ok conservatives

[cockdezl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ok conservatives

What do you think is the alternative to public education? private education? privating the entire educational system? Well, that's already been proven to be a failure. A few weeks ago in the TIMES, there were statistics showing that test scores from school systems that had been privatized were no higher than the test scores from public schools. Perhaps, one solution to cleaning-up public schools is attracting bright minds which, in turn, requires higher pay.

I find no problems in giving tax vouchers for education, so that families that wish to put their children in private schools may do so. This would allow for a transition, since all parents would not pull their children away from public education. Then we could see who would win out in a more even playing field, private education or public.

I have not read the article, but I am skeptical, (in fact when you stated that it is a proven failure, I knew I smelled shit) especially since I am a graduate of a private school in a city that has a very strong private education system, New Orleans. Parents have two options in New Orleans, put your kid in public school, which gives a great prison preparatory program, or private school which sends a large percentage to college. Also, since the demand for a good education in N.O. is so large the market has produced schools that are not outrageously priced; my father was a mechanic, not a doctor or lawyer that are so often believed to be the sole users of private education.

You mentioned that the article showed that this study showed that the two institutions faired the same in scores, but did it look at cost per student. Most statistics show that private education does significantly better at a much lower cost per student, thus shooting holes in your argument that the solution is increased pay for the shitty results. What I find most interesting is the fact that studies are showing that home-schooling is often times outperforming both private and public education at a fraction of the cost. These kids are routinely whipping ass and taking names in National Spelling Bees, Geography Tournaments, Science Fairs, etc.

As for welfare---didn't President Clinton enact welfare reform legislation that has drastically reduced the number of Americans receiving welfare benefits?

Then why didn't he cut my taxes with all of this new money that he freed up with his welfare reform?

 

[RyanH]

RYAN, why can't a CEO make outrageous amounts of money? If the company decides that person is worth "x" amount of dollars, why should they not be able to pay them "x"? Also, what do you believe a starting salary should be for the lower rungs in a company? Give us a salary ballpark.

Fine, allow CEOs to make whatever the board of directors decides they ought to earn. However, the quid pro quo is that investors ought to have FULL disclosure as to a corporation's financial condition, and a corporation ought to provide its employees with a living wage and fair benefits. In addition, corporations should pay their fair share of the tax burden and pay for the environmental messes they leave behind. If a corporation expects fair treatement--it must give fair treatment in return.

But RYAN, remember that statistics show that the majority of personal income tax is payed by these same high payed CEO's, which then goes to support the hand-out programs that you so love.

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

If a person works for WalMart for 20+ years and stays at bag-boy level, the what the fuck was he/she doing? People do move up the ladder if they stay and work hard. They may not become Bill Gates or Sam Walton, but they do move up.

Are you forgetting the we are living in the era of corporate "downsizing"---a synonym for firing dedicated employees to avoid paying respectable retirement salaries? Hard work and productivity is not always rewarded, which is why it's the government's role to see that it is. If not the government, then who else will protect the employee's interests? Unions? Well, they've been under Republican attack for years now.

 

[spentagn]

Maybe a part-time employ will draw 130 bucks per week. Have you tried supporting your family off that salary, Spentagn?

Umm, yes. For going on two years. Plus I pay for school. And my apartment. Have you ever done any of this? It's easy to be liberal with other people's money.

 

[RyanH]

Have you ever done any of this? It's easy to be liberal with other people's money.

that's what I thought when President Bush started talking about building multi-billion dollar missile defense shields, at taxpayer expense.

 

[spentagn]

that's what I thought when President Bush started talking about building multi-billion dollar missile defense shields, at taxpayer expense.

He pays taxes, too. Even more than you. Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

 

[RyanH]

He pays taxes, too. Even more than you. Thanks for avoiding the question, though.

I'm always eager to answer relevant questions.

 

[cockdezl]

Fine, allow CEOs to make whatever the board of directors decides they ought to earn. However, the quid pro quo is that investors ought to have FULL disclosure as to a corporation's financial condition, and a corporation ought to provide its employees with a living wage and fair benefits. In addition, corporations should pay their fair share of the tax burden and pay for the environmental messes they leave behind. If a corporation expects fair treatement--it must give fair treatment in return.

I have no problem with corporations being held accountable for things that are PROVEN hazards, not things that are not proven, such as your assertion that the automotive industry should be forced to produce cars that the US does not wish to buy, due to boogey-men such as ozone depletion and global warming.

Also, you have never stated what is a "living wage". This is a relative term and has no meaning, since one person can do fine on a wage, while another could not make ends meet. How do you guarantee a "living wage" when you cannot control how that person spends their money? My wife and I make near six figures, but we don't have the spendable cash that some of my friends have who make less. This is due to debts that we have incurred from schooling and frivolous items. And since we make more than your beloved "poor" we are penalized for our productivity, with higher taxes. Yet your "poor" purchase items that I do not have the ability to buy. And lets not forget that my child is penalized since his inheritance shall be raided by your beloved "grave robber" tax.

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

I sure am, and I support it whole heartedly, but you still forget that the top 1% of wage earners still pay the majority of all income taxes. Loopholes are the legal equivalent of what your "poor" do all the time when they get things like "earned income credit" and never pay any income taxes. Why is it OK to steal from one to pay for another? Why is the collective good better than the individual good? If you don't understand this, then you will remain a socialist forever, and a threat to freedom.


Are you forgetting the we are living in the era of corporate "downsizing"---a synonym for firing dedicated employees to avoid paying respectable retirement salaries? Hard work and productivity is not always rewarded, which is why it's the government's role to see that it is. If not the government, then who else will protect the employee's interests? Unions? Well, they've been under Republican attack for years now.

I am not forgetting about this, I recognize that this happens all the time, but why should the majority be penalized for the misfortune of the few? The above does not happen to the extent that you wish to believe, so why should everyone else be forced to pay for this? The number of programs that you wish to provide for will only burden the middle class even further and drive them further into economic despair. But I forget, this will increase the Democratic vote, since they will be the answer to all the world's ills.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: ok conservatives

For instance, conservatives allege that "government should remain out of our lives."

Wrong as usual. You shouldn't try to speak for conservatives, you are way out of your lane.

We do advocate a smaller, more efficient govt that focuses on constitutionally mandated responsibilities, such as the common defense. Establishing a Homeland Defense Dept is supposed to eliminate redundancy found in various depts now. Whether or not that is the case remains to be seen.

 

[Prometheus]

Are you familiar with the multiple loopholes available for any savvy high-paying tax payer?

name one.