OT: does obama bring change?

[1bad65]

Simon,

Thanks again for being an adult and rationally discussing issues with me/us. I appreciate your manner of debate and discussion.

Thanks again.

[1bad65]

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

I've never said that. But those who do pay income taxes contribute alot more.

People who don't pay income taxes do pay payroll taxes. Hence, they contribute. As such they should certainly have a voice in tax policy, no?

That's why a flat tax is so fair. We ALL pay based on what we earn (in a flat income tax plan), or what we consume (in a flat sales tax plan).

[1bad65]

I don't see you Crusaders For The Poor mentioning 'Sin Taxes'. What are you guy's stances on those taxes?

[Reality_Check]

Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

I've never said that.

Yes, you did.

Speaking of taxes, how do you feel about everyone paying income taxes?

I'm all for it. As it is now, we have millions of people who do not have to pay any income taxes, yet getting to vote for representatives who set tax policy that will not affect them, but will affect millions of others who are actually contributing.

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

That's true. But if everyone had to pay SOMETHING, it would be more fair than the system we have now where ~40% pay NOTHING.

I think it shows the tax inequities.

While some pay NOTHING, many others pay over 35%. That's not fair.

[Reverend Tap]

Well, he is by me. And by alot of others. When you say your goal is to "Spread the wealth around", you are a socialist. Period.

One thing you need to realize is that what you're doing here is fundamentally NO different from what all the kids running around calling Bush a fascist were doing. Bush isn't a fascist by the technical definition thereof, and Obama isn't a socialist by the technical definition thereof. Both instances are exaggeration in the same manner. Did you consider it legitimate when people were doing it under Bush?

'Card Check' will be what he does to prove how pro-union he is. Those guys are licking their chops at getting that passed. And Obama will do it. Gee, who here thinks getting away from the right to cast a secret ballot is a bad thing we need to 'change'?

The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

[SimonM]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/2000gb/appenm.txt

One error with that study that I can immediately identify is that it is based on reported births.

Societal factors with regards to premarital sex being what they are those are most certainly more common than they were previously. This does not indicate that the number of illegitimate births changed to anywhere near that extent.

Sadly it is also unlikely that will ever be truly knowable; it does, however make use of such statistics problematic at best. This is a limitation of statistical sciences.

3) True. I agree it's flawed cycle now. My solution is that competition with private schools combined with the voucher system being implemented will ensure that only the best schools (and teachers, principles, admins, etc) will survive. The sub-par schools, etc will cease to be.

I feel this is exactly the 180 degree opposite of the solution.

Creating competition between schools is precisely what the current model of standardized-test based funding does.

We don't have these problems up here in Canada. We also are rated at fifth in the UN education index. One of the reasons why is because of the fact that we provide for a much more fixed funding formula for schools; people in poor neighbourhoods go to schools which are just as able to attract excellent teachers, to provide full music, arts, athletics and humanities programs in addition to maths, computer studies and sciences as people in wealthy neighbourhoods.

In fact the largest flaw in Canada's education system is the high cost of post secondary education. This is (in fact) controversial because so many have successfully got first class degrees from excellent universities that it is nearly impossible to secure a good job with less than a masters!

The USA, to stop it's slide in the index (currently rated 20th and still falling, far after the much-maligned Cuba which is ranked 13th and rising) and to improve the quality of it's education has to create a funding model that provides adequate funding for comprehensive general education for all public schools. It certainly should not take funds away from public schools through breaks and incentives for private schools, further draining the depleted coffers of public schools.

In other words equal public funds for all (and for only) public schools is necessary to fix the problems with the USA education system.

Beyond that the USA has to stop fighting the bloody scopes monkey trials and has to take a cold, hard, look at the invasion of faith into curricula through the so-called "intelligent design" paradigm.

The USA also has to ensure adequate funding for arts, music, and most especially civics! The fact is that many Canadians have a stronger grasp of American Civics than your own citizens and that just should not be.

Well I feel he does fit a type of socialism. He may not agree with every plank on a certain type, but that semantics. Like me, I don't agree with every plank on the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, etc. I'm a mix. But you can safely say I'm a small-to-no government guy. It's a general term.

The problem is that he agrees with very little compared to Socialists.

About we DO see eye to eye on in fact is that the government should be involved in the fiscal sphere in some manner and that education and health care are essential services for all citizens.

Two axioms that vague do not a member of the movement make.

'Card Check' will be what he does to prove how pro-union he is. Those guys are licking their chops at getting that passed. And Obama will do it. Gee, who here thinks getting away from the right to cast a secret ballot is a bad thing we need to 'change'?

I read a memorandum just the day before yesterday in which he noted that preferred status would be given to contractors who could guarantee no work stoppages. That means union busting and scabs. He is not a union friend.

[BoulderDawg]

The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

Also we have to remember that a union is NOT a democracy. If the members of that union decide they will NOT have a secret ballot then that's the way it's going to be.

Personally if I'm a member of a union I'm going to be very interested indeed to see which ones of my co-workers would stab me in the back.

[Reality_Check]

The act in question will actually allow the workers themselves to decide if they want a secret ballot or a card check, in each individual instance. They retain their right to a secret ballot; if it passes, they'll just also be given the right to waive that right in favor of another system. Net gain in rights and liberty overall.

Correct. Even the Wall Street Journal agrees that it will not eliminate the secret ballot.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751316400391295.html

"The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act..."

[GLW]

To get a feel for the problem with US education, you have to look at how it is administered.

In many countries, funding for Education comes from the national level. There is a National department of education, a regional one (or state/province), and then a local one. In these places, there is a very definite “reports to” hierarchy. The national department controls the ones at the lower levels.

There is also a nationally mandated form of curriculum, requirements for progressing to the next grade levels, requirements to get a High School diploma, often there is a completion diploma that is not quite as good as the HS diploma (sort of like a GED – basically – in those places, the easier one means that you cannot go on to University unless you go back and get the harder one). There is testing that is not the old number 2 pencil standardized computer test (in many of those countries, the tests DO cause a large amount of stress…and yes, even depression and suicide – among students).

Also, in many of those countries, there is a two track system. You know pretty early on – say middle school – if you are on the University or Trade School track. In many of those countries, ‘unskilled labor’ does not exist.

Now, in the US, the Department of Education provides guidelines and funding…but aside from money, they really don’t have much local control. Each state has its own Dept. of Education…and then you get into Independent School Districts….and THOSE are funded by Fed. Fund filtered through the state…by student head count, State funds filtered from the state by head count, and the biggie – property taxes.

The schools in rich areas – yield more in property taxes – and – big surprise, have bigger school budgets.

The “School District” thing is a VERY big deal for real estate markets.

In Texas, for example, there was a big deal about Robin Hood funding. Basically, it was the state saying that the richer districts had to give some of their money to help fund schools in the poorer districts.

Talk about a big stink…the richer districts were angry because they could not see why their tax dollars should not be spent in their district.

The true solution to this would be to model the system after nations that actually show a higher level of education quality – meaning more like Canada, those in Europe, etc… but that would mean that the real estate folks would lose one of their selling points…and that schools could actually be built to serve areas without the old socioeconomic issues.

What does that mean…

Well, in Texas, for example, if there were an unincorporated housing area…new expensive homes…and they did not want to be associated with “those” people – defined however you wish to do that one---it HAS been used quite negatively for as long as I have been on the planet… -- Well, said area would then work to incorporate and form their own Independent School District (ISD)…to keep their kids, money, etc… in their area and away from what they considered the ‘bad element’

In the end, you end up with an imaginary line in a city…on one side of that line, the kids go to a school that has great facilities and small class sizes… and on the other side of that line, you have kids that are being bussed 3 times the distance to a school that is way down the list of quality...

And on top of that, you have those who want to pull their tax dollars out and use vouchers.

Personally, I don’t want a voucher. My daughter is in a private school. It is more convenient for our jobs and allows her to be picked up by grandma. The school by my home would cost almost as much in after school care and not afford the family bond.

I have been at my home since 1985..my daughter is in second grade…so, I have been paying school taxes 24 years. Of that time, only 3 years have I had a real interest in what the schools would be about. Now, the people who live in the apartments a mile away from my home still have their kids attend the same school my daughter would go to if she went to public. They do NOT pay school taxes…they rent and the taxes are on property. Also, the apartments do not pay them…they are commercial property and it is a loophole.

So, the funding is inequitable…but, personally, I don’t have a problem with paying it and don’t want a voucher. I view it as my duty to support education. However, if I were to be given a tax break on tuition, I would use it… But personally, I think that there should be a tax break on all education – (pre-K through University) as well as a tax break on all child care. Education and children SHOULD be a priority in a thriving society.

[BoulderDawg]

Originally Posted by Reality_Check
Just trying to put the stake into the heart of the "people who don't pay income taxes don't contribute" canard that you have been pushing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1bad65
I've never said that.


Yes, you did.

Whoa!!! Looks like someone got slapped down hard!

[Drake]

"The gates of Auschwitz were not opened with peace talks. Holland was not liberated by peacekeepers and fascism was not defeated with a deft pen." -- Rick Mercer

[bakxierboxer]

Well keep in mind 40% don't pay any income taxes. So I don't consider that fair either.

The problem I have with certain people not having to pay taxes others do, is that they can vote to raise other people's taxes, while they don't even have to pay any themselves.

Ahhhhh....... don't go forgettin' that !@#$%&^^blasted
"Earned Income Tax Credit"!

[Drake]

It's all pretty simple... the more you expect the government to provide you, the more taxes you pay. If you think about it, this does eventually, at the far end of the spectrum, lead to socialism, as you pay more and more of what you make in return for government services.

Not sayin' we're there... I'm just sayin'...

[bakxierboxer]

Please, for the last time, Obama is not a socialist under the definition of the term used by socialists!

???????
So, why is it that Obama/"the Feds"/etc now claim that the Gummint/"the People" now own 80% of AIG and most of the other heavily-bailed-out operations?

*************
Answers.com
socialism n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
*************

Every single stastic I have ever seen for any country in the western hemisphere has suggested a steady decline in birth rates over the last century. So I am afraid that is incorrect.

A "first world" malady due to some amount of narcicism,
"cost-of-living"/raising-children, and availability of birth-control and abortion.
Most of the "first world" (particularly Europe) is reproducing a good bit below "replacement-rate" (@1.5/couple). The US is only slightly below "replacement" rate. (@2.13)(no, I don't know where they got their numbers)
(and that is "for no good reason")

Illiteracy is an issue with the under-funded education system and not with the number of children parents have.

US illiteracy is not due to underfunding of the educational "system". If anything it is over-funded.
The "educational establishment" is the source of "all that is bad/wrong" with it... and inter-operates/cooperates quite nicely with the various levels of gummint.
TRULY STUPID theories are used to "educate" kids these days.
One such "system" is "educating for social justice".
There are many others of approximately equal levels of worthlessness.

That is... unless the education system in the USA has become entirely privatized - in which case an inability to pay for school for all children could lead to family size having an effect on literacy rates.

To date, the majority of private education schools available within the communities cost less and do more.
Many of these are "parochial schools", some are "charter schools", etc. Of course, "prep-schools" that target getting their students into the Ivy League Unis are "another matter".

Stop writing about things you know nothing about.

[David Jamieson]

How does ownership of a percentage of a few failed businesses amount to socialism?

please answer that.

you can't be "a little bit" socialist. You either are or you aren't. Does your community own your business? Are you paid by the central government? Any of you work under that model?

If not, then you aren't socialist and you aren't even moving towards it.

There is definitely a requirement for a new model taht will function properly in the US as far as governance goes.

If you can't see that your system is broken, then you are either dumb, ignorant or willfully ignorant.