Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Quote:but if someone had a $300,000 mortgage and all of a sudden the minimum wage was repealed and the standard pay became $3 an hour, there is no way they could pay their mortgage they already have...The bank won't refinance because they already put out the $300k and they want it back
If someone has a $300,000 mortgage and can only earn $3 an hour then there is a problem.
Quote:But wasn't the entire apeal that he was going to be a candidate that was above the influence of big banks because he didn't need them? Basicly all the jargin about him being a new politician and above doner influence was balony he just has the funding to last longer than everyone else. Shocker
He was an outsider.... that's a fact, but now since he took over the party as an outsider, now he's getting party support. Pretty simple.
Quote:So that would replace public education, transportation and postal services?
I don't think they intend to go to that level, but here I would call it Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the thousands of welfare programs at every level of government.
Quote:I don't think they intend to go to that level, but here I would call it Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the thousands of welfare programs at every level of government.
Probably still comes out better in the long run.
Quote:Probably still comes out better in the long run.
That's why it's intriguing to me, it could solve some of our underemployment problem at a lower cost and still enable us to remove the growth inhibitors currently holding us back.
Now, Donald says he may support more taxes on the rich, along with raising min wage.
What's next ? Bernie for VP?
Quote:Now, Donald says he may support more taxes on the rich, along with raising min wage.
What's next ? Bernie for VP?
LOL that wouldn't even surprise me at this point.
Quote:If someone has a $300,000 mortgage and can only earn $3 an hour then there is a problem.
Thats back to the part where we were talking about if the minimum wage was repealed and the companies decided that was all they were going to pay employees
Quote:I fully support public unions. You absolutely have a say in the negotiations. You vote for the people who make the decisions. Workers ought to have a right to collectively bargain. Even public workers.
This is a big part of why I'll never vote Libertarian again. Their idea that almost everything needs to be privatized. The private sector isn't going to make things better. Competition doesn't make everything better. If it did, we'd see much better internet services in the U.S. than we see now. For our society to truly work, some things just can't be fully privatized. Education is a big one. It's too important, because it's about more than just making sure people can get a job. I know we'll never agree on this issue, but that's exactly why I won't be a libertarian. I can't budge on the issue of education. It's too important to me. Not because my wife is a teacher, or that I have kids in the public school system. But because I want to live in a country where every student has a good opportunity to get an education instead of going to some for-profit school that's just looking out to make a quick buck from desperate parents.
I agree that we spend too much money. When I was a conservative, I was a conservative because I felt we needed to reign in spending. But some of it is money well spent. That's a big part of what moved me left. I'm more than happy when my tax dollars are spent on something like education, police, or health care. Not so happy when it's spent on corporate welfare, or getting into yet another expensive war.
Do you really think government education has improved in the last 50 years? At best it has stagnated, but now colleges are talking about eliminating algebra because it's too hard.
Competition is absolutely necessary. In your example, internet services are essentially local monopolies, there is no competition to make them better. When AT&T had a government-enforced monopoly of telephone services there was little change. Western electric had a government-enforced monopoly on telephone receivers. Until that monopoly was ended there was only one style of telephone, no night lights, no redial.
It's not just government that stagnates without competition, everything does. But government is in a position where it's rare to have competition, so stagnation is very evident there. NASA is a big example I've used before. Since the fall of the Soviet Union (NASA's competition) there has been nothing new developed. They are even going back to using capsules. Government contractors also fall into this category. Charter schools are not any better than government schools because they are government contractors. On the other hand, private schools almost always outperform government schools, and usually do it on a lower budget. If you want to argue this point, you might want to check out where politicians send their kids.
Government agencies can sometimes face competition and improve because of it. I used NASA as an example. The US postal service improved a lot once FedEx started overnight mail delivery. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of examples here.
Newly created government agencies can work for a while even without competition. The EPA did some good work in the beginning. But the TSA shows that even this doesn't always work.
Competition is not absolutely necessary for improvements. Yes, public education has improved over the last fifty years. Yes, they've gotten away from the conservative indoctrination values that people so love. But it's made a lot of improvements. Americans are in fact smarter now than they've ever been.
Private schools only succeed where they do because they can choose to accept only the best, and they can kick students out for any reason at all. Public Schools can't be as selective. In fact they have to take students who were kicked out of private schools as well. Private Schools furthermore have the socioeconomic advantage over public schools. When you account for socioeconomic factors, Public Schools actually perform better. There's a good reason for this. Public School Teachers are required to perform professional development.
If Private Schools were forced to accept students like public schools do, you'd find them doing far poorer.
It was also found that those who attended private schools had the advantage of early education. At the Kindergarten level, the private school students perform better, but by the time public school students reach 5th grade, they've passed them.
Also math scores have been going up over the past 25 years, only taking a dip last year.
As for internet... a town in Oregon provides 100 mbps internet to the residents of their town. This is faster internet than most places in the United States (and certainly faster than here). They don't work with profit in mind, instead only seeking to meet costs. They charge only $40/month for those speeds, which is far faster than you'll find anywhere else. Government seeks to improve because of it's citizens, rather than because it's profitable. I can't even get 10 mbps from Verizon, and I pay $30/month. They'll never bring fios into this area, because it's simply not profitable. Nobody will.
Quote:Competition is not absolutely necessary for improvements. Yes, public education has improved over the last fifty years. Yes, they've gotten away from the conservative indoctrination values that people so love. But it's made a lot of improvements. Americans are in fact smarter now than they've ever been.
Private schools only succeed where they do because they can choose to accept only the best, and they can kick students out for any reason at all. Public Schools can't be as selective. In fact they have to take students who were kicked out of private schools as well. Private Schools furthermore have the socioeconomic advantage over public schools. When you account for socioeconomic factors, Public Schools actually perform better. There's a good reason for this. Public School Teachers are required to perform professional development.
If Private Schools were forced to accept students like public schools do, you'd find them doing far poorer.
It was also found that those who attended private schools had the advantage of early education. At the Kindergarten level, the private school students perform better, but by the time public school students reach 5th grade, they've passed them.
Also math scores have been going up over the past 25 years, only taking a dip last year.
As for internet... a town in Oregon provides 100 mbps internet to the residents of their town. This is faster internet than most places in the United States (and certainly faster than here). They don't work with profit in mind, instead only seeking to meet costs. They charge only $40/month for those speeds, which is far faster than you'll find anywhere else. Government seeks to improve because of it's citizens, rather than because it's profitable. I can't even get 10 mbps from Verizon, and I pay $30/month. They'll never bring fios into this area, because it's simply not profitable. Nobody will.
Almost every private school I know takes a more proportional amount of low income students vs higher income students because of voucher programs. The idea that private schools are ivy league schools only taking rich smart kids is ludicrous, they're populated with lower income students. It's not easy to get your kids into private schools so I believe one of the bigger advantages is parent involvement. On the average you're going to find parents more involved with their kids school at a private school (since it takes a large parent involvement to get their kids in).
Most private schools do not require an entrance exam for admission, they require it solely for placement. You're acting like the entrance exam is a standard for attending the school, maybe in some higher end private schools but most private schools are religious institutions that run on a low budget and don't turn away students for low scores, they place them in the proper grade instead of pushing them through the system.
Quote:Competition is not absolutely necessary for improvements. Yes, public education has improved over the last fifty years. Yes, they've gotten away from the conservative indoctrination values that people so love. But it's made a lot of improvements. Americans are in fact smarter now than they've ever been.
Private schools only succeed where they do because they can choose to accept only the best, and they can kick students out for any reason at all. Public Schools can't be as selective. In fact they have to take students who were kicked out of private schools as well. Private Schools furthermore have the socioeconomic advantage over public schools. When you account for socioeconomic factors, Public Schools actually perform better. There's a good reason for this. Public School Teachers are required to perform professional development.
If Private Schools were forced to accept students like public schools do, you'd find them doing far poorer.
It was also found that those who attended private schools had the advantage of early education. At the Kindergarten level, the private school students perform better, but by the time public school students reach 5th grade, they've passed them.
Also math scores have been going up over the past 25 years, only taking a dip last year.
As for internet... a town in Oregon provides 100 mbps internet to the residents of their town. This is faster internet than most places in the United States (and certainly faster than here). They don't work with profit in mind, instead only seeking to meet costs. They charge only $40/month for those speeds, which is far faster than you'll find anywhere else. Government seeks to improve because of it's citizens, rather than because it's profitable. I can't even get 10 mbps from Verizon, and I pay $30/month. They'll never bring fios into this area, because it's simply not profitable. Nobody will.
You must work for the VA right?
Quote:I don't think they intend to go to that level, but here I would call it Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the thousands of welfare programs at every level of government.
Maybe I'm not reading it right, but are you saying Social Security is a welfare program?
Quote:I have to say, my dear friend. This is a new low for you.
You said, "Eisenhower believed in common sense regulation and livable wages." I said, okay if you want to go back to a dollar as the minimum wage then that's fine (what it was under eisenhower). I also stated correctly that he would not look too kindly on the idea of prosecuting any group that denied AGCC or threatening a state because it puts boy girl signs on bathrooms.
Your new assertion of my IRRATIONAL BIAS is your belief that the only meaningful indicator of economic growth is the increase of the federal minimum wage to inflation?
If i ever start smoking, i want what u got cause it MUST BE GOOD!
Typical jj... Deflect, demean, dissassociate.
Defelct - You change the discussion the moment your pinned down and shown to be wrong.
Demean - you make personal insults to make yourself feel better. (I do this too, though, and at times I find the banter fun. So I'm not gonna call too much attention to that)
Dissassociate - Pretent that the point that was blown apart was not the point you were making...
I mean, come on, jj. What are you even talking about now in regards to the bolded?? We're clearly talking about the purchasing power of the dollar then compared to now. The purchasing power has gone down based on the neo-con supply side economic model. But again, once your exposed, you're gonna deflect and disassociate the topic in order to try and gain the upper hand, or wiggle out of being exposed for being wrong.
But whatever... Let's move on. Anchorman 1, jj 0... :-)
You don't like the minimum wage, but it's clear that its something Eisenhower (a sensible republican) was in favor of...
Quote:Management (politicians) and Labor (government employees) in collusion against ownership (the taxpayers).
In theory that sounds actually very scary. That's not what actually happens though, in reality. Look at teachers. The management v. labor stuggle is real. And to be honest, it's not the teachers that are causing the issues. It's management... Believe it or not. No child left behind and common core are management created problems...
Quote:Competition is not absolutely necessary for improvements. Yes, public education has improved over the last fifty years. Yes, they've gotten away from the conservative indoctrination values that people so love. But it's made a lot of improvements. Americans are in fact smarter now than they've ever been.
Private schools only succeed where they do because they can choose to accept only the best, and they can kick students out for any reason at all. Public Schools can't be as selective. In fact they have to take students who were kicked out of private schools as well. Private Schools furthermore have the socioeconomic advantage over public schools. When you account for socioeconomic factors, Public Schools actually perform better. There's a good reason for this. Public School Teachers are required to perform professional development.
If Private Schools were forced to accept students like public schools do, you'd find them doing far poorer.
It was also found that those who attended private schools had the advantage of early education. At the Kindergarten level, the private school students perform better, but by the time public school students reach 5th grade, they've passed them.
Also math scores have been going up over the past 25 years, only taking a dip last year.
As for internet... a town in Oregon provides 100 mbps internet to the residents of their town. This is faster internet than most places in the United States (and certainly faster than here). They don't work with profit in mind, instead only seeking to meet costs. They charge only $40/month for those speeds, which is far faster than you'll find anywhere else. Government seeks to improve because of it's citizens, rather than because it's profitable. I can't even get 10 mbps from Verizon, and I pay $30/month. They'll never bring fios into this area, because it's simply not profitable. Nobody will.
I find the part in bold very hard to believe. Children taught in schools 50 or more years ago have made huge significant accomplishments. Man on The Moon, internet, computer development... those are just a few things that come to mind.
I currently work around a bunch of young people fresh out of high school, and they are the most uneducated, clueless that I've seen in a long time. They certainly know how to "google", but put them in an environment where they have no access to the internet, a computer or their smart phone and they just can't solve problems. Keep in mind, these are military personnel that are new and are being trained to do a very important job that requires them to use their mind. Most of them are between the ages of 19-21 or so. The facility that they train in is classified and secured. No tablets, no smart-phones, no internet, no recording devices, etc.
When we just "chat" about almost anything, they know quite a bit about "pop culture", but know very little about history (especially fairly recent history) or geography (both pretty important for them to do their job proficiently). Their mechanical aptitude and basic physics, again important for them to do their job is very low.
Quote:Maybe I'm not reading it right, but are you saying Social Security is a welfare program?
No, you're not reading it right. It's a social program but not a welfare program.
Quote:In theory that sounds actually very scary. That's not what actually happens though, in reality. Look at teachers. The management v. labor stuggle is real. And to be honest, it's not the teachers that are causing the issues. It's management... Believe it or not. No child left behind and common core are management created problems...
You do realize that we spend more on public education than any other nation on Earth, right? Who is benefiting from all that money? The teachers and the bureaucrats who constantly get more and more in exchange for their voting block.
First off, Switzerland spends more. Jj was wrong, once again...
Second of all, the costs of education are not winding up in the hands of labor-- the problem lies with management, not the teachers.
I know most would like to think that the union is colluding with the politicians, but that's simply not happening.
The politicians don't give one rat's Heineken about the public service workers. They are too busy making deals with those that can grease their palms.
In the case of education, I'd look towards the book publishers, test creators, and the private companies that are being contracted by the different government education agencies. That's where the waste, corruption, and collusion is occurring.
Scapegoating the teachers is a defection in order to confuse the public on what is really happening.
We spend a large part of our educational budget on non-instructional items such as security, which other countries don't. That's why we spend more per student than most other countries.
Also, I'd say we've made quite a few advancements in technology. These things take time. The internet took many years to develop and come into it's own. Before long we could put a man on Mars. The development of robotic limbs has come a long way too, which will help amputees and paralyzed patients. And they'll be able to control these limbs with just their minds. A lot of developments have been in improving on technologies we already have. 3D Printing has really come a long ways.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16