teach us….particularly WWII that if you stand by the side (as US was very guilty of) then great atrocities will occur.
I misspoke if I stated that I am anti-Palestinian…I am anti terror….which in the Israel conflict is particularly perpetrated from Palestinians. When Israel finds an Israeli terrorist…they arrest them and prosecute them…not so with the Palestinian authorities. I know not all Palestinians are evil…but the leaders they have selected are allowing and sponsoring terrorist action. I think that is a huge difference.
The Palestinians innocent deaths are victims of war…the Israeli innocent deaths are the result of terrorism…there I again I think it is a big difference. One is intentional the other is indirect.
I agree that Arafat may not be able to stop the terrorists….but he should do a whole lot more than he is dong.
Feel free to join the discussion between Bort and I….Just repeatedly state “you got a point there Dargon”...”well stated Dargon”…lol.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted August 08, 2002 04:00 PM |
|
|
It has been fun, Dargon. I'll be honest that I've actually been arguing from a bit to the left of where I actually am (for instance, for the record, I don't think the voucher program will work, but I think it should be tried on an experimental basis in some places). Anyway, you're absolutely right when you said we're arguing from different planets, so let's just say that you've converted me to a right wing thug and I've converted you to a foaming at the mouth liberal nut and we'll leave it at that, 'kay?
And for one final "let's see if we can agree" - A french fry just isn't a french fry without ketchup. Am I right?
|
|
Bartrex
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2002 04:04 PM |
|
|
I'm a fan of hot sauce myself
____________
 "In God we trust, all others bring data"
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 08, 2002 05:04 PM |
|
|
well just to differ
The Israeli leader is no innocent, he is under suspicion of warcrimes, and is nearly as right wing say Thatcher! He has done little to stop the right wing settlers occupying any land they want to, often bulldozing Palestinians homes and land in the process, an action garunteed to cause problems and friction.
The UN issue is important, if only for the fact that they are a vital tool in stopping such actions and to keep the peace of the world. In this case they have failed, but the Brit/American force cannot expect to ignore the views of the world, wrong though those views may be. The USA bent over backwards to prepare consensus before invading Afghanistan, and perhaps we both should be doing more to reassure the world of our motives. At present it seems the world believes GWB is correcting what his father messed up in 1991, and the americans are using 9/11 as an excuse for picking on anyone they want. I personally don't agree with that, but the world needs reassuring rather than ignoring.
Whether direct or indirect there is a major difference between the Afghan bombing and the Israeli actions. They might be accidental, but it also seems as if the attitude is "well they killed us, so a few of them dying in a bombing raid doesn't worry us". it's not the same as deliberate, but they are hardly doing anything to prevent casualties. My problem with Israel is that it does not take a higher morale stand than the palestinians, in the way Britain did over the IRA. It should be appologetic (and mean it) over accidental deaths, avoid them if possible etc and then support would be more willing
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2002 01:03 AM |
|
|
this belongs here
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2002 01:15 AM |
|
|
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! IT ISNT SHOWING!!!!!!! MOMMAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
EnergyElemen...
Hired Hero
The Blue snow
|
|
posted August 10, 2002 01:35 AM |
- penalty applied. |
Edited By: Romana on 10 Aug 2002
|
Do u know who is my master????? Who aswer Osama Bin Laden, the aswer is right. ALL THE USA SUCKS. I agree with Osama, snow USA.
edit by Romana: cursing and insulting is not allowed on this board. I would advice you to tone down your attitude
____________
Imps DESTROY
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
