Well, it doesn't make sense at all, to you, because I never provided the rationale for why we chose to send our kids to private school which was not the point of the conversation.
Remember - you said you were "sticking your nose in" to this discussion. Then you offered your commentary. I read it and responded with a question - which you chose not to answer.
I provided personal data to address inefficiencies that you said were the reason for public schools creating inferior "products". Schools do not produce "products" they help to develop PEOPLE that are contributing members of society.
I'd disagree. Perhaps products isn't the best term - but, service would certainly fit the bill. Education is undoubtedly a service. However, in the sense that I meant it - like this definition -
product
Definitions (3)
1. A good, idea, method, information, object, or service that is the end result of a process and serves as a need or want satisfier. It is usually a bundle of tangible and intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers to a buyer for purchase.
Perhaps looking at schools as a place to help our children grow and develop would be a great first step in understanding why schools are not and should not be a BUSINESS.
I agree that schools are a place to help our children grow and develop. But, that's not all. They are also there so children will be "productive" adults. At the end of the day, they deal with money - there are costs and revenues - in that sense, they are business-oriented. Ignoring that is ignorant.
The entire point of my contribution to your conversation was to state that private schools will, of course, create better students because they can pick and choose from the best.
It's odd that this was the point of your contribution since you didn't include anything on this last time. Actually, you said the main difference was parental involvement. Which led me to ask the question that you didn't answer - why would you pay to send your child to private school when you work in the public school system and you said the only difference is parental involvement, and you would be involved anyway if your child went to public school. That still doesn't really make sense.
Private schools, unlike public schools, can toss kids out on their ear for the least infraction, public schools have to continue to create new and better ways to deal with kids who have no parental support, were born addicted to drugs, have multiple mental and/or physical handicaps that must be addressed to make them creative, lifelong learners and whatever other mission statement is currently en vogue.
Are you 100% sure that public schools can't toss kids out? I think they can.
Private schools, unlike public schools, can force parents to be involved with homework, attend open house, attend parent/teacher/student conferences, volunteer to work within the classroom, chaperone field trips, be a part of the PTA, and help teachers in all ways asked because public schools have to offer up free food and prizes to get the parents in the door.
How exactly does a private school "force" parents to be involved? I know a lot about private schools and never saw this forced action you're claiming. Moreover, I don't see how this forced action is any different from what's forced at public schools - other than the end of your last sentence - which has to do with the quality of parents.
If it doesn't make sense, at all, about my statements about why we send our kids to private school then I assume you have no conception of how public and private schools differ, other than one is tax-payer funded and one is not. Economics may be a fundamental question when looking at any of life's situations but it is NOT the only question to consider.
Like you, I have a personal experience with both, so I'm quite sure I do have a conception on how they differ. I still remain confused at how this was an answer to the question I posed. Why did you send your child to private school?
The burden of proof is on both sides, and I've referenced facts when you've rebuffed me when I've asked for you to back up your claims. I think the person who initiates the claim should also be the first to back that claim up, but I don't stick to that rule hard and fast.
I'd say - no, you haven't referenced facts - or rarely have - probably less so than I have to you. You ask a lot of questions. Which is fine - I mean this is a place for that. But, you rarely actually supply data when asked... instead you try to change the subject and ask more questions. Sorry, don't agree that you "back up your claims" even most of the time on here.
I've never said that large government is great, but it's understandable that you would think that, since you view things in black and white. Therefore, since you view yourself as a smaller government guy, your black and white thinking pushes me to the opposite of you, which must mean I'm a big government guy.
I don't view things in black and white. But, I do know you prefer large government from our previous discussions because you consistently, undeniably defend it and rationalize why it's preferred. Running away from who what you've said in the past is odd. Why be ashamed of being labeled "big government"?
I've asked for more facts from you, rather than examples. I doesn't seem that unreasonable for me to ask that of someone whose slant in here is 98% based in the opinion that the private sector is always better than the public. I did see that you brought up the post office again.
No, in fact, you orginally asked for an example. Re-read the thread. But, regardless... the thing with you is you ask and ask and ask. Re-read the thread. First you asked for an example. I gave you one. Then you ask for more specifics. They've been provided. It's never good enough. It's retarded to continue to engage with someone who obviously isn't in the discussion for any purpose other than to "argue".
Maybe the first sentence doesn't make sense to you because you didn't give an example of when something was shifted from the government to the private sector?
No, it didn't make sense because it was horribly written and was incoherent.
I agree the tax code is burdensome. I'll also make the claim that that is how people want it. People want to escape taxes. I'm sure if a flat tax was put in place that all of your 'small government' buddies would join hands in a circle after they found out that they can't deduct their IRA contributions and mortgage interest
Do you really think that's how people want it? I do think "some" people want it this way to escape taxes. My thought - when taxes get too high, people try to dodge them in higher frequency. This has been empirically proven.
I'm fine with no deductions, personally.... and I have no "small government" buddies. I have a lot of friends who most likely have a ton of varied political ideologies, but I rarely talk politics with any of them because I think it's not appropriate to bring up.
I have given data in other discussions, and nearly every time you attempt to say the numbers aren't related to the discussion or you try to say the measurement device is invalid. The unemployment rate discussion is a good example of this (which is now 8.1%).
That's cute how you attempt to label me 'ashamed' of being labelled big government. This is another example of your black and white thinking. You try and label people and say they are opposite of you just because they may disagree with you on certain topics. The whole pom-pom thing is an example of that. I think you first started it with me when someone was talking about how Romney will win the election. I disagreed with that, pointing out polling data and historical trends, and you quickly dismissed it as pom-pom waiving.
The only specifics you've referenced in this thread is to suggest that fedex and ups do a better job that usps. I did ask for more, because it seems like since it's such and obvious fact to you, it should be easy.
I'll ask another question to finish, Using actual numbers and data, how do you decide if we Americans are being taxed too much? At what point does the tax rate go from reasonable to unreasonable?
I have given data in other discussions, and nearly every time you attempt to say the numbers aren't related to the discussion or you try to say the measurement device is invalid. The unemployment rate discussion is a good example of this (which is now 8.1%).
That thread your citing was a discussion started by yours truly on the unemployment rate and whether it was believable. People offered up their opinions. I brought up the labor force participation rate and explained why it was important. You didn't agree and argued it wasn't. So, no, in fact, you responded to someone else with another opinion. But, I'll give you this - you did use data there I suppose in response to me using data.
That's cute how you attempt to label me 'ashamed' of being labelled big government. This is another example of your black and white thinking. You try and label people and say they are opposite of you just because they may disagree with you on certain topics. The whole pom-pom thing is an example of that. I think you first started it with me when someone was talking about how Romney will win the election. I disagreed with that, pointing out polling data and historical trends, and you quickly dismissed it as pom-pom waiving.
Well, actually - I just asked a question - why would you be ashamed of being labelled big government? You didn't answer the question. Would you not admit that you've fallen on the side of defending that particular ideology pretty much consistently? Seems to me you have.
As for the pom-pom reference, I toss that out because you, gimme and usmamasan, for example, come across as partisans. I do it when the person is coming across as a partisan in what they are writing. I don't single people out though, unless I've read enough of their posts to get an idea of where they fall. All three of you tend to support every single thing that the Democratic (Republican) party supports, whether you admit it or not. Or, better yet, you argue in that line of thinking pretty much consistently. My analysis - I'd say you're not quite to the level of the latter two, but you're close - you just like to argue more. The point on pom-pom waving isn't to say anything more than this - why can't people gain some insight into the fact that both parties are flawed. On a rare occasion, why can't someone such as yourself come down on the side opposite of the Democratic party? When it happens I'll take note and hold my keyboard back next time I see support of Dem stuff.
What I am saying here is not to say one needs to abandon principals - not in the least, it's to say both parties present opportunities for even those who fall into that ideology to criticize them - hard. That doesn't happen from a few on here - you're one. Personally, I've never seen you do criticize the Democratic party or I can't remember you criticizing any of their party faithful. Hence - why I've deduced you have pom-poms in hand. Just my thoughts since you raised the subject.
The only specifics you've referenced in this thread is to suggest that fedex and ups do a better job that usps. I did ask for more, because it seems like since it's such and obvious fact to you, it should be easy.
Let's go back in time. You asked for an example. I gave you one. Then you asked for how they do a better job. I explained why - citing better shipping services, more economical, etc.. Then you said that wasn't good enough and needed more. And then I explained USPS is broke and the others aren't. That was our discussion. Now you're asking for more .... again, after the first two times.
I'll ask another question to finish, Using actual numbers and data, how do you decide if we Americans are being taxed too much? At what point does the tax rate go from reasonable to unreasonable?
This is kinda what you do and is changing the subject back again, but whatever... I'll bite...
I think that's certainly an individualized answer. Every person has their own answer for what's reasonable and unreasonable. That said, I think if you looked at that and analyzed it people's thoughts, you'd see there's a way to get at what's "unreasonable" for the majority. Also, probably more important, you'd find there's a point at which government begins to lose revenue from increasing taxes. Look up the Laffer Curve.
At some point taxes (regardless of how the populace answers the "reasonable/unreasonable question) get so high that some dodge them. Others work with special interests to find ways out. There's a reason for loopholes. There's a reason for the "red tape". These things go with bureaucracy.
Comments
Remember - you said you were "sticking your nose in" to this discussion. Then you offered your commentary. I read it and responded with a question - which you chose not to answer.
I'd disagree. Perhaps products isn't the best term - but, service would certainly fit the bill. Education is undoubtedly a service. However, in the sense that I meant it - like this definition -
product
Definitions (3)
1. A good, idea, method, information, object, or service that is the end result of a process and serves as a need or want satisfier. It is usually a bundle of tangible and intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers to a buyer for purchase.
Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z264aj9Gw8
...fits with education. But, this is just semantics.
I agree that schools are a place to help our children grow and develop. But, that's not all. They are also there so children will be "productive" adults. At the end of the day, they deal with money - there are costs and revenues - in that sense, they are business-oriented. Ignoring that is ignorant.
It's odd that this was the point of your contribution since you didn't include anything on this last time. Actually, you said the main difference was parental involvement. Which led me to ask the question that you didn't answer - why would you pay to send your child to private school when you work in the public school system and you said the only difference is parental involvement, and you would be involved anyway if your child went to public school. That still doesn't really make sense.
Are you 100% sure that public schools can't toss kids out? I think they can.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/education_law/expell_public_school.htm
How exactly does a private school "force" parents to be involved? I know a lot about private schools and never saw this forced action you're claiming. Moreover, I don't see how this forced action is any different from what's forced at public schools - other than the end of your last sentence - which has to do with the quality of parents.
Like you, I have a personal experience with both, so I'm quite sure I do have a conception on how they differ. I still remain confused at how this was an answer to the question I posed. Why did you send your child to private school?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I have given data in other discussions, and nearly every time you attempt to say the numbers aren't related to the discussion or you try to say the measurement device is invalid. The unemployment rate discussion is a good example of this (which is now 8.1%).
That's cute how you attempt to label me 'ashamed' of being labelled big government. This is another example of your black and white thinking. You try and label people and say they are opposite of you just because they may disagree with you on certain topics. The whole pom-pom thing is an example of that. I think you first started it with me when someone was talking about how Romney will win the election. I disagreed with that, pointing out polling data and historical trends, and you quickly dismissed it as pom-pom waiving.
The only specifics you've referenced in this thread is to suggest that fedex and ups do a better job that usps. I did ask for more, because it seems like since it's such and obvious fact to you, it should be easy.
I'll ask another question to finish,
That thread your citing was a discussion started by yours truly on the unemployment rate and whether it was believable. People offered up their opinions. I brought up the labor force participation rate and explained why it was important. You didn't agree and argued it wasn't. So, no, in fact, you responded to someone else with another opinion. But, I'll give you this - you did use data there I suppose in response to me using data.
Well, actually - I just asked a question - why would you be ashamed of being labelled big government? You didn't answer the question. Would you not admit that you've fallen on the side of defending that particular ideology pretty much consistently? Seems to me you have.
As for the pom-pom reference, I toss that out because you, gimme and usmamasan, for example, come across as partisans. I do it when the person is coming across as a partisan in what they are writing. I don't single people out though, unless I've read enough of their posts to get an idea of where they fall. All three of you tend to support every single thing that the Democratic (Republican) party supports, whether you admit it or not. Or, better yet, you argue in that line of thinking pretty much consistently. My analysis - I'd say you're not quite to the level of the latter two, but you're close - you just like to argue more. The point on pom-pom waving isn't to say anything more than this - why can't people gain some insight into the fact that both parties are flawed. On a rare occasion, why can't someone such as yourself come down on the side opposite of the Democratic party? When it happens I'll take note and hold my keyboard back next time I see support of Dem stuff.
What I am saying here is not to say one needs to abandon principals - not in the least, it's to say both parties present opportunities for even those who fall into that ideology to criticize them - hard. That doesn't happen from a few on here - you're one. Personally, I've never seen you do criticize the Democratic party or I can't remember you criticizing any of their party faithful. Hence - why I've deduced you have pom-poms in hand. Just my thoughts since you raised the subject.
Let's go back in time. You asked for an example. I gave you one. Then you asked for how they do a better job. I explained why - citing better shipping services, more economical, etc.. Then you said that wasn't good enough and needed more. And then I explained USPS is broke and the others aren't. That was our discussion. Now you're asking for more .... again, after the first two times.
This is kinda what you do and is changing the subject back again, but whatever... I'll bite...
I think that's certainly an individualized answer. Every person has their own answer for what's reasonable and unreasonable. That said, I think if you looked at that and analyzed it people's thoughts, you'd see there's a way to get at what's "unreasonable" for the majority. Also, probably more important, you'd find there's a point at which government begins to lose revenue from increasing taxes. Look up the Laffer Curve.
At some point taxes (regardless of how the populace answers the "reasonable/unreasonable question) get so high that some dodge them. Others work with special interests to find ways out. There's a reason for loopholes. There's a reason for the "red tape". These things go with bureaucracy.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="