Dark Lord Potter Forums
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Donate to DLP PatronusCharm Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2012, 02:36 PM   #21
Solomon
God of Magic
 
Solomon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Minnesota
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,744
Send a message via AIM to Solomon Send a message via Skype™ to Solomon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perspicacity View Post
Aside from embracing "faith-based" economics, Today's Republicans have all signed onto Norquist's infantile and asinine tax pledge, which is so extreme as to equate closing loopholes with a tax "hike."
Funny thing about this. Grover Norquist was actually on the Daily Show in a correspondent piece and as a proper interview with Stewart himself, and in one of those he revealed that he came up with the pledge in seventh grade. Literally middle school. There's a reason it's an immature, irrational pledge: because it's the brainchild of an immature, irrational person.
Solomon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 04:32 PM   #22
Lindsey
Order Member
 
Lindsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 447
Send a message via Skype™ to Lindsey
I consider myself more Republican(Well more libertarian) than Democrat, but I do not hesitate to vote for the Democrat party when needed.

I would rather have a health care system similar to Switzerland than a completely public health care system such as Sweden. Switzerland has some of the lowest taxes in Europe, everyone is guaranteed health care as insurance companies cannot reject them plus they have very little wait in the hospital. (I've had personal experience on that front... -_-) It's also reasonably cheap to pay with cash.

It's one of the reasons I hesitate to vote as a Democrat sometimes, as they just want to help the poor, hurt the rich... but completely forget about the middle class. (Which, to be fair, the Republican party does as well sometimes).

Going back to the original point...

I like the Republican party based on what their original beliefs are. But if we don't get these stupid idea of "God-must-be-in-every-aspect-of-government", they are going to fail. I think we are already seeing this split. College students and the new generation are turning more Libertarian, while new parties, the Tea Party, are forming for the crazy religious.

Maybe this means we will get a middle of the line Republican party, and just the crazy tea-party on the side. Who knows?

Just my opinion though.
Lindsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 05:55 PM   #23
cazten
Fifth Year
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ca
Age: 25
Posts: 198
Well, let's look at this methodically, then. It's not like various concepts in various countries haven't been tried, and you'd need to invent everything from scratch.


'Bureaucracy changes'. How much bureaucracy do you need? Getting rid of it altogether directly contradicts 'bring in relevant programs', because you need someone to set that framework and tell them what relevant programs are. Without some sort of framework, every school would do whatever it pleases (or worse, what its principal pleases), which means some people luck out and other people grow up learning "in the beginning there was god".

The government sets that framework, but of course that means you need an agency to work out what the framework is. It's slow, ineffective and bureaucratic, and forces schools to do things they might not want. But without it, see above.


There's no doubt some sort of standard must be reached. My issue is how much of it exist today. To many administrators and to many levels. The entire reason our spending increases take so much to make a difference is how many times it gets sucked up before it reaches a single kid. I wont pretend to be an expert but watch a few documentaries, a few articles. It's easy to see the bias in all of them and which party affiliation they lean toward. Its also easy to see regardless of political leaning they both agree to much money gets sucked up where it shouldn't. Another example of where real people come together on a single issue, just not the politicians.

'Funding changes'. Education is expensive. And despite what you say, there is a correlation between money and educational standards. More teachers, more modern equipment, more special facilities. The ideal school has friendly, talented and motivated teachers, classes of 15 to 20 or less, spacious buildings and facilities and all the newest tech stuff, to be able to foster all sorts of talents and interests. That costs a lot of money.

I agree on many points. But i disagree on the "more modern equipment". Equipent should work. It shouldnt be broken. It should always be functional and there should be as much as possible to facilitate all the children in the tasks they need to accomplish. But having a microscope with an extra 50x zoom isnt going to make them smarter. Having brand new books every few years is ridiculous. Colleges across the country still use Stewart Calculus as the standard since before I was born. Nothings changed. Almost no information in ANY of these books ever change, but my god is the education system sure in the pockets of the book producers to waste money on it year after year.

And as far as good friendly teachers I would love to see that. To bad they're rare to come by and we get stuck with the shitty ones we cant fire from the teachers unions.

There are two ways to get that money, currently: either the government (=everyone) pays for it with tax money (which, of course, directly implies there has to be enough tax money to go around), or the people sending their kids to the school pay for it. In the latter case, the ballpark estimate is a thousand bucks a month (at least here).

Obviously, that doesn't work for people who don't have that kind of money. So unless you are of the "fuck the poor" R-wing, I don't see an alternative to the former way of funding: Which is nothing else than rich people subsidising education for the poor ones, so that everyone can have one.


Rich people subsidize poor people on every government service. Just how the game works when they pay extraordinarily more more in taxes regardless of the tax rate. That I'm not crying over as it'd be the same case even if tax was flat rate. One thing that may interest you is that schools all over the country pay different rates per year for children. Numbers is the realm of $6000-$14000. I could be a little off I'm going off approximate memory. There's also a very striking pattern that the states diverting the highest fund amount very often do not correlate to the highest performing schools.


'No summers off'. I dunno where this one came from, but I can tell you it's there for a reason. Both children and teacher need a break. The length of it is debatable, I guess (but everyone who thinks that teachers actually have the entire summer off is hopelessly naive).

I'll telly you the reason, Summer breaks in America started as a means for children to have harvest season off to help the family farms. Many countries across the world have long abolished this practice and stick their kids in school for an extra 25% of the year. It's long outdated. This is less a shot at telling teachers to get back to work and more aimed and not dragging our kids behind the curve.

'Get competitive'. Sure. It'd be nice to be able to compete with the best educational systems in the world for once. Invest in more teachers to make the classes smaller, offer more money to the position to attract the best people, -- ohwait-

'wax teacher unions contracts that makes it impossible to get rid of these tards'. How nice of you to show what you think of teachers. Of course, those tards make all way to much money. If only we could fire them, then we'd have better ones. Fucking tards.

No, you idiot. Since education is an investment into future economic growth and wealth, you want the very best people to be interested in this job, not the leftovers that couldn't find anything else. The job of a teacher should be the most important and revered in society. Your 'tard' conception is part of the problem. Being a teacher is an insane job, it's surprising that there are even people left willing to do it: You're not just responsible for teaching, but you're also supposed to be some kind of parent-substitute for hordes of children from broken families, unable or unwilling to properly raise their kids, so in the end, it's you trying to raise 30 kids and trying to give them love, hope, and manners -- and if you aren't doing it, no one will.


You completely misinterpret my intent, but ill clarify my view and do it without slinging derogatory comments at you in return. "Tards" was aimed at the crappy teachers we cant fire, not all. I absolutely think teachers should be payed more. We don't invite enough talent into the system anymore. But we also have serious serious problems in not being able to get rid of bad teachers which make enormous long lasting impacts in child education. Ever heard of dance of the lemons? Apparently that's how schools have to deal with shitty teachers, look it up.

To me the teachers union has to big a grip. They are there to protect teachers, not students, which is understandable. But our government has the ability to barter with them on union contracts and not just piss the children away as an afterthought. If they wont compromise pull a Raley's. Till them to piss off, wait for shit to expire and hire outside the union. Unions can offer alot of benefits to both the employee and employer, but for some reason when it involves the govt its never a very good deal for the employer- the people.

Inability to fire or remove bad teachers is not a weak understatement. It's a huge issue. Hell it even makes it on liberal cable channels and john stewart show bashing our inability to get rid of these people. And half the time we remove them from a classroom they just go to a holding building, with union mandated pay, sitting around doing nothing as they wait for their "trial" to determine the outcome of whatever reason they got sent there which takes two to three times as long as typical civilian court trials and still has a terribly low firing rate. They sit there for YEARS.

I remember reading articles about the head of the education board in Washington DC i believe who offered teachers pay based on performance up to $100,000 a year I think it was. A figure double of what they made on average. The union destroyed it because it wasn't fair. I personally think pay based on merit is fantastic. Why on earth do I work hard and try to deliver better performance than my peers if not for career advancement. Competition, $$$, is an amazing motivator. It speaks something to me when it's the unions squashing this ability for advancement. Not all people and workers are created equal, I want the best, and yes I'm even willing to PAY for it if required. At least it would finally be an area where more money gave me directly view able results.

So TL;DR, throwing out phrases like 'reform' and 'less bureaucracy' and dissing teachers might get you applause at your average retard convention, but it's meaningless drivel that's worth nothing. And actually, that's the case everywhere. Simple solutions are simple because they're wrong.

Simple solutions aren't always wrong, they're just to transparent for politicians to pull the wool over others eyes.

Education:

"Horse, Water, Drinking.... and all that"


No matter how much effort is put into achieving excellence in the educational environment, the final goal is to educate the student, and if the student is unwilling to be educated then all your effort goes to waste.

So the focus should always be on figuring out how to get students motivated to learn. Spending huge amounts of money getting the latest infrastructure, expensive teachers is usually in my opinion a waste of money.

The quality of education is independent of weather you write term papers or type them. What the educational systems need to instill in students is the spirit of inquiry and deep thought. All this can be achieved with a modest expenditure of money, not that much more than we spend now. What we should be doing more of is encouraging parents to become proactive in their child's education. Reducing time dedicated to video games and TV.

And yes, never having dealt with kids, I admit I don't actually know how to get them motivated, but it seems to me that not enough people acknowledge the actual problem, but shout out solutions.


Absolutely agree. Involvement of parents and many outside forces is directly responsible for the incredible performance of many schools like KIPP and others who all smoke rich kids from the crappiest ghettos in the country on a shoe string budget. Imagine what these kids may be able to do with top tier funding. I'll spend the money, it's an investment in my countries future. But I'm not spending it until I see the system adopt approaches that really work and learn from those who have bettered the education system here at home and across the world.

Just lol. America isn't policing the world. You're not engaging in moral wars. If you were, you'd be all over Africa, not the Middle East.

The US military looks out for US interests (and the interests of the US aerospace and defence sector).

You may think that these wars are horribly expensive any without benefit, but the managers of Lockheed Martin disagree. They can feel the benefits to the US "people" in their pockets. The US's wars are essentially a regressive tax: a redistribution of income away from the population at large and into the pockets of high-level employees at Lockheed, Boeing, BAE (because factory floor guys definitely aren't seeing that money).


I don't disagree with you for a second. I do get annoyed with the amount of money we send overseas in the billions. We can consolidate many of our overseas bases. I'm tired of paying off countries in the middle east to like us or not go to war with Isreal, but that in its self are vastly complex issues.

It's an interesting notion that we pay billions for all this incredible weapon advancement, but what good are these weapons if they are not being ordered for use? Its a self perpetuating system that drives the war machine and it should come at no great shock that many of the CEO's of these defense contracted companies are cycling in and out of top government defense positions just like top world bank ceo's move in and out of the Federal Reserve to screw us there.

Aside from embracing "faith-based" economics, Today's Republicans have all signed onto Norquist's infantile and asinine tax pledge, which is so extreme as to equate closing loopholes with a tax "hike." This hardline stance and the consequent obstructionism is what's driving Congress's 7% approval rating. The moderate Republican in me (I'm an independent today) is appalled that we can't even have a conversation about our idiotic tax code, which allows our largest and wealthiest corporations and people to dodge their tax obligations, without charges of "class warfare" being thrown about. Hell, end the loopholes and tax credits for everyone, the average American is out a few hundred bucks, but America's $1.2T fiscal deficit turns into a $100B surplus overnight.

Agreed. The incredible polarization blows my mind. I think we all forget that this great document everyone believes to be sunshine out the assholes (the US Constitution) was a document created entirely of compromise. Having 1 president was a compromise. Have three sections of Govt was a compromise. Having both a senate and a house was a compromise. EVERYTHING was a compromise.

Yet I believe to my gut the Republicans in congress today to would throw away the most incredible budget compromise Democrats could throw there way, well in favor of conservatives, over $100,000 to planned parenthood.

As it comes to taxes, I'm not as blind to think that we can just lower everything at it will be fine and dandy. Tax cuts require spending cuts. This is where we get in a mess, Democrats give us tax cuts in return for spending increases and social programs. How that is supposed to work out in any way besides higher national debt is beyond me. There's no doubt that at some level BOTH higher taxes and severe spending cuts are required not just to balance the budget, but reduce the debt.

But tax cuts do and have worked at created a healthy economy. Just because the Bush era tanked doesn't mean its the fault of taxes. There was a severe economic meltdown that landed squarely in Bush's term, and it was being propagated both by him and well before his time in office by previous administrations. Both parties contributed a lot to a problem that people were screaming about from the roof tops well before. But the American people didn't want to hear it... They liked the artificial boom and skyrocketing house value.

The real issue on the table today is if severely raising taxes is the right course of action to take in a depressed economy. I'm sure sure there's enough literature on this to fill up more books than we'll ever read from both sides. My personal opinion is no.

As a side note Im really enjoying this forum. It's nice to be able to discuss ideas and thoughts on generally high tension issues in a civil manner. Degenerate name calling and threats which usually becomes of all political discussions, over the internet or in real life, utterly ruins the fun and critical thinking aspect of learning. If more people across the country were as willing to listen to and or consider different ideals than they started with we'd have a lot more compromise and possibly a lot more advancement in both economic prosperity across the income ranges, National growth, and social welfare.
__________________
[CENTER][/

Last edited by cazten; 07-21-2012 at 06:05 PM.
cazten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 08:07 PM   #24
Inquisition
Headmaster
Canadian Ambassador to Japan
 
Inquisition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Camelot
Gender: Male
Posts: 921
DLP Supporter Donor Star


Go, Team Socialism. /uninformed opinion
__________________
~ cold night | ʇɥbıuʞ ɯɹɐʍ ~




Inquisition is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 08:11 PM   #25
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!
Avatar
 
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The middle of fucking nowhere.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
continuous text eyesore
Multi-quote is your friend.
__________________
KHAAAAAAAAAAN!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 09:32 PM   #26
cazten
Fifth Year
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ca
Age: 25
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by KHAAAAAAAAAAN!! View Post
Multi-quote is your friend.
Lol i was in a rush to get out and multiqoute kept breaking. I italisized it instead. Oh well /End Thread was a fun run.
__________________
[CENTER][/
cazten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 09:43 PM   #27
calutron
Death Eater
 
calutron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 552
Threads never end, not if trolled appropriately.
calutron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 10:35 PM   #28
WalkingDisaster
God of Magic
 
WalkingDisaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Rural Connecticut.
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
Lol i was in a rush to get out and multiqoute kept breaking. I italisized it instead. Oh well /End Thread was a fun run.
Oh you poor, delusional soul.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eilyfe, Ruminating on Reptile eRections
<Eilyfe> If Harry's penis is a snake, can he whisper sweet nothings in parselmouth to excite it?
I edit my posts way too damn much.
WalkingDisaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2012, 10:42 PM   #29
Zennith
Avatar
 
Zennith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Big City
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
I consider myself more Republican(Well more libertarian) than Democrat, but I do not hesitate to vote for the Democrat party when needed.

I would rather have a health care system similar to Switzerland than a completely public health care system such as Sweden. Switzerland has some of the lowest taxes in Europe, everyone is guaranteed health care as insurance companies cannot reject them plus they have very little wait in the hospital. (I've had personal experience on that front... -_-) It's also reasonably cheap to pay with cash.

Switzerland's health care system is really, really far from what Libertarian's want... they want a completely for-profit system where this mythical "Competition" keeps costs down. So you really can't say you're a libertarian if you support a system such as exists in Switzerland.
__________________
Nope.
Zennith is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 07-22-2012, 07:53 AM   #30
GiantMonkeyMan
Professor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
It's one of the reasons I hesitate to vote as a Democrat sometimes, as they just want to help the poor, hurt the rich... but completely forget about the middle class. (Which, to be fair, the Republican party does as well sometimes).
Democrats and Republicans don't give a shit about the working class or what some call the 'middle'. They are both parties that cater to their own brand of rich.

Vice wrote a relatively interesting article on the growing number of right-wing libertarians (or at least those who identify with conservative economics and liberal social politics). Personally I believe that young people in America are increasingly aware of the contradictions of capitalism and want to step out of the dem-rep binary that doesn't seem to do anything but make certain people richer (hence, Occupy being just as full of Ron Paulites as hippy liberals). What they fail to realise is that private business can fuck you over just as much as public bureaucracy and in fact do so with much regularity.

Being of the political persuasion that I am, I would prefer to do away with any opportunity for the state or ruling class to exploit others by getting rid of the concept of private property, the accumulation of capital and wage slavery. But if I'm going to be forced to live in capitalism I would much prefer an elected state to have powers of regulation than I would a private company to be allowed to do whatever they want in the name of profit. Some multi-nationals already pretty much operate without any regulation, I wouldn't want to give the other businesses the chance to follow suit.
__________________
I haven't read Marx's Capital, but I have the marks of capital all over my body. -Big Bill Haywood
GiantMonkeyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 09:00 AM   #31
wolf550e
Death Eater
 
wolf550e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 530
DLP Supporter Donor Star
RE: education (I know the thread moved on from the topic, but it's important).

This former US high school teacher has interesting stories to tell (he has since published a book): http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/co...6lye?context=3
wolf550e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 09:54 AM   #32
Taure
God of Magic
~Soap Box~
 
Taure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,005
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Yeah, tax is definitely too high, especially on the rich.

They certainly haven't removed at least $21T from the global economy, due to tax loopholes.
Taure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 10:16 AM   #33
Perspicacity
God of Magic
Rosicrucian
 
Perspicacity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Elsewhere
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,688
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
As it comes to taxes, I'm not as blind to think that we can just lower everything at it will be fine and dandy. Tax cuts require spending cuts.
They really don't. Keynesian theory would argue that government spending should increase during recessions. The idea is that you run up deficits in the short term in order to shorten and shallow recessions and generate more revenue down the road to pay down debt during the boom times. There is substantial empirical evidence that this is a valid strategy for lessening suffering during bad times--one might even argue the lengthy "double dip" recession the US economy faced after the stimulus expired and we dabbled with austerity as evidence supporting this premise.

The problem with Obama's stimulus package was not that it was too big, but that it was too small and too weighted toward giving tax breaks to segments of the economy that weren't stimulative. This was part of the politicking that he had to do in order to get the thing passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
This is where we get in a mess, Democrats give us tax cuts in return for spending increases and social programs. How that is supposed to work out in any way besides higher national debt is beyond me. There's no doubt that at some level BOTH higher taxes and severe spending cuts are required not just to balance the budget, but reduce the debt.
This is a common misconception not supported by the data. If anything, it's quite the opposite: since 2000, it's been the GOP that has stuck us with programs that aren't payed for. Bush voided the concept of PAYGO and stuck us with two enormously expensive wars (funded by special authorizations and not part of the budget, else he'd have shattered every record for deficits we had), Medicare Part D, and tax cuts that turned record surpluses into record deficits. The Affordable Care Act, in contrast, has been analyzed in detail by the CBO and found to reduce the deficit by over $200B (and the number has been adjusted last March to be even more revenue-favorable for the U.S.)

A cynic would propose that this is the GOP strategy, a strategy practiced by Conservatives the world over: get power, pass policy that benefits their corporate/moneyed base and that pushes the public costs far out into the future, and then "find religion" regarding debt and deficits when the opposition takes office and use that opportunity to stonewall their programs and force austerity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
But tax cuts do and have worked at created a healthy economy. Just because the Bush era tanked doesn't mean its the fault of taxes.
A fair point, though a naive one. I guess you could say it also had a lot to do with the whole "let's not regulate anything related to the financial sector" thing, which Clinton embraced as well. Steal a hundred bucks from a convenience store, you go to jail and get assraped. Steal billions from homeowners and retirees by unfettered market speculation at "too big to fail" institutions, ones where we effectively socialize risk and privatize gains, and you're a "job creator".

Since Reagan, we went from an economy that's 30% manufacturing, 10% banking, to one that's 10% manufacturing and 30% banking. Somehow, big finance, that vast segment of the economy, has sold the notion that unlike virtually every other sector of the economy, despite the drumbeat of out-of-control investments that lose billions at a shot, they don't need no stinkin' regulation. This is why in the wake of the biggest financial collapse in nearly a century, years after passage, we still can't even get a vote in the Senate on an administrator to oversee the federal oversight. Business as usual: two guesses on which group is stonewalling this.

Capitalism without oversight is inefficient. You need someone to manage negative externalities so that the real cost of goods and services is incurred by those providing them, and you need someone to break monopolies. In the U.S., the law that is supposed to do the latter is the Sherman Antitrust Act which, unfortunately, has not been enforced in any real sense for decades and has been watered down by bizarre court interpretations of the law, drawing distinctions between "coercive" monopolies and "innocent" ones, e.g.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
There was a severe economic meltdown that landed squarely in Bush's term, and it was being propagated both by him and well before his time in office by previous administrations. Both parties contributed a lot to a problem that people were screaming about from the roof tops well before. But the American people didn't want to hear it... They liked the artificial boom and skyrocketing house value.
Bush had over seven years before the collapse, much of that time with his party controlling both houses of Congress, to make modest changes to the system to slow down all that hot money being dumped into the markets by real estate derivative speculation and the like. In those days, the veto power was not abused like it is today, so he could easily have passed regulations to fix things had he wanted. It was a conscious decision on the part of his administration and their ideological allies to not do anything. Saying "the Dems are equally at fault" is highly disingenuous. All the signs were there that a collapse was imminent and that things weren't sustainable. A conscious decision was made to let things be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cazten View Post
The real issue on the table today is if severely raising taxes is the right course of action to take in a depressed economy. I'm sure sure there's enough literature on this to fill up more books than we'll ever read from both sides. My personal opinion is no.
Most Americans feel that the wealthiest aren't paying their fair shares. I paid 27% of my income in federal taxes the same year Romney paid 14.9%. That doesn't strike me as fair. If we opt to raise taxes, those who have benefited the most from recent cuts should be asked to contribute the most to the uptick. The so-called "job creators" have failed to create jobs, so we need to stop pretending it's their divine right to be coddled. Corporate America is sitting on $5T that they aren't spending and wealth exists in the hands of the wealthiest few. Despite historically low (for modern times) tax rates on the lower classes in the U.S., the poor really have no wealth to give, having had their investments wiped out by this crash. The average family household has lost 40% of their net worth in the last five years, after all.

As for taxes, the average Canadian household is worth about $43k more than the average American one while somehow sustaining far higher tax rates than in the U.S. It's far from axiomatic that taxes must to be low for prosperity. (After all, our most prosperous times in the U.S. were when the top tax bracket was set at 90%.)
Perspicacity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2012, 12:37 PM   #34
KaiDASH
Order Member
 
KaiDASH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf550e View Post
RE: education (I know the thread moved on from the topic, but it's important).

This former US high school teacher has interesting stories to tell (he has since published a book): http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/co...6lye?context=3
This guys writing is very entertaining - I highly recommend reading the reddit posts and his book.
__________________
KaiDASH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 03:06 PM   #35
draconian139
Fourth Year
 
draconian139's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 160
@cazten I agree that KIPP charter schools are superior to most public schools despite having a smaller budget, the problem is that they would be the exception not the rule. If we did do away with the bureaucracy, essentially giving a tax credit and having everyone choose the school their child goes to greedy corporations would setup schools and do the absolute minimum necessary to meet standards. The few schools that would be both affordable and offer a quality education would end up with incredibly long waiting lists. It would inevitably be unfair.
draconian139 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 12:36 AM   #36
Taure
God of Magic
~Soap Box~
 
Taure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,005
DLP Supporter Donor Star
Since we're on the topic of spending and taxes:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201.../free-money-2/

Yes, that's right. Right now the US government can borrow money at negative interest rates. Investors are paying the US government to hold onto their cash. Same situation in Germany, and the UK is getting there.

And all three countries are pushing absurd austerity policies at the time that stimulus is needed (with the exception of Germany - but then the rest of the Eurozone needs stimulus, so still kinda true for them too). We could be getting government spending for free but we're turning it down on an idealogical basis.
Taure is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 1 Thumb Up
Old 07-24-2012, 07:55 AM   #37
h2o
Order Member
 
h2o's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
I would rather have a health care system similar to Switzerland than a completely public health care system such as Sweden.
Its always entertaining to read something like this. The Swedish health care system is a long way aways from being completely public.

In fact, corporations based in tax havens like Jersey and Cyprus are heavily invested in Sweden where they get to own large parts of companies providing many different health care services. Recently one such company, Carema (Made over about 1,5bn $ in profits last year), came under rather heavy fire for letting its patients at more then one of their elderly homes lie all day in adult diapers full of waste due to it not weighing enough before being thrown out.

I believe the directive to its employees was to "Maximise the full use of every diaper".

Gotta love the way for-profit health care works.
h2o is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2012, 03:55 AM   #38
Relic
Professor
 
Relic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taure View Post
Since we're on the topic of spending and taxes:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201.../free-money-2/

Yes, that's right. Right now the US government can borrow money at negative interest rates. Investors are paying the US government to hold onto their cash. Same situation in Germany, and the UK is getting there.

And all three countries are pushing absurd austerity policies at the time that stimulus is needed (with the exception of Germany - but then the rest of the Eurozone needs stimulus, so still kinda true for them too). We could be getting government spending for free but we're turning it down on an idealogical basis.
He's been saying this for quite a while, and I've yet to see a conservative economist successfully refute him. I went to a lecture of his near the end of last term and he didn't quote this specific treasury data, he was explaining how debt, while impressive at #1 in the world at ~15 trillion, cannot be looked at in a vacuum but as a percentage of GDP in which case we are about 20.

And hey, if you look at the country in the #1 spot it is Japan which is STILL borrowing at insanely low interest rates. So to say that we are in a debt "crisis" is a bit overdramatic as crisis mode will only exist when there ceases to be creditors to loan money, which as the data shows will not happen even in extreme spending conditions (which no one is calling for).

This chart is just icing on the cake.

The analogy that he used in the beginning of the lecture to describe conservative economic idealogy was that of a house on fire. The kitchen is burning and burning but the tenant sees a leak in the living room so he decides to fix that, completely ignoring the fire. Now, the leak isn't small and could do some serious damage to the house in the long term, but obviously not as much or as fast as the fire.

I really can't think of a political position less substantiated than that of the fiscal policy of conservatives.
Relic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2012, 12:07 AM   #39
OneSimpleIdea
First Year
 
OneSimpleIdea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taure View Post
Since we're on the topic of spending and taxes:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201.../free-money-2/

Yes, that's right. Right now the US government can borrow money at negative interest rates. Investors are paying the US government to hold onto their cash. Same situation in Germany, and the UK is getting there.
Taure's use of Krugman in this case is definitely right. Because of the panic over in Europe, if you take into account inflation, investors are paying the US Government to hold their money in the case of Treasuries because they are scared and uncertain. Combine that with Fareed Zakaria's analysis that infrastructure in the US is old and dilapidated and infrastructure spending is at an all time low - that strongly supports the US pouring money into infrastructure spending. Another poster's thesis that Barack Obama's stimulus failed because too much of it was geared towards "relief" as opposed to "investment" and that overall it was also too small is also something I agree with.

IMO, one of the largest issues with economic understanding in the US is that the fiscally conservative position of 'deficit cutting' is equated as being synonymous with, or at least producing, short term economic growth. This is completely false - but that's why the Republican Party is able to garner so much support for their ideology focused on cutting spending. Obviously large deficits are not good for long term economic health, but if you enter a recession/crisis the first thing to do is not go around slashing programs. The French figured out this pretty quick and threw out Sarkozy and elected Hollande in his place.

Also, I'd like to give us Americans some credit by saying that the vast majority I've met personally don't believe we 'police the world'. I mean anyone who took American History in high school and had a curriculum that actually stretched past World War II/Eisenhower saw that the kind of things we sponsored in Central America (Guatemala/Nicaragua) definitely don't count as any kind of "policing" I'm aware of. We look out for our own strategic interests, "policing" countries who deliver resources that we desperately need (okay want/desire) for our economy. Still, not different from any other country that looks out for its own national interests.

If the Republican Party wants to survive (and not join the Federalist and Whig Parties) then they'll have to make some changes. They're going to have to stop depending so much on their evangelical socially conservative base and start making in-roads among minority voters. Libertarian "social" policy (as opposed to fiscal issues) would be wildly popular among voters. They also should drop the Grover Norquist opposition to any tax raises. And finally, instead of opposing government spending in all forms - encourage audits of government spent money so that things like the Government Services Administration (GSA) scandal doesn't happen again. And in general get rid of some of the "government is a big bad boogeyman" attitude that causes them to constantly try to repeal legislation (Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Financial Regulation) instead of proposing and passing it.

Portus - it's well known that America has pretty low taxes for the developed world. But we've always had low taxes in comparison. The colonists in fact paid the lowest taxes out of any population at the time (for which there is documentation) but that didn't stop us from reaching out to the French and kicking out the British (on the basis of course that we didn't have any representation in determining our lowest-in-the-world tax rates )

Last edited by OneSimpleIdea; 07-31-2012 at 12:15 AM.
OneSimpleIdea is offline   Reply With Quote


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2012 Texas Republican Party Platform Fiat Politics 4 06-28-2012 03:18 PM
Time for a New Republican Party? Xiph0 Politics 21 11-02-2008 10:57 PM
Republican Vs Republican Antivash Politics 6 10-14-2008 02:09 AM
Gay Pornstar is a Republican Giovanni Politics 18 03-15-2007 12:41 AM
Republican or Democrat during war The Duke Politics 20 09-16-2006 12:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2011 Darklordpotter.net. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.