Who here supports the current administration?

[SuperJerk 0]

Why not discuss that genocidal rant, you know- over at the Pit.

I've already paid my dues trying to argue with Marney. She knows what I think of her.

[I like Forums 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

[SuperJerk 0]

John Kerry was the worst presidential candidate since Hubert Humphrey.

In no way was Kerry the worst candidate since 1968. Hell, Kerry wasn't even the worst major party nominee since 1968.

 

McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Dole were not only worse campaigners, but also did much worse in the general election.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As for gays, there's still alot of people that hate fags. Its just the truth.

 

JustPassinBy: Artist's Conception

 

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

Profit motive. There's nothing advantageous for anyone if everyone has the same opportunities. The part that truly bugs me is that the same jokers who will fight to the figurative death for the rights of the unborn don't give two shits about the unborn after the un- prefix is dropped.

[Guest Felonies!]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector? Also, pumping more money into public schools won't make us a more educated society. We'll just have more laptops.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector? Also, pumping more money into public schools won't make us a more educated society. We'll just have more laptops.

Possibly. But also, you can get people better and more text books, get them more computer literate with those laptops, and increase teacher salaries and maybe even work on the buildings. And as for the health care thing, the US pays the most for health care in the world but doesn't get the best results, so government run health care doesn't look too bad to me. At least as long as it isn't run by this administration

And yes, my dad's training is out of date, but he found some kind of device he could work with before he got his current job, I doubt only one company in the greater Boston area works at fixing them

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector?

 

We have the most privatized health care system in the developed world, yet we spend the most on it (12% GDP) and have poorer public health outcomes (examples: infant mortality, life expectancy) than countries that spend far less. We also end up devoting far more resources to administrative costs. For example, Medicare (govt. run) devotes 98% of its resources to providing health care and uses only 2% for administration.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

As for gays, there's still alot of people that hate fags. Its just the truth.

 

JustPassinBy: Artist's Conception

 

 

More like...

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Moot point, since neither Ralph Wiggum or AJ Styles seem particularly intelligent.

[SuperJerk 0]

I wish I had a nickel for every time Snuffbox mentioned Barry Goldwater.

With that kind of money you could start trickling down on people.

 

I have to give you your due for that one. Good job.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector? Also, pumping more money into public schools won't make us a more educated society. We'll just have more laptops.

 

No doubt. If you want to improve public schools, make teachers accountable for their students passing. Make districts accountable for how they spend grant money. i think thats what No Child Left Behind is helping to achieve.

 

I live in Chicago, and Chicago spends more money per student than any other place in the state, and their schools for the most part are still horrible. And its not the teacher's pay either. I have a finance degree and my teaching buddies make more money out of college than I do. They start out at like 40,000 a year in Chicago, for a public school teacher.

 

As for the guy complaining about his dad not having enough skills to get a job, well welcome to the club. I've got to compete with people with MBA's, so I pretty much have to go to graduate school to get the job that I want. Thats just how competition is. It makes people better.

 

If everyone was the same, there'd be no incentive to improve your lot in life.

 

I'll never vote for higher taxes. Shit, when I was making 8.50/hr and saw the govt taking 25% (thats just about the lowest tax bracket there is), that just totally turned me off. F that. You expect me to pay even more when I make more money? Hell no.

 

Do I care about the people without medical insurance? No.

Do I care about the ultra poor? No.

Do I care about poor schools? No

Do I care about my pay check, and how the govt affects my life? Yes. The only thing the Govt needs to do is protect me (defense), and provide a basic infrastructure (roads). Thats it. I dont need any special hand outs or programs, and I dont want my personal hard earned dollars going to someone else.

 

Call me selfish, but thats just the way it is.

 

The Govt isnt some charitable organization. And I love charitable organizations, and people that volunteer their own time and effort to helping others are awesome. But I disapprove of being forced to give my money up (in the form of higher taxes), for causes I do not care about.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector? Also, pumping more money into public schools won't make us a more educated society. We'll just have more laptops.

 

No doubt. If you want to improve public schools, make teachers accountable for their students passing. Make districts accountable for how they spend grant money. i think thats what No Child Left Behind is helping to achieve.

 

I live in Chicago, and Chicago spends more money per student than any other place in the state, and their schools for the most part are still horrible. And its not the teacher's pay either. I have a finance degree and my teaching buddies make more money out of college than I do. They start out at like 40,000 a year in Chicago, for a public school teacher.

 

As for the guy complaining about his dad not having enough skills to get a job, well welcome to the club. I've got to compete with people with MBA's, so I pretty much have to go to graduate school to get the job that I want. Thats just how competition is. It makes people better.

 

If everyone was the same, there'd be no incentive to improve your lot in life.

 

I'll never vote for higher taxes. Shit, when I was making 8.50/hr and saw the govt taking 25% (thats just about the lowest tax bracket there is), that just totally turned me off. F that. You expect me to pay even more when I make more money? Hell no.

 

Do I care about the people without medical insurance? No.

Do I care about the ultra poor? No.

Do I care about poor schools? No

Do I care about my pay check, and how the govt affects my life? Yes. The only thing the Govt needs to do is protect me (defense), and provide a basic infrastructure (roads). Thats it. I dont need any special hand outs or programs, and I dont want my personal hard earned dollars going to someone else.

 

Call me selfish, but thats just the way it is.

 

The Govt isnt some charitable organization. And I love charitable organizations, and people that volunteer their own time and effort to helping others are awesome. But I disapprove of being forced to give my money up (in the form of higher taxes), for causes I do not care about.

 

 

First of all, my condolences to you for getting a finance degree. Apparently you weren't required to take any classes where they taught you about how social problems like education, narrow distribution of wealth, and health care ultimately effect everyone, not just the immediate victims. However, let me assure you that while Chicago may pay starting teachers $40000 a year (which I doubt), your income potential over the course of your entire career will excede theirs by 2-10 times as much.

 

Second, market forces can't fix education. Kids aren't assembly line products. You can't fix a kid by opening a more efficient new factory. A multitude of factors goes into how well they do in school, some of which actually involve the kids and their parents instead of the teachers. Kids and parents get off the hook way to often for poor school performance. Teachers' hands get tied because administrators are pressured by parents to be lenient (its always someone else's kid who is the problem, not theirs). That's not to say that there aren't bad schools, but the number of bad school districts has been exaggerated by the media, and parents and kids themselves have been completely let off the hook for the problems they've caused. I'd love it if I worked at a private school where I was allowed to expel every kid who misbehaved, had a learning disability, or came from a poor home, but public schools don't have that luxury.

 

Third, its a wonderful theory that adversity builds character, and that people can improve their lives just by working harder, but its just that. Its a theory. There's a huge class of working poor in this country who simply don't get the same opportunites everyone else does.

 

Fourth, do you know what would probably happen if all taxes were repealed tomorrow? You'd have more money, but if the same amount of products and services were avaialbe for you to spend your money on, then businesses could charge you more for those products and services. You'd be no better off.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

I'm surprised people wouldn't accept more taxes if it meant that everybody could afford medical care and better public education. A healthier and more educated society is a BETTER one. How could you not want that?

What's your guarantee that the government will do a better job with health care than the private sector? Also, pumping more money into public schools won't make us a more educated society. We'll just have more laptops.

 

No doubt. If you want to improve public schools, make teachers accountable for their students passing. Make districts accountable for how they spend grant money. i think thats what No Child Left Behind is helping to achieve.

 

I live in Chicago, and Chicago spends more money per student than any other place in the state, and their schools for the most part are still horrible. And its not the teacher's pay either. I have a finance degree and my teaching buddies make more money out of college than I do. They start out at like 40,000 a year in Chicago, for a public school teacher.

 

As for the guy complaining about his dad not having enough skills to get a job, well welcome to the club. I've got to compete with people with MBA's, so I pretty much have to go to graduate school to get the job that I want. Thats just how competition is. It makes people better.

My dad is/was basically a repairman. He's not looking for anything high end. And no, college has largely ruined my life and burned me out worse about most topics, so I would disagree with your "makes people better." I also know that standardized tests never hold up against what a real teacher can do with their own students. Every teacher I've ever heard speak on the subject, heck, everyone not in the government has always said teaching to the test is the worst. I had an AP History class in high school that was nothing but note taking, pretty much, because the teacher wanted us ready for the test and after the AP test the class pretty much fell apart, we never really got to discuss history, which to me is the most interesting part of learning about it. Please excuse my randomness, it's getting kinda late here and well, this is the way I am, pretty much.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Y2Jerk pretty much nailed it on the head. Kids aren't a commodity. They're people too. Like I said, you want to talk about human life being so damned special, give a damn about the kids after they're born.

[EricMM 0]

I hope just passin by sticks by his name and lives up to it, by leaving soon.

 

I don't hate his opinions, I hate his attitude.

 

The "money is the root of all good" attitude.

 

The "money is the root of all solutions" attitude.

 

The market will fix almost nothing except a market place.

 

The school, the environment, these are not markets.

 

The cheapest solution will lead to greaters, more expensive problems.

[Guest Felonies!]

JustPassinBy is coming off a little boorish here, but he's right that the government isn't some panacea that will elevate our society to new highs by jacking up the taxes.

 

"Democrats are the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."

 

Pretty much true

[snuffbox 0]

'justpassinby' is giving off a real Gimmick vibe.

[I like Forums 0]

Its a real shame that he doesn't care that people out there are suffering terribly and they can't afford medical treatment just because they are poor.

 

Poor people aren't real people, they don't have feelings. Lets all turn our backs and maybe they'll just go away.

[SuperJerk 0]

I hope just passin by sticks by his name and lives up to it, by leaving soon.

 

I don't mind an honest disagreement, as long as it doesn't turn into a flame war.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Fourth, do you know what would probably happen if all taxes were repealed tomorrow? You'd have more money, but if the same amount of products and services were avaialbe for you to spend your money on, then businesses could charge you more for those products and services. You'd be no better off.

 

You are basically implying tax cuts would lead to inflation.

I'd disagree with that as would many other economists.

 

But to bring up another point, I find it ironic that Liberals are actually seen as "anti-corporations", when in reality Libs need corporations to make money in order to reap the benefits of all that double taxation revenue.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Its a real shame that he doesn't care that people out there are suffering terribly and they can't afford medical treatment just because they are poor.

 

Poor people aren't real people, they don't have feelings. Lets all turn our backs and maybe they'll just go away.

 

I dont hate poor people. I dont hate anyone. I'm apathetic towards every group of society except maybe gays since I'm opposed to gay marriage. However, if people want to vote on it and more people favor it, then so be it. Majority rules in this country. Hopefully they put Abortion to a vote, as well as gay marriage. Let the people decide.

 

However, I just dont think government should be used as a charitable organization.

 

Let the Church, Habitat for Humanity, United Way, Red Cross, and private organizations do those things.

 

"Distribution of wealth"....we already have that in the form of progressive taxes. If you want to truely make things fair, make everyone pay the same rate, and give them the option of paying into Social Security/Medicare, or letting the people keep their money and invest it themselves.

 

I'm sorry if all the liberals here cant take brutal honesty. Sorry for putting a dent into the myth of the "protect my guns, hate minorities" conservative stereotype. But more average GOP people think as I do. I think most just care about taxes and national defense.

[SuperJerk 0]

Nothing you're saying isn't anything I haven't heard before.

 

My view is that what you are describing is basically the way things were prior to the Progressive movement in American history. Pragmatically speaking, it didn't work then, and there's no reason to think returning to that level of government involvement in the economy would be beneficial now. There's a reason for government involvement in the economy. An increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years is directly related to the government taking on the burden of enforcing fairness in the economy. Allowing market forces to work unimpeded by government action (regulation for the common good) has already been proven a failure by history.

[EricMM 0]

Oh no, no...

 

You're living up to conservative stereotypes, alright.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Nothing you're saying isn't anything I haven't heard before.

 

My view is that what you are describing is basically the way things were prior to the Progressive movement in American history. Pragmatically speaking, it didn't work then, and there's no reason to think returning to that level of government involvement in the economy would be beneficial now. There's a reason for government involvement in the economy. An increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years is directly related to the government taking on the burden of enforcing fairness in the economy. Allowing market forces to work unimpeded by government action (regulation for the common good) has already been proven a failure by history.

 

Monetary policy (setting the interest rate), the FDIC...I fully agree we need those. I'm against more of the social regulations such as EPA guidelines, Affirmative Action quotas, that sort of thing.

[SuperJerk 0]

I hope you're not going to try and argue that environmental regulations are unnecessary.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Apropos of nothing, my governor was indicted today. Another day, another Republican politician indicted.

[NoCalMike 0]

Nothing you're saying isn't anything I haven't heard before.

 

My view is that what you are describing is basically the way things were prior to the Progressive movement in American history. Pragmatically speaking, it didn't work then, and there's no reason to think returning to that level of government involvement in the economy would be beneficial now. There's a reason for government involvement in the economy. An increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years is directly related to the government taking on the burden of enforcing fairness in the economy. Allowing market forces to work unimpeded by government action (regulation for the common good) has already been proven a failure by history.

 

Monetary policy (setting the interest rate), the FDIC...I fully agree we need those. I'm against more of the social regulations such as EPA guidelines, Affirmative Action quotas, that sort of thing.

 

So I guess not only do you not care about the poor, and the uninsured, but you hate the planet too? Splendid.

 

I find it hilarious and ironic how a lot of conservative folks like to ignore problems such as poverty and the rammifications of it, yet fail to realize or just ignore the plain and simple fact that poverty causes much bigger long term fiscal issues.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Wait, wait, I thought all those people holding up liquor stores and joining gangs were Harvard MBA graduates. Are you trying to tell me they might be poor, uneducated, and with no prospects for a better life as a result of government at all levels giving up on inner cities?

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Nothing you're saying isn't anything I haven't heard before.

 

My view is that what you are describing is basically the way things were prior to the Progressive movement in American history. Pragmatically speaking, it didn't work then, and there's no reason to think returning to that level of government involvement in the economy would be beneficial now. There's a reason for government involvement in the economy. An increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years is directly related to the government taking on the burden of enforcing fairness in the economy. Allowing market forces to work unimpeded by government action (regulation for the common good) has already been proven a failure by history.

 

Monetary policy (setting the interest rate), the FDIC...I fully agree we need those. I'm against more of the social regulations such as EPA guidelines, Affirmative Action quotas, that sort of thing.

 

So I guess not only do you not care about the poor, and the uninsured, but you hate the planet too? Splendid.

 

I find it hilarious and ironic how a lot of conservative folks like to ignore problems such as poverty and the rammifications of it, yet fail to realize or just ignore the plain and simple fact that poverty causes much bigger long term fiscal issues.

 

There will always be poor people just for classifications purposes. If the median income of the US goes up, they'll just raise the poverty line threshold. So there will always be some percentage of people living below that line.

 

There will always be 'poor' people. If there are 'rich', then there must be poor as well. Its all in how you look at things.