Reading the two articles made you:
More for Obama
47.2% (25)
47.2% (25)
More for Romney
13.2% (7)
13.2% (7)
Stayed the same
22.6% (12)
22.6% (12)
other
17% (9)
17% (9)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Julia: two visions of a citizen's relationship to government

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

thaluikhain:

reonhato:
They announced today (or late yesterday) that they were taking a few billion off defence, and redirecting it to stuff like social programs and having a surplus for the next crisis.

and yet people still complain about our government every single day. the current governments approval rating is dismal and the chances of them being re-elected is almost 0, but compared to places like america our politicians are gods... at least when it comes to the economy

Yeah, I know, weird. Not just the economy, on social issues as well.

On the other hand, it's not like Tony Abbott is as bad as a US politician either. And hopefully ratings will improve once things settle down and it turns out the country hasn't been rooned forevah without anyone noticing.

...

There's an idea, sell the Liberal party to the US.

Nah, the Libs are way to left wing for the US.

Quite frankly both parties are so close together here it doesn't really matter who is in charge. The reason Labor is way down in the polls has little to do with policy and more to do with the fact they are acting like a bunch of whiny school girls with all their infighting.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

YES, you blithering fucking idiot.

You so shouldn't get a infraction for this, truth is a valid defense for comments made. We are all thinking the same thing anyway.

Gorfias:
If I'm an employer, and a woman and a man interview for a job, and the woman is willing to take the job for 30% less than the man, are you writing that I will hire the man for more money without reason? I don't buy it.

It's not for no reason, it's because the hypothetical you think women are less or don't deserve the job, which is not based on fact.

Similarly, the US military has long needed large amounts of soldiers, but has excluded openly gay troops until recently.

This is not because openly gay troops are worse than closet gay troops or heterosexual ones, it's become prejudice makes people make decisions that aren't in their favour.

A few decades before that, they made it difficult for black people to serve in their military, despite being in the middle of WW2, the biggest war they'd ever fought. Again, black troops aren't worse than white ones, but prejudice meant people made stupid decisions that weren't in their favour.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

YES, you blithering fucking idiot.

Get modded much? If you do, it won't be because of me. I don't roll that way. But you are out of line. And, if you think employers place sentimentality over profits, you must come from a very interesting community.

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
If I'm an employer, and a woman and a man interview for a job, and the woman is willing to take the job for 30% less than the man, are you writing that I will hire the man for more money without reason? I don't buy it.

It's not for no reason, it's because the hypothetical you think women are less or don't deserve the job, which is not based on fact.

Similarly, the US military has long needed large amounts of soldiers, but has excluded openly gay troops until recently.

This is not because openly gay troops are worse than closet gay troops or heterosexual ones, it's become prejudice makes people make decisions that aren't in their favour.

A few decades before that, they made it difficult for black people to serve in their military, despite being in the middle of WW2, the biggest war they'd ever fought. Again, black troops aren't worse than white ones, but prejudice meant people made stupid decisions that weren't in their favour.

This is closer to an actual argument, thank you.

Unlike either gays or Black people, we ALL have women in our lives. I highly doubt this is similar to those issues.

So, if there is a pay difference between men and women, what is causing it? Conservatives argue that it is the choices they make: work/life balance, commute time, experience level. I buy that.

EDIT: ITMT, another National Review poke at Julia. This time, instead of arguing what Obama wants for Julia is bad, it addresses the Democratic parties effect on Julia in other areas throuhout her life:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/298859/julia-kevin-d-williamson

pyrate:

Just what does the right wing have against education. Do they not know that education is an investment.

Someone with no education at all will contribute nothing to the economy, if you are lucky they might break even in terms of returning what they cost in government assistance. Spend $30,000 giving someone an education and they will contribute millions upon millions of dollars in their lifetime.

Very little truth to what you've written. The vast majority of young people who do well in college outperform their peers in the working world, but there is reason to believe this would be so even if they never went to college in the first place.

Do you know the number one primary and secondary education system in the world, Finland. Do you know how many private schools Finland has, zero. Another fun fact, America ranks next to Estonia and Poland, despite the fact that you can add the GDP per capita of Estonia and Poland together and they are still behind the US.

Apparantly your government functions a hell of a lot better than ours, or there are other confounding factors involved. We in the USA spend a fortune on public education, and we have among the worst public schools in the world. The Julia message is:"let's spend even more on public education". This means less money in the private sector to help children avoid failing public schools.
EDIT
Another fun fact: Thomas Edison was home schooled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison

Gorfias:
So, if there is a pay difference between men and women, what is causing it? Conservatives argue that it is the choices they make: work/life balance, commute time, experience level. I buy that.

And you'd be buying half the story, because in the case of strongly Christian countries like the US, it's the expectancy that women take care of the household and have and raise 2-10 kids that causes the gender differences in education and career.

Gorfias:
The Julia message is:"let's spend even more on public education". This means less money in the private sector to help children avoid failing public schools.
EDIT
Another fun fact: Thomas Edison was home schooled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison

Isn't that a typical conservative: going back 3 centuries in time, to a time when knowledge was limited and education didn't exist yet, and seamlessly compare that to current day standards while at the same time ignoring the entire argument.

So let's restate it:

Public education > private education, simple as that.

And the US doesn't spend a fortune on public education. Public schools in the US are vastly underfunded. The US spends only 5,7% of the (heavily bloated due to undertaxation) GDP on education. Most European countries are on comparable levels, while their GDP isn't artificially inflated, meaning a lot more is spent on education there.

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

YES, you blithering fucking idiot.

I think I'm gonna have to cosign this. And by this, I mean every single word of this. Gorfias, Casual sexism is demonstrably present in the workforce; your own damn anecdote could be used as evidence thereof. And this? This is not out of line. Calling people out for being mind-numbingly obtuse is reasonable accuracy, even if it's dickish.

Gorfias:
As to the general welfare, we can.... if we want to do so interpret it to mean those duties expressly written in the Constituion for the Federal government to do and nothing else.

You know what, though? I don't understand why anyone would ever want to interpret it that way. Limiting the power of the federal government by tying its hands and saying, "You can't do anything except for this extremely limited allowance of things, even if you really need other powers to improve America as a nation" is sticking up for principle above pragmatism when the principle hasn't even been shown as valuable.

Not buying that and have stated previously why. You cannot convince me that jobs would not be going to women instead of men if that were true. I don't know what you do to convince yourself of it. Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

YES! YES, YOU THICK-SKULLED MORON! YES! THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL THREAD LONG!

I think working class people will be able to send their kids to college if they really want to do so, once the government stops "helping". I do think they will be much, much, much less likely to bother.

With what money? The key defining factor of "lower-class" is a lack of assets, and college is prohibitively expensive. Even if the costs drop by a factor of 5 (which I would not assume), it would still be unrealistic for anyone in the lower class who isn't a natural super-genius and able to earn exceedingly rare free-ride scholarships to be able to afford to attend a decent college.

Yes, I think that analogy works, and I see evidence of it happening here in the USA, only, replace white with woman, and black with man.

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work.

It is not a good idea to keep your head firmly planted in the sand.

Hey, by all means, throw that out as though it was a sure thing, instead of, you know, citing sources.

You took that line out of context. It was directed at someone who wants to pretend Social Security and Medicaid are solvent and not headed for insolvency. Another poster showed a youtube clip of the treasury secretary basically admitting it, and that the Obama administration had no plan to address the issue..[/quote]

Err.. What? No, I didn't take that line out of context. That line was a direct response to me asking you (in reply to the first post of the thread) to cite your goddamn sources. If I say "cite your sources", the answer is not "stop burying your head in the sand", it's "here's my source".

My plan for women and pay? Let the market work.

And here is the same tried-and-true answer that libertarians always bring up. Shame that by "tried-and-true" we mean "We tried that, and it failed miserably".

If I'm an employer, and a woman and a man interview for a job, and the woman is willing to take the job for 30% less than the man, are you writing that I will hire the man for more money without reason? I don't buy it.

But women aren't saying "I'll do this job for less"! This is part of why your analogy falls apart! The women aren't freely accepting less pay. They're getting subtly screwed in other ways, or overtly screwed by employers who will just pay them less anyways.

Can't agree with you there. I think the USA could be very competitive. It's just things like this silly law we're arguing about. It creates red tape and places burdens on employers. That cannot be good for the bottom line.

So... you think we can compete, on a global scale, with a nation whose primary workers earn a few bucks a day and work 80-hour work weeks in absolutely abhorrent conditions? I don't know about you, but I don't want to compete with that, and saying "if we just cut regulations enough, we could compete" doesn't help when the regulations are so valuable to our society as a whole.

Gorfias:
EDIT: ITMT, another National Review poke at Julia. This time, instead of arguing what Obama wants for Julia is bad, it addresses the Democratic parties effect on Julia in other areas throuhout her life:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/298859/julia-kevin-d-williamson

10 years: Trapped in a failing and dangerous public school, Julia (another Julia, not the dead one) is terrified and miserable. Under the Obama administration, protecting the government education monopoly from competition and accountability is almost as sacrosanct as abortion. School-choice programs are severely constrained or eliminated. Julia falls behind.

LOL! Is that article a poe? I hope so.

Very little truth to what you've written. The vast majority of young people who do well in college outperform their peers in the working world, but there is reason to believe this would be so even if they never went to college in the first place.

The irony is strong with this one. But by all means, go ahead, prove to me that you aren't completely talking out of your ass. ^_^

Apparantly your government functions a hell of a lot better than ours, or there are other confounding factors involved. We in the USA spend a fortune on public education, and we have among the worst public schools in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp

We spend a far lower amount per GDP than the top countries, but more importantly, our GDP is brutally inflated, to the point where we really should be far lower on that list.

The Julia message is:"let's spend even more on public education". This means less money in the private sector to help children avoid failing public schools.

Yes, because this totally helps ensure that poor people have a fighting chance.

EDIT
Another fun fact: Thomas Edison was home schooled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison

Here's another fun fact: ethics, social studies, geography, science, and history have all advanced incredibly since the 1800s. Back then, you could get away with home-schooling. Nowadays? Not so much.

Blablahb:

in the case of strongly Christian countries like the US, it's the expectancy that women take care of the household and have and raise 2-10 kids that causes the gender differences in education and career.

Women don't have to be the ones taking the lead on child care. I personally was primary on raising the kids. My career took a hit. Now I have to take the hit AND suffer the short end of the stick on affirmative action. *rage*

The US spends only 5,7% of the (heavily bloated due to undertaxation) GDP on education. Most European countries are on comparable levels, while their GDP isn't artificially inflated, meaning a lot more is spent on education there.

And yet, we still spend too much and get too little. New York, for instance, spends 3 times that of Utah. Where do you think a kid is getting a better education?

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/education-spending-per-pupil-apples-to-apples/

Stagnant:

Tyler Perry:

Gorfias:
Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

YES, you blithering fucking idiot.

I think I'm gonna have to cosign this. And by this, I mean every single word of this. Gorfias, Casual sexism is demonstrably present in the workforce; your own damn anecdote could be used as evidence thereof. And this? This is not out of line. Calling people out for being mind-numbingly obtuse is reasonable accuracy, even if it's dickish.

Of the 3 of us, I'm not the one stating, "sure, business people put their sentiment ahead of profits." Yeah. I'm sure they teach that in Graduate level accounting. And my annecdote was meant to illustrate a fact: some business people I know are experiencing different performance by gender. I have heard complaints against women as women, but not against men as men. Just a mother in law observation, but there it is. I'd "call you out" but as a conservative in this forum, I think I would be modded.

Gorfias:
As to the general welfare, we can.... if we want to do so interpret it to mean those duties expressly written in the Constituion for the Federal government to do and nothing else.

...I don't understand why anyone would ever want to interpret it that way. Limiting the power of the federal government by tying its hands and saying, "You can't do anything except for this extremely limited allowance of things, even if you really need other powers to improve America as a nation" is sticking up for principle above pragmatism when the principle hasn't even been shown as valuable.

Conservatives are for tying the Federal government's hands because we think they are, among other things, evil, corrupt, incompetent, unjust, socially destructive, remote, unrepresentative and sending what should be the world's largest creditor nation over a cliff of insolvency.

with what money? The key defining factor of "lower-class" is a lack of assets

The colleges themselves can offer loans. If G.H.W.Bush's justice department had successfuly prosecuted anti trust cases against the Ivy League, you might even have bidding wars for the most promising student: actually paying to have such a student attend your university as you have great expectations of that student and want your university's name associated with the student.

So... you think we can compete, on a global scale, with a nation whose primary workers earn a few bucks a day and work 80-hour work weeks in absolutely abhorrent conditions? I don't know about you, but I don't want to compete with that, and saying "if we just cut regulations enough, we could compete" doesn't help when the regulations are so valuable to our society as a whole.

Again, I see Ledbetter as an attack on me, men, and industry.

Stagnant:

The irony is strong with this one. But by all means, go ahead, prove to me that you aren't completely talking out of your ass. ^_^

First, doesn't it make sense that someone who has it together enough to make it through MIT probably has a lot on the ball to begin with?

I recently had a parent complain to me that their kid got a college degree in being a sonogram tech. Ends up the kid is competing with certificate holders that got trained in a fraction of the time.

I'm not writing college is worthless: I am writing it is not worth what we pay for it, and it is wrong to be steering kids into college by government policy if it is wasting their time and putting them in debt.

I would recommend reading the works of Thomas Sowell for more information. Example, the first in a 3 part series:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2008/04/22/the_economics_of_college

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp

We spend a far lower amount per GDP than the top countries, but more importantly, our GDP is brutally inflated, to the point where we really should be far lower on that list.

We have for more GDP to begin with, don't we? And Canada, with a tiny economy, spends even less while ranking well ahead of us.

Here's another fun fact: ethics, social studies, geography, science, and history have all advanced incredibly since the 1800s. Back then, you could get away with home-schooling. Nowadays? Not so much.

Now who is talking out their butt? Try a search on "home schooled out perform public school".

Gorfias:
Not buying that and have stated previously why. You cannot convince me that jobs would not be going to women instead of men if that were true. I don't know what you do to convince yourself of it. Do you think business people very sentimental in favor of men?

Ain't sentiment, it's sexism.

And the fact that women are socially more likely not to be in the workforce for an assortment of reasons.

Anyway, this seems to be going off in a random direction, Gorf, which verified fact are you ignoring here: That women make less money than men for doing the same jobs, or that women are discriminated against despite Cold, Pitiless Capitalism's loving them for their low labor cost?

Gorfias:

I think working class people will be able to send their kids to college if they really want to do so, once the government stops "helping". I do think they will be much, much, much less likely to bother.

Please elaborate on this strange and counterfactual statement.

Gorfias:

My plan for women and pay? Let the market work.

"My plan for traffic safety? Let the car drive."

Gorfias:

....
Unless the US wants to cut the standard of living dramatically it will never be able to compete with developing countries in manufacturing, it is simply not possible.

Can't agree with you there. I think the USA could be very competitive. It's just things like this silly law we're arguing about. It creates red tape and places burdens on employers. That cannot be good for the bottom line.

Dood, American workers are not going to be able to work for 50 cents an hour and still survive. We _can't_ compete with that without turning the US into a Banana Republic with a tiny middle-class, a tinier Elite, and a huge mass of miserable peasants just barely held back from revolting by police brutality and cable TV.

...Which has actually seemed to have been the goal of Republicans since at least Reagan, so maybe that's a feature, not a bug from your POV.

arbane:

...Gorf, which verified fact are you ignoring here: That women make less money than men for doing the same jobs, or that women are discriminated against despite Cold, Pitiless Capitalism's loving them for their low labor cost?

Not ignoring anything: denying. No way a cold, pitiless capitalist is going to hire a man if he's going to cost more for the same job that a woman could do for less. They just aren't. You did post a plausible explanation for some of the pay disparity: women may have less experience in a position due to leaves of absence for child rearing. Maybe they spend a lot fewer hours at work too. Maybe they'll be relatively inflexible on the job, refuse to go on trips, etc.
But, say for the sake of argument, you have two lawyers: one male, the other female. They have the same job, so they should have, by your argument, the same pay? But experience is invaluable in many fields. The female, with relatively less experience, may botch something the more experienced male would get correct. An employer is infinitely better at making a judgment on this than a remote and compromised Federal government. And y'know what: that employer is the one that has to live with the choice that s/he makes. Not the government.

Gorfias:

I think working class people will be able to send their kids to college if they really want to do so, once the government stops "helping". I do think they will be much, much, much less likely to bother.

Please elaborate on this strange and counterfactual statement.

You mean counter intuitive? I already wrote, what you subsidize, you get more of at a higher cost. Get government out of the equation and price comes down. People will make their own rational judgments about whether or not the cost is worth it without government intervention. Many will answer "no". But with radically reduced prices and any number of free market payment plans, loans, grants, scholarships, work-study, people that really want to go to college will be able to do so.

Dood, American workers are not going to be able to work for 50 cents an hour and still survive.

And they won't have to do so. China still has to transport things from there to here, paying tarriffs and costs, as well as enduring risks of loss. They are at a substantial operational disadvantage. If American's were really competing with Chinese workers, all things being equal, nothing, no food, clothing, technology, or anything else would still being produced in the USA, but it is. As it stands, the Federal government is actually subsidizing outsourcing jobs to China.

Gorfias:

arbane:

...Gorf, which verified fact are you ignoring here: That women make less money than men for doing the same jobs, or that women are discriminated against despite Cold, Pitiless Capitalism's loving them for their low labor cost?

Not ignoring anything: denying.

...

Gorfias:

Gorfias:

I think working class people will be able to send their kids to college if they really want to do so, once the government stops "helping". I do think they will be much, much, much less likely to bother.

Please elaborate on this strange and counterfactual statement.

You mean counter intuitive? I already wrote, what you subsidize, you get more of at a higher cost. Get government out of the equation and price comes down. People will make their own rational judgments about whether or not the cost is worth it without government intervention. Many will answer "no". But with radically reduced prices and any number of free market payment plans, loans, grants, scholarships, work-study, people that really want to go to college will be able to do so.

So, pretty much: "Let's replace government aid with MAGIC, and all the people who are insufficiently rich or superhuman (but I repeat myself) will just have to be minimum-wage toilet-scrubbers for the rest of their lives."

Gorfias:

Dood, American workers are not going to be able to work for 50 cents an hour and still survive.

And they won't have to do so. China still has to transport things from there to here, paying tarriffs and costs, as well as enduring risks of loss. They are at a substantial operational disadvantage. If American's were really competing with Chinese workers, all things being equal, nothing, no food, clothing, technology, or anything else would still being produced in the USA, but it is. As it stands, the Federal government is actually subsidizing outsourcing jobs to China.

I love that the same guy who's insisting that sexism in the workplace is not a Thing That Exists because if it was corporations would be hiring nothing but women is ALSO insisting that corporations AREN'T offshoring jobs like mad because it's cheaper. There seems to be a bit of a logical disconnect there, old boy.

you can't stay dumb and live the lifestyle you expect as Americans in the face of the reality of globalization.

the only way for an advanced economy to stay advanced (ie ahead of the others) is to have a advanced workforce providing advanced services (mostly) and goods (of which there will be a lesser number produced and they will be of a inherently high quality/value or uniqueness).

this is very simple economic baseline reality that has been played out historically many, many times before.

you say the Chinese have problems with "transport things from there to here, paying tarriffs and costs, as well as enduring risks of loss" ?
this is a reference to access to your consumer marketplace yes ?

by 2030 the Chinese middle class (complete with purchasing power parity equal to your own) is estimated to going to number MORE THAN THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

that's how economics works. countries grow their own middle classes and thus internal consumer markets.

China just happens to be represent a 5th of the planets humanity within a single country.

you can ofc keep telling yourself it'll never happen.

that somehow other countries just can't catch up to your level of general public wealth and/or education...

spin out a few classics...maybe "all the know how to do is copy us" and the ole "they have no originality"...y'know...the same things we were saying about the Japanese 30-40 years ago when they were buying old car plant machinery to learn how it worked and started selling us Datsuns that crumbled to a pile of rust if you parked them in a puddle...back before the Toyota Corolla became the largest selling car in history...

that's a great way to deal with it and i'm sure it'll work out for you...

arbane:

So, pretty much: "Let's replace government aid with MAGIC, and all the people who are insufficiently rich or superhuman (but I repeat myself) will just have to be minimum-wage toilet-scrubbers for the rest of their lives."

I think you think too little of the industry, imagination, resourcefulness of hard working people that want something in a free country with a free market.

Gorfias:
...China still has to transport things from there to here, paying tarriffs and costs, as well as enduring risks of loss. They are at a substantial operational disadvantage..... As it stands, the Federal government is actually subsidizing outsourcing jobs to China.

I love that the same guy who's insisting that sexism in the workplace is not a Thing That Exists because if it was corporations would be hiring nothing but women is ALSO insisting that corporations AREN'T offshoring jobs like mad because it's cheaper. There seems to be a bit of a logical disconnect there, old boy.

They are offshoring like mad and it pisses me off. But apparantly, they're not doing it fast enough for our ruling elites, as, due to costs, it is still effective to produce in the USA, so the Federal Government the left wants to give even greater power to, is subsidizing off shoring. Have you heard about it? Need a link? (I hate going on fetch quests for links when we're not disputing something.)

Gorfias:

I think you think too little of the industry, imagination, resourcefulness of hard working people that want something in a free country with a free market.

Yeah yeah, American dream and all that. Well, when you're busy figuring out how to make ends meet, you likely do need some imagination and resourcefulness, I'll admit, but I highly doubt that's the kind of imagination and resourcefulness that actually drives innovation.

Stagnant:

Here's another fun fact: ethics, social studies, geography, science, and history have all advanced incredibly since the 1800s. Back then, you could get away with home-schooling. Nowadays? Not so much.

http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html

try again.

Stagnant:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp

We spend a far lower amount per GDP than the top countries, but more importantly, our GDP is brutally inflated, to the point where we really should be far lower on that list.

The Julia message is:"let's spend even more on public education". This means less money in the private sector to help children avoid failing public schools.

Yes, because this totally helps ensure that poor people have a fighting chance.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/22/losing-the-brains-race

try yet again

Vegosiux:

Gorfias:

I think you think too little of the industry, imagination, resourcefulness of hard working people that want something in a free country with a free market.

Yeah yeah, American dream and all that. Well, when you're busy figuring out how to make ends meet, you likely do need some imagination and resourcefulness, I'll admit, but I highly doubt that's the kind of imagination and resourcefulness that actually drives innovation.

You sound awfully down on the American Dream. My own wife from a working class family got her Master's while working. She got 0 government assistance, but had to struggle against artificially high costs of government subsidized education and must now compete with other degree holders that didn't work as hard as she did (though, she is doing fine).

Gorfias:
You sound awfully down on the American Dream. My own wife from a working class family got her Master's while working. She got 0 government assistance, but had to struggle against artificially high costs of government subsidized education and must now compete with other degree holders that didn't work as hard as she did (though, she is doing fine).

Oh, I don't mind the American dream, as long as people don't try to sell it as reality. I'd assume it's called a "dream" for a reason. Also, did you just say that something was more expensive because it was subsidized?

But okay, you have proved that one person exists who ran into issues with a public education system, I'll give you that. (Assuming that subsidized things tend to cost more, of course...)

Now explain to me the leap of logic between that and the subject at hand.

Vegosiux:

Gorfias:
You sound awfully down on the American Dream.

Oh, I don't mind the American dream, as long as people don't try to sell it as reality.

I just wrote you that I've seen it in action.

did you just say that something was more expensive because it was subsidized?

Law of economics: What you subsidize you get more of at a higher cost. We subsidize higher education. It costs more, and there are more people pursuiting it than might otherwise. Also, those that do not use a subsidy pay for it.

.... (Assuming that subsidized things tend to cost more, of course...)

Now explain to me the leap of logic between that and the subject at hand.

One of the Obama slides on Julia was about how the Federal Government would "help" her pay for a college education. For a conservative, there are so many things wrong with this it is difficult to know where to begin but I'll try:
1) Like I wrote before, what you subsidize you get more of at a higher cost. Julia needs governments help for this, in part, because government subsidy has caused education costs to skyrocket well past inflation and cost of living. See previous link to economist Thomas Sowell's work.
2) Julia needs to get a college education, in part, because, the more government assists young people in going to college, the more she needs the credential to compete with her peers.
3) Because this is where Government is steering scarce national resources, this is where students will go. Without the steering, these same students might seek from among many other career paths including:
i: certification
ii: apprenticeships/internships
iii: On the job training
iv: technical schools.
v: might even start a small business.

Gorfias:
For a conservative, there are so many things wrong with this it is difficult to know where to begin but I'll try:[/b]

See, there's our problem.

1) Like I wrote before, what you subsidize you get more of at a higher cost. Julia needs governments help for this, in part, because government subsidy has caused education costs to skyrocket well past inflation and cost of living. See previous link to economist Thomas Sowell's work.

Cost to whom? Those without a subsidy? Generally those who don't get a subsidy don't get it because they are deemed to be able to afford it without it. That's kind of the point. And I already told you what I think about the "MY MONEY!!!"™ argument. It's a stupid one.

2) Julia needs to get a college education, in part, because, the more government assists young people in going to college, the more she needs the credential to compete with her peers.

So competitiveness is suddenly a bad thing, and there should be less educated people for the economy to function? See, the costs of education that go out of the state budget should be seen as an investment. Into a higher level of education among the workforce.

3) Because this is where Government is steering scarce national resources, this is where students will go. Without the steering, these same students might seek from among many other career paths including:
i: certification
ii: apprenticeships/internships
iii: On the job training
iv: technical schools.
v: might even start a small business.

"Might" is a mighty (sorry, I had to) weak reason. But wait, you're saying there's no such thing as a subsidy for those who would pursue starting their own business over there? How so? Too socialist?

Gorfias:

arbane:

So, pretty much: "Let's replace government aid with MAGIC, and all the people who are insufficiently rich or superhuman (but I repeat myself) will just have to be minimum-wage toilet-scrubbers for the rest of their lives."

I think you think too little of the industry, imagination, resourcefulness of hard working people that want something in a free country with a free market.

If all else fails, I guess most of them have two kidneys. :-P

But, and I realize this is heresy to the True Conservative, we SHOULDN'T make getting a decent education when poor into some sort of bizarre obstacle-course that requires both immense determination, energy AND luck? You having the characteristic Conservarage that somebody else suffered less than your wife notwithstanding, having more educated people is at least theoretically a good thing to those of use who DON'T want a population of illiterate, debt-ridden serfs...

...A group that I now remember doesn't seem to include the Republicans, so this argument is invalid. Sigh.

arbane:

having more educated people is at least theoretically a good thing to those of use who DON'T want a population of illiterate, debt-ridden serfs...

I think we have a nation of over-credentialed dish washers with BAs, and they're debt ridden. That's a problem.

Vegosiux:

Cost to whom? Those without a subsidy?

Correct. Economics: those that don't receive a subsidy, pay for it.

So competitiveness is suddenly a bad thing, and there should be less educated people for the economy to function? See, the costs of education that go out of the state budget should be seen as an investment. Into a higher level of education among the workforce.

Are they a higher educated work force, or higher credentialed? There's a difference. And it is a bad thing if I think I need to get a BA to get a job selling life insurance because my competition has one thanks to government involvement. For the sake of argument, if neither of us got a BA, and both of us could do the job, we'd have saved 4 years of our lives and not spent all that money.

3) Because this is where Government is steering scarce national resources, this is where students will go. Without the steering, these same students might seek from among many other career paths including:
i: certification
ii: apprenticeships/internships
iii: On the job training
iv: technical schools.
v: might even start a small business.

you're saying there's no such thing as a subsidy for those who would pursue starting their own business over there? How so? Too socialist?

There is an SBA program, referenced in the creepy Julia campaign show. It is involved in about 6% all all business startup loans, and often referred to as "Congress' petty cash drawer."

Gorfias:

Cost to whom? Those without a subsidy?

Correct. Economics: those that don't receive a subsidy, pay for it.

Way to quote selectively is all I have to say here.

Are they a higher educated work force, or higher credentialed? There's a difference. And it is a bad thing if I think I need to get a BA to get a job selling life insurance because my competition has one thanks to government involvement.

Well, I shall use the "Want something? Work for it." thing that's tossed around so freely. Oh wait I forgot that only applies to other people.

There is an SBA program, referenced in the creepy Julia campaign show. It is involved in about 6% all all business startup loans, and often referred to as "Congress' petty cash drawer."

Well, maybe they could offer more incentives and options there, so that people who want to start a business, can start a business? Doesn't even have to be a monetary subsidy.

Gorfias:

arbane:

...Gorf, which verified fact are you ignoring here: That women make less money than men for doing the same jobs, or that women are discriminated against despite Cold, Pitiless Capitalism's loving them for their low labor cost?

Not ignoring anything: denying.

So you are saying that women DON'T make less money than men? JHC on a cracker, I don't think I've ever seen anyone willingly deny facts like you. This is just completely divorced from reality. You live in a fucking fantasy land.

You still haven't explained how mandating equal pay for equal work is an "attack on men."

Tyler Perry:

So you are saying that women DON'T make less money than men? ...
You still haven't explained how mandating equal pay for equal work is an "attack on men."

Again, those who do not receive a subsidy pay for it. Affirmative action for women is ultimately paid for by men.

I am not saying women don't make less money than men. I'm writing they EARN less money than men (sometimes).

Only one person in this thread has offered a 1/2 way decent argument on this regard, stating that anti-gay and racists have forgone profit in order to discriminate against such people. I don't think women have the same issue, if for no other reason, statistically, all of us have about 1/2 the people in our family are women.

That written, I think employers make rational decisions about their expectations of what women will EARN from them and hire and pay accordingly. To think otherwise is to suggest the absurd:

Either:

1) There is so much animosity against women, as there has been against racial minorities that dispassionate business people will forgo profit to discriminate against them or;
2) The business world is so sentimental about men, it willingly pays them an extra 30% for nothing (I was called a blithering idiot for implying that absurd).

Gorfias:
Women don't have to be the ones taking the lead on child care. I personally was primary on raising the kids. My career took a hit. Now I have to take the hit AND suffer the short end of the stick on affirmative action. *rage*

So do something about the power of the church, religious politicians and the expectations on women. They're the ones who want affirmative action as an excuse to pretend it's all been fixed and good while at the same time they keep pushing their misogyny. The only reason there's affirmative action is because conservative politicians cannot allow equality.

So oppose them and kill two birds with one stone; help yourself, help about half the US population.

Gorfias:
And yet, we still spend too much and get too little. New York, for instance, spends 3 times that of Utah. Where do you think a kid is getting a better education?

Well, it's barely a few years ago that girls who get pregnant were banished to prison-like 'pregnancy schools' where 'maths' consisted out of weaving blankets, to prepare them for a life of only raising children, and clinging desperately to a man as de facto his property, because school taught them no meaningfull skills and need his money to survive. They were trained to be helpless dependant wives, exactly like the most conservative Christians want women to be.

It's view right from medieval times, so you tell me if the spending is enough if such horrible conditions existed up untill recently.

And imagine the conditions if New York is that bad, and Utah and Arizone spend only a third of that inadequate budget... Wow.

Gorfias:

arbane:

having more educated people is at least theoretically a good thing to those of use who DON'T want a population of illiterate, debt-ridden serfs...

I think we have a nation of over-credentialed dish washers with BAs, and they're debt ridden. That's a problem.

And your solution is less degrees, not more jobs or less debt. BRILLIANT.

So basically, Gorfias, you're denying that institutionalized sexism exists.

Blablahb:

So do something about the power of the church, religious politicians and the expectations on women. They're the ones who want affirmative action as an excuse to pretend it's all been fixed and good while at the same time they keep pushing their misogyny. The only reason there's affirmative action is because conservative politicians cannot allow equality.

You're writing that social conservativs support affirmative action. I was not aware of that. I don't equate equality for sameness though. I do think people need to be aware that society is changing and that our expectations for both women AND men need adjusting..

arbane:

Gorfias:

arbane:

having more educated people is at least theoretically a good thing to those of use who DON'T want a population of illiterate, debt-ridden serfs...

I think we have a nation of over-credentialed dish washers with BAs, and they're debt ridden. That's a problem.

And your solution is less degrees, not more jobs or less debt. BRILLIANT.

I don't think there is any logical association with what I wrote and your response. I want more actual job skills which largely require training outside of college and less debt (and time: college BA 4 years, Sonogram Tech, 6 months) = more jobs.

Tyler Perry:
So basically, Gorfias, you're denying that institutionalized sexism exists.

Depends upon how you define sexism. How do you?

Vegosiux:

@Vegosiux: I did want to get back to you on this:

[quote]

Generally those who don't get a subsidy don't get it because they are deemed to be able to afford it without it. That's kind of the point. And I already told you what I think about the "MY MONEY!!!"™ argument. It's a stupid one.

1) Depends upon what "it" is. We subsidize farmers because we want them producing more, not because they need it.
2) Not sure what you mean with the,"my money" thing. By itself, I suppose that isn't an argument. Everything done by government is arguably done with people's money. I would write, what the government wants to do with my money may even sound like a good idea... I just have other priorities for my own money, thank you very much.

wow even for an american gorfias is ignorant

reonhato:
wow even for an american gorfias is ignorant

How eloquent! I breathlessly await your next syllable. Perhaps you can alert us the next time you scratch yourself :-)

Gorfias:

And yet, we still spend too much and get too little. New York, for instance, spends 3 times that of Utah. Where do you think a kid is getting a better education?

New York. That's not even a difficult question, the Math and Science scores of New York are some of the highest in the states and Utah is currently scored slightly above the average and is ranked as the 22nd best state in Math and Science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

maddawg IAJI:

Gorfias:

And yet, we still spend too much and get too little. New York, for instance, spends 3 times that of Utah. Where do you think a kid is getting a better education?

New York. That's not even a difficult question, the Math and Science scores of New York are some of the highest in the states and Utah is currently scored slightly above the average and is ranked as the 22nd best state in Math and Science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

Thanks. I read that. Bad example.

I also read that Utah outscores New York in SATs, but that's because in part, almost no one there takes them, so it is hard to go by that standard.

New York is also a center of capital, where people send their kids to private schools a lot. It is also diverse: Up State New York is nothing like New York New York.

I have heard the Washington DC schools are some of the highest spending per capita schools in the world, and produce very shitty graduates. Have you read that?

My point: the connection between money spent per capita on students and achievements has limits. Can you agree with that?

Gorfias:

maddawg IAJI:

Gorfias:

And yet, we still spend too much and get too little. New York, for instance, spends 3 times that of Utah. Where do you think a kid is getting a better education?

New York. That's not even a difficult question, the Math and Science scores of New York are some of the highest in the states and Utah is currently scored slightly above the average and is ranked as the 22nd best state in Math and Science.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

Thanks. I read that. Bad example.

I also read that Utah outscores New York in SATs, but that's because in part, almost no one there takes them, so it is hard to go by that standard.

New York is also a center of capital, where people send their kids to private schools a lot. It is also diverse: Up State New York is nothing like New York New York.

I have heard the Washington DC schools are some of the highest spending per capita schools in the world, and produce very shitty graduates. Have you read that?

My point: the connection between money spent per capita on students and achievements has limits. Can you agree with that?

And I will agree with that, if you agree that the large number of Private schools doesn't guarantee the highest grades. California ranks lowest in the state and they have less private schools then New York. New Hampshire is 3rd in the nation and has only 22 according to thislink.

Education is a strange and funny thing.

maddawg IAJI:

And I will agree with that, if you agree that the large number of Private schools doesn't guarantee the highest grades. California ranks lowest in the state and they have less private schools then New York. New Hampshire is 3rd in the nation and has only 22 according to thislink.

Education is a strange and funny thing.

Agreed. I'll have to do some more research on NH. They used to boast their public schools consistantly came in at or around number 1 on the SATs nationally.

Gorfias:

maddawg IAJI:

And I will agree with that, if you agree that the large number of Private schools doesn't guarantee the highest grades. California ranks lowest in the state and they have less private schools then New York. New Hampshire is 3rd in the nation and has only 22 according to thislink.

Education is a strange and funny thing.

Agreed. I'll have to do some more research on NH. They used to boast their public schools consistantly came in at or around number 1 on the SATs nationally.

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/sat-scores-by-state-2011 If you weren't using it, this outta help ya out. And among states with high participation ratings, yes, NH did score the highest in the nation last year.

Gorfias:

Tyler Perry:
So basically, Gorfias, you're denying that institutionalized sexism exists.

Depends upon how you define sexism. How do you?

Discrimination based on sex. You know, the kind of thing that Lilly Ledbetter is designed to prevent.

It is blatantly obvious to me that institutionalized sexism (just like institutionalized racism) is still an issue. Not as much of one as it used to be, but still an issue.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked