What's with the Ron Paul bandwagon?

baraka

Ahh, I had computer issues and lost what I posted, then couldn't get back on the site! I'll try to remember what I typed.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

As for your argument about a change in the "economics of wages" due to no federal income tax, YES i think the dynamics would change. I think you would see your wages go UP. What the hell exactly do YOU think would happen?

That was the point I was making, that the dynamics would change and you said you did not understand. As for wages going up.........are you sure about that? Is your thinking that the wages would go up because corporations would have extra money on their hands? Why should they have to or want to fork out more for worker wages?

By the way, you sound hostile, no need to be. We are simply exchanging ideas and we can agree to disagree.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

As far as all your other musings about protecting the individual from corporations and such. Fuck yeah i think it is a government perogative ... a LOCAL government perogative.

What is your fascination with the FEDERAL government.
What was the last big thing they got right?
Because almost everything they touch goes bankrupt, has serious operating issues, or remains horrible at what it is supposed to do.

They got involved in housing 20 years ago, LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING.

They are supposed to "prevent inflation" (when in reality they are CAUSING IT), look at the dollar.

They are looking after your children by educating them, look how stupid most products of that system are.

They are protecting us in retirement.
Do YOU think YOU will see any SS benefits?
I know I wont!

Look, I have stated this before, but anti-government sentiments resonate with all of us. There's something about the government to offend everyone from massive defense spending to inept welfare programs. Does this mean we through the baby out with the bath water or try to reform? If government is so bad, why not do away with it entirely? Why not have no government at all. I don't think Somalia has a central gov't...... That works pretty well, doesn't it?

As far as 'what has the federal gov't ever done' and heading back to this deregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, we need to only look to 19th century America. We tried that route and it was a disaster, racism, company towns, union-busting goons, monopolies, corruption scandals, a punishing business cycle, old folks living in poverty, etc. And guess who provided the solution to these problems, Government. Food and regulation, labor laws, etc. Going back to laissez-faire capitalism is like Russia going back to communism, imo. So I turn your question back on you......why do you want to return back to 19th century America? How would it be different?

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

Hrm... The Federal government has no business in education that is for damn sure. If you think they do a good job of it you might want to look at the statistics... In one survey that took place to obtain samples of how each country stacked up the US was not even considered within the results of reading because the facilitators did not read the directions and they had to throw the results out.

Absolutely the most suicidal plank of the conservative & libertarian platform is its disdain for public education. Throw away Americans' educational levels and you throw away America's future prosperity, imo.

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

God forbid we try to defend ourselves against such things. Give people a chance to live free and you might be surprised what we are capable of.

So you don't believe that a function of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens?

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

So you don't believe that a function of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens?

The government owns me? Maybe "of the citizens" would be a better use of words.

As far as protecting my life and property I can do a fine job of that.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Absolutely the most suicidal plank of the conservative & libertarian platform is its disdain for public education. Throw away Americans' educational levels and you throw away America's future prosperity, imo.

Disdain for federal control of education doesn't mean that it cannot be state or county managed. Look at the education system the way it is now, it is a failure. Our future and prosperity is at risk with the system we have now.

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

The government owns me? Maybe "of the citizens" would be a better use of words.

As far as protecting my life and property I can do a fine job of that.

Ok, so let's say you found out through illness or whatever that a local company was poisoning yours and your neighborhood's drinking water. What would be your recourse?

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

Disdain for federal control of education doesn't mean that it cannot be state or county managed. Look at the education system the way it is now, it is a failure. Our future and prosperity is at risk with the system we have now.

I agree there is work to be done as for as public education is concerned. I'm just not so sure complete privatization is in order, not confident the free market can work this one out. There is no precedent for it. I fear there would be less opportunities for poor children to have access to education and this is usually their only ticket out of poverty. An educated society is a more successful society, imo.

I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Ok, so let's say you found out through illness or whatever that a local company was poisoning yours and your neighborhood's drinking water. What would be your recourse?

I would stop drinking the water and find another source. And maybe poison the people in charge down there with a pit full of rattlesnakes.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

I agree there is work to be done as for as public education is concerned. I'm just not so sure complete privatization is in order, not confident the free market can work this one out. There is no precedent for it. I fear there would be less opportunities for poor children to have access to education and this is usually their only ticket out of poverty. An educated society is a more successful society, imo.

I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.

An educated society is more successful no doubt, but what accounts for the failure of the current system? Big bureaucracy and government!

What makes you think that education would be completely privatized? The point is that the federal government has no business in education, but the states still very much has a stake in the process. If you enable people to have more than a few options in educating their children, then people will choose the best and only the best option will viable long term.

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

I also have concerns for state managed education when it comes to benchmarks and curriculum. For example, there has been issues in my state as for as what is taught as science. I think you know where I'm going with this.

Don't be afraid of questioning what is taught in your state schools. The thing that makes this situation desirable, even though you dont' agree with the teaching, is that you CAN have effect on state matters of education.

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

I would stop drinking the water and find another source. And maybe poison the people in charge down there with a pit full of rattlesnakes.

Ha ha, I was anticipating a lawsuit response or something. Not sure how to respond to the rattlesnake tactic. Good luck with all that!

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

An educated society is more successful no doubt, but what accounts for the failure of the current system? Big bureaucracy and government!

What makes you think that education would be completely privatized? The point is that the federal government has no business in education, but the states still very much has a stake in the process. If you enable people to have more than a few options in educating their children, then people will choose the best and only the best option will viable long term.

Options? Are you talking vouchers? So you would propose turning over public education to the states? How are you so sure they would do a better job?

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

Options? Are you talking vouchers? So you would propose turning over public education to the states? How are you so sure they would do a better job?

Couldn't do a worse job? And I have much more political power to affect state policy than I do to affect federal policy, so accountibility plays a bigger role in the job they would do.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

bringing back the good RP vibes....

Dec 16th is poised to set a world record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p774eENRP_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6I5zYu541Q

baraka

Mestophar wrote:

Couldn't do a worse job? And I have much more political power to affect state policy than I do to affect federal policy, so accountibility plays a bigger role in the job they would do.

Ok, it seems that the state already has a BIG hand in this.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school

In the USA and Canada, elementary or secondary school supported and administered by state and local officials.

United States

Main article: Education in the United States

Public-school education in the United States is provided mainly by local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local. Curricula, funding, teaching, and other policies are set through locally elected school boards by jurisdiction over school districts. The school districts are special-purpose districts authorized by provisions of state law. Generally, state governments can and most, if not all, do set minimum standards relating to almost all activities of primary and secondary schools, as well as funding and authorization to enact local school taxes to support the schools -- primarily through real property taxes. The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards. School accreditation decisions are made by voluntary regional associations. The first tax-supported public school in America was in Dedham.


So you are cool with paying state taxes to support public schools?

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

The federal government funds aid to states and school districts that meet minimum federal standards.

Thats the problem right there.
This is like where New Orleans didn't get Federal road funding for decades, because they refused to meet minimum Federal "standards" regarding the legal drinking age.

Federal "standards" can be anything the Federal goernment wants to mandate your child learns or knows, and it is big brother controling what gets taught to your kids, without any real say by you.

Thumbs down to that

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Thats the problem right there.
This is like where New Orleans didn't get Federal road funding for decades, because they refused to meet minimum Federal "standards" regarding the legal drinking age.

Federal "standards" can be anything the Federal goernment wants to mandate your child learns or knows, and it is big brother controling what gets taught to your kids, without any real say by you.

Thumbs down to that

How is that different than allowing the state to dictate what is taught or not taught? Earlier, I expressed concern for my state as it pertains to what is considered science. If my state had its way, creationism would be taught instead of evolution. So you do not think there should be any standards? Or should the standards be dictated by the state level only?

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

How is that different than allowing the state to dictate what is taught or not taught? Earlier, I expressed concern for my state as it pertains to what is considered science. If my state had its way, creationism would be taught instead of evolution. So you do not think there should be any standards? Or should the standards be dictated by the state level only?

Seriously, you could always move out of your state in protest, or raise a ruccous through marches and letter writting and local media.

Lets look at it in reverse,
what if that same issue you take odds with gets pushed through FEDERAL legislation,

what are you going to do when the Federal government tells you to study creationism?

You can laugh and say that will never happen.
But look at "abstinence only education", you wouldn't think the Federal government would be dumb enough to push that bullshit on kids, but it sure has tried, and won.

?

:(

Sometimes you have to just be willing to accept that what works isn't always perfect, but that at least fundamentaly, there is recourse.

With the Federal government your recourse approaches zero.

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Sometimes you have to just be willing to accept that what works isn't always perfect, but that at least fundamentaly, there is recourse.

With the Federal government your recourse approaches zero.

I agree with the first statement here, but it's how I feel about the gov't. The libertarians are not the first to feel outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. The rest of us know they exist and we work politically to affect change.

I would argue that with privatization and corporations your recourse approaches zero.

Oh, and I like my state, my little niche is quite liberal and progressive (college town). That's like me telling you to leave the country if you disagree with taxes

Have a good night Drifting.......

farfromglorified

prism wrote:

Exactly. thank you

doesn't it occur to anyone that thinks that they shouldn't have to pay taxes towards public education that depending on the State and the school district the per child cost per year are anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 per year? and for special needs kids the cost are even higher? I mean sure there's alot of problems that need addressing; like the need to cut administrators salaries and increase teacher salaries, but that's not even the point. so where they get this idea that all parents can fork over the needed funds for each child's education is pure fantasy. as for the parents that want and can afford a private education for their kid, well they're already do.

I think alot of RP supporters have a very myopic view that if He's elected it'll mean "less taxes for Me! I don't have to care about anyone else, and the far-reaching effects of his policies on the rest of soceity. it's all about what's in it for ME!"

Hehe...do you see the irony here?