Why is your problem with conservatism/liberalism? [Archive] - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

traderumor

07-20-2005, 12:23 PM

I argue against opposing worldviews, not individuals. At least that's the intent, not to make it personal. It is not always accomplished for various reasons, but it is the goal, and I hope I am always quick to apologize when I slip and let it get personal.

Why? I want people to think about why they believe something. Not what they were indoctrinated with growing up, but what they have come to believe through thinking about their worldview. When I take part in these discussions, I want to make sure that the person is stating a particular viewpoint because they have thought about that issue, researched both sides, considered different views than their own, etc. before coming to the conclusions that they have. Even though I know many have made their minds up about certain issues, some have thought through them, some haven't, I always write as if there is always going to be at least one person reading who is interested in looking at different points of view and is open minded enough to consider that they may have some erroneous convictions.

For example, with an issue like abortion, I want people to really think about why they think it should be legal or why they do not think it should be legal. I may not agree with their conclusion, but there are arguments that I have sorted through myself and struggled with, rather than giving knee-jerk responses because I'm a "right wing conservative fundamentalist born again Christian" or because another poster is a "left wing bleeding heart liberal." I will respect anyone who demonstrates that they have thought through their beliefs, even though they have arrived at different conclusions than myself about the way the world works or should work.

registerthis

07-20-2005, 12:24 PM

Well, OK...it's basically a "why I believe the way I do" type of thing.

I'll make a promise not to respond to other's posts if mine are excluded from debate as well.

I exist on the liberal/left side of the political spectrum because I believe, in general and within certain limitations, people have a right to exist and make choices as they so choose, and that we (society in general) have an inherent duty to protect and help those who are powerless or in need of assistance.

In a more specific sense, I lean "left" because I have an inherent distrust of big business and unfettered free market capitalism. I believe religion has no place in the government of our society, and don't believe that the president is tasked with doing "God's will". I don't believe in wars that are fought for anything other than truly humanitarian reasons. I believe that all people deserve a *true* opportunity to better their lives, through education, employment, and other means--and DON'T believe that everyone is capable of "picking themselves up by their bootstraps" and doing it alone. I believe that consenting adults should be able to choose whom they wish to marry, and whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy. I believe our country should truly become the nation that it espouses on the international stage--thoughtful, helpful, unselfish and free--and not the nation that it currently is. I believe in being international stewards, and to assimilate, rather than exist outside of, the international community.

When I was younger and far less enlightened, I subscribed to the beliefs of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and other conservative Republican idealogues. However, over time I became aware of a world that existed beyond my own--a world not of black and white, but of multiple shades of gray that suggested--nay, demanded--a more thoughtful, enlightened approach to the issues I once held as absolute. And once I arrived at that conclusion, I could no longer align myself with the conservative movement, which seemed (and seems) to aspire to the opposite of what I envisioned.

flyer85

07-20-2005, 12:30 PM

I have little use for Republicans or Democrats, I am decidedly Libertarian. I voted for Bush for one reason and one reason alone. Now let's see if he and the Republicans can get it right. BTW, it has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade. I simply want justices who will not get involved in legislating from the bench.

Our republic is quickly devolving into an oligarchy.

Johnny Footstool

07-20-2005, 12:39 PM

Even though I'm a "liberal," I don't believe in raising taxes or providing more welfare or many of the stereotypical ideals that conservatives *think* all democrats believe in.

I don't believe in tax breaks for the rich. The rich reap the most benefit from our system of capitalism, and they can afford to bear most of the tax burden.

I believe that a huge portion of our tax money should be spent on providing better public education. That would provide a strong base for building infrastructure, and we would all reap the benefits from it. Privatizing education would only create more of a rift between the pooly-educated and the well-educated.

I believe in small government, though. And whether they know it or not, Republicans *do* support big government.

I support a government that doesn't try to legislate morality, or infringe on the rights of states or the Constitutional rights of individuals. I don't want time being wasted or my tax dollars being spent deciding whether or not abortion should be legal or whether or not I can burn the flag. The government should be small enough that it doesn't try to make all my choices for me. Republicans seem to have no problem letting the government take away choices like this.

I don't believe in letting all my tax dollars go to big business or to bloated military spending. I do believe in supporting big business and keeping the military strong, but I don't want to let big business get away with murder, and I don't want to spend billions of dollars attacking nations who aren't a threat.

Mutaman

07-20-2005, 12:45 PM

I simply want justices who will not get involved in legislating from the bench.

I suggest you go back and read Bush v Gore. This idea that conservative judges don't legislate from the bench or believe in federalism is simply not the case. They will do whatever is convenient to advance their political agenda. And the decision in Bush v Gore is a perfect example of this.

flyer85

07-20-2005, 12:56 PM

some herrings are red

CrackerJack

07-20-2005, 01:08 PM

Redsfaithful

07-20-2005, 01:11 PM

I'm for a smaller government. I believe that our military is far too large, and that the money from all the new jets and aircraft carriers that we're constantly building could be going to something a little more useful, like education or health care. I believe the only reason the military has grown the way it has is because no politician wants to look "soft" on defense, so the military is given free reign to do what they please.

I believe that education spending should be equal. I grew up in Highland County, Ohio and attended a school district that hadn't built a new building since the early 60's. I now live in Columbus and can't help but notice the campuses of schools like Pickerington Central, Central Crossing, New Albany, etc. schools that are absolute palaces compared to what I was used to growing up. This is despite the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that the way we fund schools in Ohio is unconstitutional. Despite that ruling the Republican led government has done nothing to reform things.

I believe in health care for everyone. I don't see it as the first step towards communism, I see it as a universal human right. Far too many people in this country are uninsured, and far too many people in this country are forced into bankruptcy by mountains of medical bills.

I believe in Social Security. I think that taking care of our elderly is the right thing to do, and I believe that Social Security is one of the most successful government run programs in history. I also believe that we shouldn't be gambling with the rent money, which is what we'd be doing by implementing privatization.

I don't believe America should ever be fighting offensive wars. I think we should only fight if we are attacked. Which means that Afghanistan was a good idea, Iraq a very very bad idea.

I believe that corporations are inherently evil. Their objective is to make as much money as possible for their ownership, regardless of the harm this might bring to other people through the form of low wages, subpar working conditions, etc. I believe in government oversight of big business. I don't believe in subsidizing business, whether it's to compete in America or overseas. If they can't do it on their own then they deserve to die off. Capitalism is tough that way. I especially don't believe in corporate CEO's making 800 times their lowest paid workers salary or whatever the going rate is these days.

I believe in a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body.

I believe that we need to treat our environment well.

I believe we need a more intelligent energy policy. Hydrogen doesn't really seem to be the answer. Neither is invading oil rich countries in the Middle East. The oil's going to run out and we're going to be in for some rough times if we don't get better leadership on this issue.

Mostly I think I'm a Democrat because I see those shades of gray that register was talking about. I don't follow politics like it's a sporting event, like so many people on both sides do. I know that it affects people's lives in very real and immediate ways, and I believe the political process has the power to change people's lives for the better. I want people's lives to be changed for the better.

I'm sure I'm forgetting many things, but this'll do for now.

Blimpie

07-20-2005, 01:31 PM

I believe that I will be leaving this thread now.

guttle11

07-20-2005, 01:51 PM

I believe in health care for everyone. I don't see it as the first step towards communism, I see it as a universal human right. Far too many people in this country are uninsured, and far too many people in this country are forced into bankruptcy by mountains of medical bills. I dont believe its the governments fault that not everyone has healthcare. Everyone in the country has the abilty to graduate High School, and get a higher education. Some people choose not to. If you graduate college of get some higher training, you will get a job with benefits. It will happen. If peolple choose not to you cant blame the government.

I believe in Social Security. I think that taking care of our elderly is the right thing to do, and I believe that Social Security is one of the most successful government run programs in history. I also believe that we shouldn't be gambling with the rent money, which is what we'd be doing by implementing privatization

Nothing against you Redsfaithful but this is my main problem with Liberals.

Social Security needs to be changed. Privitization is a good thing. Its not the government's fault if a person blows it, or doesnt manage it well.

I believe in a woman's right to do what she pleases with her bodyagreed, but she should have no right to end a life.

Again Redsfaithful, nothing personal, but I am using you beliefs to state mine. Now lets talk some baseball.

Redsfaithful

07-20-2005, 01:58 PM

Again Redsfaithful, nothing personal, but I am using you beliefs to state mine.

I understand, no offense taken. You're a Bengals fan so I can't get too mad anyway.

ochre

07-20-2005, 02:05 PM

I believe in critical thinking. I believe in battling fallacious arguments where ever they may appear, regardless of the ideology they are attempting to prop up. I believe that proper application of logic will help us to arrive at the closest thing to truth that humans are capable of achieving/understanding.

Johnny Footstool

07-20-2005, 02:57 PM

Everyone in the country has the abilty to graduate High School, and get a higher education. Some people choose not to. If you graduate college or get some higher training, you will get a job with benefits. It will happen. If people choose not to you cant blame the government.

Not to turn this into a debate, but not everyone has the financial means to attend college, nor the educational background (elementary and high school) necessary to do well enough in college to graduate.

My friend teaches high school biology in a grossly underfunded urban school district. He said he doesn't think any of his students would graduate from even a community college, because they're so far behind. He's teaching them things they should have been taught in sixth grade science, but weren't. And it's not simply because the student's refuse to learn. There are very few quality educators in the district, and the schools lack funding for basic needs like chalk, paper, photocopies, etc. BTW - he's a staunch Republican.

ochre

07-20-2005, 03:07 PM

My friend teaches high school biology in a grossly underfunded urban school district. He said he doesn't think any of his students would graduate from even a community college, because they're so far behind.
From what I have seen, if the money's coming in to the school (pell grants) those people will graduate.

registerthis

07-20-2005, 03:10 PM

From what I have seen, if the money's coming in to the school (pell grants) those people will graduate.
Money isn't always the issue, though.

Here in D.C. they spend more per student than any school district in the U.S., yet the state of D.C. public education is terrible. To be honest, I'm not sure what could be done to fix it, it's rife with so many problems. But I most certainly wouldn't say that everyone in the country has an ability to graduate from high school and get a higher education. It just simply isn't true.

ochre

07-20-2005, 03:13 PM

Money isn't always the issue, though.

Here in D.C. they spend more per student than any school district in the U.S., yet the state of D.C. public education is terrible. To be honest, I'm not sure what could be done to fix it, it's rife with so many problems. But I most certainly wouldn't say that everyone in the country has an ability to graduate from high school and get a higher education. It just simply isn't true.
I was referring to the community college part. I feel the standards for acquiring a college degree have deteriorated over time, to the point we're at now; if you can fund it you'll get a degree.

registerthis

07-20-2005, 03:20 PM

Rojo

07-20-2005, 03:21 PM

I believe all political/economic systems devolve toward feudalism and oligarcy without democracy. And a democracy is impossible without a just economy.

Rojo

07-20-2005, 03:26 PM

I dont believe its the governments fault that not everyone has healthcare. Everyone in the country has the abilty to graduate High School, and get a higher education. Some people choose not to. If you graduate college of get some higher training, you will get a job with benefits. It will happen. If peolple choose not to you cant blame the government.

Can we carry this out a bit?

If everyone got their crap together and graduated from an Ivy League school, what do you think the value of an Ivy League education would be? How much would an Ivy Leaguer make if there were 275 million of them?

And somebody's gotta flip burgers, pick lettuce and drive trucks. Should those people be paupers?

LincolnparkRed

07-20-2005, 03:27 PM

I was referring to the community college part. I feel the standards for acquiring a college degree have deteriorated over time, to the point we're at now; if you can fund it you'll get a degree.

I find myself suprisingly agreeing with that statement. I think that problem with people saying they have no access to education are really saying they have too many time/financial constraints preventing them from getting the education that they want. I can't say I know of a solution but the peopleI know that are my age (28) that don't have college degrees are in that position because they did not have access to the money needed to spend the time to acquire a degree.

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 03:48 PM

My philosophy's remarkably simple: it's not that others are wrong so much, but that I'm right. :)

Chip R

07-20-2005, 03:55 PM

I see, I misread your post.

On this I would agree, standards for even community colleges have gotten exceedingly low.I work at a community college and I totally agree. If you want to take classes here all you need is a GED or a HS diploma and the money.

Mutaman

07-20-2005, 04:11 PM

My philosophy is simple: I don't like republicans. :mooner:

Jaycint

07-20-2005, 04:36 PM

My philosophy is simple: I don't like republicans. :mooner:

My philosophy is simple too, I don't like the extreme end of either party. At all.

I actually consider myself a libertarian which I'm sure among some would make me a defacto member of one of the two main parties. :(

registerthis

07-20-2005, 04:53 PM

My philosophy is simple too, I don't like the extreme end of either party. At all.

I actually consider myself a libertarian which I'm sure among some would make me a defacto member of one of the two main parties. :(
Noam Chomsky considers himself a Libertarian, but in the sense that he is an anarchist--not of the chaotic sort, but that he believes power should build from the ground up, not trickle from the top down.

Although I'm guessing Chomsky's libertarianism and yours would be substantially different.

ochre

07-20-2005, 04:59 PM

libertarianism starts with individual liberty. Not so sure that there is much room to wiggle there ;).

I am a libertarian. I find equal frustrations in "both" "parties".

Mutaman

07-20-2005, 06:09 PM

My philosophy is simple too, I don't like the extreme end of either party. At all.

I actually consider myself a libertarian which I'm sure among some would make me a defacto member of one of the two main parties. :(

I thought Tailgunner Joe (the first of the great rightwing chichen hawks) got rid of the extreme left over 50 years ago. Who do you consider extreme on the left? Ted Kennedy?- he's as much of a capitalist as you are. Al Sharpton? He's a cartoon. There is no extreme left in this country. But there is an extreme right, and they are running things.

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 06:28 PM

I thought Tailgunner Joe (the first of the great rightwing chichen hawks) got rid of the extreme left over 50 years ago. Who do you consider extreme on the left? Ted Kennedy?- he's as much of a capitalist as you are. Al Sharpton? He's a cartoon. There is no extreme left in this country. But there is an extreme right, and they are running things.

I'd give you rep for that post, but the man's keeping me down. :thumbup:

Jaycint

07-20-2005, 07:29 PM

Although I'm guessing Chomsky's libertarianism and yours would be substantially different.

Of this I am quite certain...

Jaycint

07-20-2005, 07:30 PM

There is no extreme left in this country. But there is an extreme right

Sigh...Exhibit A of why I am trying to wean myself from these political threads.

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 07:40 PM

Can I ask you, Jaycint, whom you consider extreme left? (And please, please, please don't say Al Franken--I mean REALLY left).

Jaycint

07-20-2005, 07:58 PM

Can I ask you, Jaycint, whom you consider extreme left? (And please, please, please don't say Al Franken--I mean REALLY left).

Well first to clarify, by extreme left I don't mean they want to impose communism on our country. I mean extreme in making ridiculous comments and slinging mud. I would put any politician that compares our government to Nazi Germany and the murder of millions of Jews in that category so Senator Dick Durbin gets the nod. Charlie Rangel gets the nod. While he's not a politician Michael Moore gets the nod, not for Nazi comparisons but for his entire body of work. Ted Rall gets the award for extreme leftist of the year. He is Ann Coulter with male parts.

While you, I and Reg will NEVER agree on Al Franken I will keep him off my list so as to help keep your blood pressure within reason. :)

Just to show you I am an equal opportunity political assassin here is alist of extreme right peeps:

George Bush
Karl Rove
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Bill Frist

I suppose you can counter and tell me how the guys I listed really aren't extreme left but it really isn't going to change my opinion of them nor would it if one of our resident Cons got on and told me George Bush wasn't extreme.

I thought this thread wasn't really supposed to be for argument anyway? Just to state your political beliefs. I didn't attack anybody at all in my original post, simply said that I consider myself Libertarian and I don't like extremists on either side.

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 08:29 PM

Well first to clarify, by extreme left I don't mean they want to impose communism on our country. I mean extreme in making ridiculous comments and slinging mud. I would put any politician that compares our government to Nazi Germany and the murder of millions of Jews in that category so Senator Dick Durbin gets the nod. Charlie Rangel gets the nod. While he's not a politician Michael Moore gets the nod, not for Nazi comparisons but for his entire body of work. Ted Rall gets the award for extreme leftist of the year. He is Ann Coulter with male parts.

While you, I and Reg will NEVER agree on Al Franken I will keep him off my list so as to help keep your blood pressure within reason. :)

Just to show you I am an equal opportunity political assassin here is alist of extreme right peeps:

George Bush
Karl Rove
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Bill Frist

I suppose you can counter and tell me how the guys I listed really aren't extreme left but it really isn't going to change my opinion of them nor would it if one of our resident Cons got on and told me George Bush wasn't extreme.

I thought this thread wasn't really supposed to be for argument anyway? Just to state your political beliefs. I didn't attack anybody at all in my original post, simply said that I consider myself Libertarian and I don't like extremists on either side.

I merely asked a question. I'm not arguing.

Jaycint

07-20-2005, 08:42 PM

I merely asked a question. I'm not arguing.

Well surely being the wordsmith that you are (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean it respectfully) you can see that the way in which you phrased the question may have come across as implying that I couldn't possibly find an extreme leftist.

And I meant argument as in debate, not as in people screaming at each other.

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 08:45 PM

Well surely being the wordsmith that you are (and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean it respectfully) you can see that the way in which you phrased the question may have come across as implying that I couldn't possibly find an extreme leftist.

And I meant argument as in debate, not as in people screaming at each other.

It was an honest question.

Joseph

07-20-2005, 08:45 PM

I'm a democrat in philosophy, I registered as a Republican at 18 to piss off my parents, and I really dislike many things about both parties. Each tries to paint the other as out to ruin America rather than looking at a topic and deciding if the opposing parties opinion or proposed law is good or bad based on merit. I never vote party lines, I vote for the person who I feel best represents my beliefs, no matter party affiliation.

Rojo

07-20-2005, 08:55 PM

Just because they're loud doesn't mean they're "extreme" to my mind.

Dom Heffner

07-20-2005, 10:34 PM

Here in D.C. they spend more per student than any school district in the U.S., yet the state of D.C. public education is terrible.

Yes, they spend more per student, but isn't that more to do with the high cost of living - teachers make more, but it doesn't go any further than a much lesser amount would here in Florida-than the government providing more money to education?

I know a girl who makes $23 working at Home Depot in Los Angeles, but it doesn't get her any more than what $8 or $9 per hour does here in Tampa.

I have seen people use D.C. as an example of how throwing more money at education doesn't make it better, but I always felt the argument did not take into account the cost of living for the city. My friend tells me that the teachers in DC make more money than in any other city and they aren't any better, yet so do the lawyers in DC, and that doesn't mean they are any better than what you would find in Cincy.

The cost of living in a city has lots to do with the wages workers are paid, regardless of the profession.

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts as I honestly have no clue on this. :)

Mutaman

07-20-2005, 10:59 PM

Charlie Rangel gets the nod.

I'm surprised you would take consider Rangle an extremist. I've always considered him a typical liberal democrat: very pro union, very pro working class.
A war hero . To me, hes the same as Dick Gephardt, if Gephhart was black and representing Harlem.

Granted, Charlie takes no guff from anyone, and is vocal about it. But what position has he ever taken that you consider extreme?

guttle11

07-20-2005, 11:07 PM

If everyone got their crap together and graduated from an Ivy League school, what do you think the value of an Ivy League education would be? How much would an Ivy Leaguer make if there were 275 million of them?

I never said everyone could go to an Ivy League school. I simply said EVERY person in the country has the ability to graduate High School and get some form of higher education. If your gonna argue, get my point right.

And somebody's gotta flip burgers, pick lettuce and drive trucks. Should those people be paupers? They still have the ability to buy heathcare. People are going to spend their money however they choose. If they dont purchase healthcare, how is that the governments fault. (dont give me the they cant afford it excuse. EVERY one in the country can get healthcare. If you cant afford it now, go to college. Anyone can get Financial aid for school.)

Falls City Beer

07-20-2005, 11:10 PM

I never said everyone could go to an Ivy League school. I simply said EVERY person in the country has the ability to graduate High School and get some form of higher education. If your gonna argue, get my point right.

They still have the ability to buy heathcare. People are going to spend their money however they choose. If they dont purchase healthcare, how is that the governments fault. (dont give me the they cant afford it excuse. EVERY one in the country can get healthcare. If you cant afford it now, go to college. Anyone can get Financial aid for school.)

What part of "they can't afford it" don't you understand?

guttle11

07-20-2005, 11:14 PM

Not to turn this into a debate, but not everyone has the financial means to attend college, nor the educational background (elementary and high school) necessary to do well enough in college to graduate.

My friend teaches high school biology in a grossly underfunded urban school district. He said he doesn't think any of his students would graduate from even a community college, because they're so far behind. He's teaching them things they should have been taught in sixth grade science, but weren't. And it's not simply because the student's refuse to learn. There are very few quality educators in the district, and the schools lack funding for basic needs like chalk, paper, photocopies, etc. BTW - he's a staunch Republican.Unfortunately your story happens all over the country. Maybe they cant go to college, but their are tech schools all over the place. Rets, ITT etc. That is a higher education. College isnt for everyone, but there are other options. That is what I mean.

RBA

07-20-2005, 11:14 PM

What part of "they can't afford it" don't you understand?

Well they need to choose, they need to spend their money on college and stop spending it on getting all those abortions.

guttle11

07-20-2005, 11:19 PM

What part of "they can't afford it" don't you understand?

Im sorry but healthcare is the most important thing I can think of except for food and heat.

Not everyone , but I bet many people who "cant afford" healthcare hit up the mall every week for new clothes and new PS2 games.

not all, but many.

RosieRed

07-21-2005, 12:53 AM

They still have the ability to buy heathcare. People are going to spend their money however they choose. If they dont purchase healthcare, how is that the governments fault. (dont give me the they cant afford it excuse. EVERY one in the country can get healthcare. If you cant afford it now, go to college. Anyone can get Financial aid for school.)

My parents are self-employed. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have your own health insurance, when your employer doesn't provide it for you? But then I guess that's my parents' fault. You know, for having their own business instead of going to work for some corporation.

There have been double-digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums for years, yet inflation hovers around what, 3 percent? So what happens when your health care costs start rising much higher than your annual raises? Do you just keep cutting back other expenses until all you're left with is money for food and healthcare?

I just don't understand how on earth you can assert that "EVERY one" can afford healthcare. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

pedro

07-21-2005, 01:32 AM

My parents are self-employed. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have your own health insurance, when your employer doesn't provide it for you? But then I guess that's my parents' fault. You know, for having their own business instead of going to work for some corporation.

There have been double-digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums for years, yet inflation hovers around what, 3 percent? So what happens when your health care costs start rising much higher than your annual raises? Do you just keep cutting back other expenses until all you're left with is money for food and healthcare?

I just don't understand how on earth you can assert that "EVERY one" can afford healthcare. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

no kidding. I pay for my own and so do my parents who are in their 60's. It's ridiculously expensive. I just don't undertand what is wrong with state sponsored health insurance plans. I'm not suggesting govt run health care, but universal health insurance programs run through the govt.

Jaycint

07-21-2005, 07:15 AM

I'm surprised you would take consider Rangle an extremist. I've always considered him a typical liberal democrat: very pro union, very pro working class.
A war hero . To me, hes the same as Dick Gephardt, if Gephhart was black and representing Harlem.

Granted, Charlie takes no guff from anyone, and is vocal about it. But what position has he ever taken that you consider extreme?

This position:

The Iraq war "is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. ... This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed," the 74-year-old Harlem Democrat insisted during a Monday radio appearance on the WWRL-AM morning show with Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter.

Entire article (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/317351p-271348c.html)

Note that I agree with him about the Iraq war being a fraud but he needed to stop right there. It's easy enough to tear the GOP apart without making ridiculous Holocaust comparisons.

registerthis

07-21-2005, 09:35 AM

Entire article (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/317351p-271348c.html)

Note that I agree with him about the Iraq war being a fraud but he needed to stop right there. It's easy enough to tear the GOP apart without making ridiculous Holocaust comparisons.
Really...I get so tired of the Holocaust/Hitler comparisons that are oh-so-fashionable right now. I mean, Phil Spector was comparing the press to Nazi SS officers out to get him after his trial a few months ago. The people doing this need to realize that it cheapens their point considerably when they draw Holocaust comparisons--particularly when they're not apt.

registerthis

07-21-2005, 09:42 AM

Yes, they spend more per student, but isn't that more to do with the high cost of living - teachers make more, but it doesn't go any further than a much lesser amount would here in Florida-than the government providing more money to education?

I know a girl who makes $23 working at Home Depot in Los Angeles, but it doesn't get her any more than what $8 or $9 per hour does here in Tampa.

I have seen people use D.C. as an example of how throwing more money at education doesn't make it better, but I always felt the argument did not take into account the cost of living for the city. My friend tells me that the teachers in DC make more money than in any other city and they aren't any better, yet so do the lawyers in DC, and that doesn't mean they are any better than what you would find in Cincy.

The cost of living in a city has lots to do with the wages workers are paid, regardless of the profession.

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts as I honestly have no clue on this. :)
A higher cost of living doesn't really explain the D.C. situation, though. Consider: the cost of living in D.C. is roughly 24% higher than my hometown, Columbus. Yet there is only a 5% difference in wages paid between the two. So a teacher making $40,000 in Columbus would, comparably, make $42,000 in D.C. Hardly enough to explain the disparity in per capita education spending.

Additionally, one could argue that even if the spending were rising proportionately to the increase in cost of living, then one could expect the results to be approximately the same, but they're very far apart.

Like I said, I don't know what the solution is, but D.C. is proof that simply increasing spending isn't necessarily going to improve your bottom line.

Johnny Footstool

07-21-2005, 09:43 AM

Maybe they cant go to college, but their are tech schools all over the place. Rets, ITT etc. That is a higher education. College isnt for everyone, but there are other options. That is what I mean.

It's not dirt cheap to go to tech school. Tuition at tech schools is comparable to a lot of state colleges.

Jaycint

07-21-2005, 09:43 AM

Really...I get so tired of the Holocaust/Hitler comparisons that are oh-so-fashionable right now. I mean, Phil Spector was comparing the press to Nazi SS officers out to get him after his trial a few months ago. The people doing this need to realize that it cheapens their point considerably when they draw Holocaust comparisons--particularly when they're not apt.

I totally agree Reg, it comes across as just being done for shock factor and I think lessens the point that was trying to be made in the first place. A lot of actually good points are being wasted because the general public tunes out when the commentator tries to inject Nazi and Holocaust comparisons. Now if someone wanted to compare Slobodan Milosevic's atrocities to Hitler and the Nazi's, while on a far smaller scale, it would be a much better comparison than some of them that have been thrown out of late.

Dom Heffner

07-21-2005, 10:02 AM

(dont give me the they cant afford it excuse. EVERY one in the country can get healthcare. If you cant afford it now, go to college. Anyone can get Financial aid for school.)

This also assumes they can get accepted, and it also assumes they can succeed. Not everyone can, so I guess they get to be poor. We do not all have the same level of intelligence or skills.

My cousin used to argue this point to me all the time. He inherited $2 million form his father and a business to boot. He went to college, but it had nothing to do with his success. In fact, the guy cannot spell or write very well at all- at least at a level that would indicate he is the owner of a million dolar business.

A higher cost of living doesn't really explain the D.C. situation, though. Consider: the cost of living in D.C. is roughly 24% higher than my hometown, Columbus. Yet there is only a 5% difference in wages paid between the two. So a teacher making $40,000 in Columbus would, comparably, make $42,000 in D.C. Hardly enough to explain the disparity in per capita education spending.

I could be misunderstanding, but it appears that a lot of money is not being thrown at education in DC, at least in relationship to other places. 5% more is hardly like the schools are living in luxury. Your numbers seem to indicate that the teachers actually do worse in DC because they are only making 5% more but have to deal with a 24% higher cost of living. This could be the point you are making, but if someone is going to argue that more money is being given to education in DC just because the teachers make 5% more, and those teachers have to deal with a significantly higher cost of living, then there is something wrong with the argument.

DC is always brought up as an example of more money not equaling results, and I think that is a flawed way of looking at things. It's not like the public education system is trying to compete with the private sector by bringing in talented individuals with more money, especially if they are technically paying them less.

registerthis

07-21-2005, 10:24 AM

DC is always brought up as an example of more money not equaling results, and I think that is a flawed way of looking at things. It's not like the public education system is trying to compete with the private sector by bringing in talented individuals with more money, especially if they are technically paying them less.
From what I understand, Dom, a large percentage of the increased spending is going towards special education students.

Additionally, it does seem to be an indictment of the D.C. school district, because New York, San Diego, Boston and San Francisco all have costs of living comparable to D.C., yet they spend less per pupil and receive better results.

Dom Heffner

07-21-2005, 10:37 AM

Additionally, it does seem to be an indictment of the D.C. school district, because New York, San Diego, Boston and San Francisco all have costs of living comparable to D.C., yet they spend less per pupil and receive better results.

Okay, so it is the DC school program and not the fact that they are spending more. Thanks for the clarification. I was just talking about this with a friend of mine, and these very points came up.

ochre

07-21-2005, 10:44 AM

RedsBaron

07-21-2005, 10:54 AM

(slightly OT mini-rant follows)
Wasn't there a time when health care was more affordable? I mean the direct doctor to patient relationship. What has changed to cause the modern imbalance? The obvious answer is insurance companies. Some of the peripheral issues might be (relatively) more expensive equipment, Administrative overhead due to the excessive regulating the government has imposed (at the insurance industries request?), and liability from malpractice.

How can these issues be resolved so we can get back closer to the way things used to be?
While I have no doubt that insurance companies, malpractice litigation, and the other matters cited have contibuted to the increase in the cost of health care, it should also be noted that there is so much more that we can now do for the ill that was possible decades ago. When doctors used to make house calls, there often was little more they could do for patients than reassure them and tell them to drink plenty of fluids. We demand more, and receive more, from our health care system than we used to receive, but it also costs money.
Ronald Reagan once said something to the effect of: "People say there are no simple answers. Sometimes there are simple answers; there just are no easy answers." I expect that when it comes to health care there are no simple answers and all of the answers are hard.

ochre

07-21-2005, 11:02 AM

While I have no doubt that insurance companies, malpractice litigation, and the other matters cited have contibuted to the increase in the cost of health care, it should also be noted that there is so much more that we can now do for the ill that was possible decades ago. When doctors used to make house calls, there often was little more they could do for patients than reassure them and tell them to drink plenty of fluids. We demand more, and receive more, from our health care system than we used to receive, but it also costs money.
Ronald Reagan once said something to the effect of: "People say there are no simple answers. Sometimes there are simple answers; there just are no easy answers." I expect that when it comes to health care there are no simple answers and all of the answers are hard.
I basically meant that with the part about more expensive equipment. I agree that there is quite a bit more that can be done, but there is a basic level of service that should be affordable. What has happened to that appears to mostly be either directly tied to insurance company costs, or the overhead incurred by the administrative activities required to comply with the insurance industries demands.

Rojo

07-21-2005, 01:26 PM

I never said everyone could go to an Ivy League school. I simply said EVERY person in the country has the ability to graduate High School and get some form of higher education. If your gonna argue, get my point right.

I understand your point fine. While your prescription of higher education is a good one on an individual level (that's what I'd recommend to my son), on a larger scale, it isn't a solution. Supply and demand. Time was, if you could read and write, you could punch your own ticket. Now most can read and write and its worth very little in the job market. Of course, you can't NOT read and write but it alone is too little. Likewise, if the millions of poor people in this country went to college or training school, the value of that level of education would drop.

We're always going to have people flipping burgers because, frankly, we need people to flip burgers. Why should they be miserable?

Mutaman

07-21-2005, 01:30 PM

This position:

Entire article (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/317351p-271348c.html)

Note that I agree with him about the Iraq war being a fraud but he needed to stop right there. It's easy enough to tear the GOP apart without making ridiculous Holocaust comparisons.

One dumb comment does not make someone an "extremist".

Jaycint

07-21-2005, 01:36 PM

One dumb comment does not make someone an "extremist".

That's the great thing about opinions, everybody gets one. I hardly doubt Muta that if that same statement was made by a non-Democrat you would have any problem labeling them extremist.

This is going nowhere though and I can see it quickly heading in a bad direction. FCB asked me who in my opinion I considered extreme, I answered and you chose to let me know you disagree. That's fine, I can live with that.

07-21-2005, 01:41 PM

My problem with liberals is that they're no longer liberal. My problem with conservatives is that they're no longer conservative.

Honestly, I can't tell the difference between the humans and the pigs anymore.

PickOff

07-21-2005, 04:02 PM

From what I understand, Dom, a large percentage of the increased spending is going towards special education students.

Additionally, it does seem to be an indictment of the D.C. school district, because New York, San Diego, Boston and San Francisco all have costs of living comparable to D.C., yet they spend less per pupil and receive better
results.

Yes, D.C. spends the most per student of any city school system and their results are horrible. Bad management has been a problem, no doubt, but there have also been many valiant attempts to fix the school system. As was stated earlier many use DC as an example for the argument that the amount of money spent per child does not make the difference.

I would agree that amount per student spent does not make the difference alone in terms of quality education. But money is still the primary issue in the DC school system. Or to be more precise, lack of wealth and income.

The income gap in DC is larger than any other major city in the nation. The average income of the top fifth in DC is $186,900 and the bottom fifth is $6,126. 31 times higher. The average in the nation's large cities is 18 times. NYC and Boston are in the twenties.

DC's poverty rate is also over 20%, while the major city average is around 16%. Because DC's top fifth is the third highest in the US, there is money for services, hence the ability to spend on schools. There is a difference with DC, however. It is not part of a state and it has no representative in the congress, translation, no bargaining power. This is much like the US territories, USVirgin Islands, PR, Guam, etc.

Because DC is not part of a state, there is also no option for relieving the schools problems by utilizing the suburbs. There are no suburbs in DC proper, it is an island of sorts.

You could say that DC is a case study of the way our economic system works, the benefits and the problems when a system lacks checks. It lacks checks because the district has no representation in Congress.

The results in DC. The highest disparity in income in the nation as stated above. That is also growing, of course, as it is all over the nation (though not as much as the disparity in wealth is growing - that is much harder to measure because it includes assets not just income). Over the past decade the bottom fifth's income rose 3.3%, the next fifth rose 3.9%, the next 8.2%, the next fifth 21.2%, and the top fifth's rose 35.7%. And that is just income, not the exponentially higher weath factor. The go-go nineties didn't help those on the bottom.

What you get then is growth in condos and other high end houses and services. That means less housing options for those in the bottom 60%. Which means that the poorest are living just with the poor, no real dispertion of incomes throughout the city in terms of housing. The services are of course better in the wealtier neighborhoods and crime is higher in the lower income neighborhoods. Transportation is worse, jobs are scarce, the environment is less healthy.

How does this effect the education system? Children that grow up in families that have a substailly low income have poorer health, higher rates of learning disabilities and developmental delays, and poorer school acheivement. They are also much more likely to be unemployed as adults. There is also very little support in such concentrated communities of the poor, meaning the children see no hope, a horrible life, death, no role models, and then see a life on the television much different from their own. Hopelessness is a factor as is health.

Also because of the supreme disparity in income, those that can pay for private income do. What you have is a school full of very poor children, with little support in their communities. This is more true in DC than any other major city. What you get is poor results and more poverty. It is a vicious cycle.

Solution?

Reducing the disparity in income and wealth, not increasing it. Liberals seek to reduce it, conservatives don't think it is a problem. I am a liberal. I fear for the future of our country if we continue down this road. The disparity in income has been growing since Nixon, exploded with Reagan, continued with Clinton (not a fan of his economic policies), and have been exponentially increase by Bush II. We are nearing the level of income disparity achieved before the stock market crash of '29 and shortly thereafter.

If we continue to ignore and exaserbate the shrinking of the middle class we will be headed for disaster, period.

What we have to ask ourselves is why. Why is this getting worse? The answer is that our government values the wants and needs of large corporate entities more than the wellfare of the entirety of the nation's people. There is no check on coporate power and influence. And unfortuantely corporations have shown historically and unequivically that they will not act for the best interests of the nation if left to themselves. Yes, even if it makes long term sense to do so.

Hence, we need government to regulate business. I.E. minimum wage (which by the way has not increase adjusted for inflation since 1979 while other income rates have raised significantly), working standards (overtime and dangers), anti-trust (sorely lacking today), enviromental protection, etc.

Unfortunately our government is controlled by corporate interests. Campaign finance and lobbying groups. Here is where we need real reform. Until we figure out how to combat this, there will be no change.

We also have to develop a sound international strategy for economic growth and deficit control. We have been, especially recently, letting multinational corporations run the show. Evidenced by trade deficits that are increased by our own corporations at the ultimate expense of American wage earners.

It is clear to me that the Republican agenda does not have the best interests of America at heart. It has only it's own power and corporate interests at heart. That would be fine if coporate interests had the American people's interests at heart, but we have already been over this ground. Once again another vicious cycle. Conservatives and Republicans stand in the way of letting America help itself and ensure it's future.

The liberals, and Democrats have done little to help as well, and I for one blame Clinton for expanding coporate interests instead of retarding the wayward progression of America. He didn't stop the machine that Reagan pushed forward after Nixon laid the groundwork, and we will all be sorry for it. At this point, Liberals/Democrats that want to affect real change are in a hard spot, because the country may be too far gone with its economic policies. It will take a strong leader and we need one now on the left more than ever for the sake and the future of all Americans.

Rojo

07-21-2005, 07:23 PM

Preach it, brother.

PickOff

07-21-2005, 11:34 PM

:pray:

registerthis

07-22-2005, 10:53 AM

Wow. Nicely done, PickOff. :beerme:

SunDeck

07-22-2005, 11:39 AM

I'm pretty much right down the middle.

What I can't stand about both sides is the SPIN and the LIES and the belief that being right and winning is more important than making sound policy.

traderumor

07-22-2005, 11:58 AM

Can we carry this out a bit?

If everyone got their crap together and graduated from an Ivy League school, what do you think the value of an Ivy League education would be? How much would an Ivy Leaguer make if there were 275 million of them?

And somebody's gotta flip burgers, pick lettuce and drive trucks. Should those people be paupers?So who is going to subsidize the higher wages so that these folks may be considered what, middle class? Economics tells me that the wages are lower for such jobs because they are relative to the revenue generated from flipping burgers, picking lettuce, and driving trucks, plus that there are many people competing for these jobs (which the fast food industry finally had to start paying higher wages to find any help, economics at work). So, either prices will go up, which will probably eliminate the job eventually because people will only pay a certain price for burgers, or an artificial funding mechanism will need to be in place (transfer payments from somewhere) to keep the price for the good produced the same while paying a higher wage. Nice thought, but economic forces are brutal.

PickOff

07-22-2005, 12:28 PM

So who is going to subsidize the higher wages so that these folks may be considered what, middle class? Economics tells me that the wages are lower for such jobs because they are relative to the revenue generated from flipping burgers, picking lettuce, and driving trucks, plus that there are many people competing for these jobs (which the fast food industry finally had to start paying higher wages to find any help, economics at work). So, either prices will go up, which will probably eliminate the job eventually because people will only pay a certain price for burgers, or an artificial funding mechanism will need to be in place (transfer payments from somewhere) to keep the price for the good produced the same while paying a higher wage. Nice thought, but economic forces are brutal.

As far back as 1948, In-N-Out has been the cool place to be. The place to get the freshest burgers, coolest shakes and the hottest fries. More than 50 years later, that reputation still stands. That's why the people we hire as Associates have to be the best. And why we offer...

Great Benefits
We start all our new Associates at a minimum of $9.00 an hour for one simple reason...you are important to us! And our commitment to a higher starting wage is just one of the ways in which we show it. Another way is through offering excellent benefits like flexible schedules to accommodate school and other activities, paid vacations, free meals, comprehensive training, and a 401k plan. For our full time Associates, we provide a benefits package that also includes medical, dental, vision, life and travel insurance coverage.

Great Opportunities
Our work environment is team-oriented, fast paced and fun. We encourage ALL of our In-N-Out Associates to grow with the company, to become part of our success story. That's why your success is ours!

Most of our managerial staff have started as hourly associates and have been promoted from within.
We support our Associates by providing an ongoing training program.
On average, our Store Managers earn just under $100,000 a year.
Where We Are Hiring
We're always looking for great people. To find out more about store level opportunities near you, search for a hiring location by zip code or view a list of all locations.

Pick up an application at the store nearest you. Or if your computer has Adobe Acrobat download an application and bring it to the store.

Equal Opportunity Employer By Choice

(quoted from their website)

Some business models are successful without running to the lowest common denominator. Some employers in the fast food industry don't encourage turnover, and yes McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King. etc encourage high turnover, why? Because they get subsidies from you and I for "training" workers. The more training workers, the more money in their collective pockets. Burger prices are raised all the time and we continue to buy. Adjusted for inflation, burger prices have risen more than wages in the fast food industry. We can do better.

traderumor

07-22-2005, 12:31 PM

As far back as 1948, In-N-Out has been the cool place to be. The place to get the freshest burgers, coolest shakes and the hottest fries. More than 50 years later, that reputation still stands. That's why the people we hire as Associates have to be the best. And why we offer...

Great Benefits
We start all our new Associates at a minimum of $9.00 an hour for one simple reason...you are important to us! And our commitment to a higher starting wage is just one of the ways in which we show it. Another way is through offering excellent benefits like flexible schedules to accommodate school and other activities, paid vacations, free meals, comprehensive training, and a 401k plan. For our full time Associates, we provide a benefits package that also includes medical, dental, vision, life and travel insurance coverage.

Great Opportunities
Our work environment is team-oriented, fast paced and fun. We encourage ALL of our In-N-Out Associates to grow with the company, to become part of our success story. That's why your success is ours!

Most of our managerial staff have started as hourly associates and have been promoted from within.
We support our Associates by providing an ongoing training program.
On average, our Store Managers earn just under $100,000 a year.
Where We Are Hiring
We're always looking for great people. To find out more about store level opportunities near you, search for a hiring location by zip code or view a list of all locations.

Pick up an application at the store nearest you. Or if your computer has Adobe Acrobat download an application and bring it to the store.

Equal Opportunity Employer By Choic(quoted from their website)

Some business models are successful without running to the lowest common denominator. Some employers in the fast food industry don't encourage turnover, and yes McDonalds, Taco Bell, Burger King. etc encourage high turnover, why? Because they get subsidies from you and I work "training" workers. The more training workers, the more money in their collective pockets. Burger prices are raised all the time and we continue to buy. Adjusted for inflation, burger prices have risen more than wages in the fast food industry. We can do better.I see you know how to use Google. Links help explain when something is not your own thoughts. That would include your post on the DC schools.

PickOff

07-22-2005, 12:38 PM

I see you know how to use Google. Links help explain when something is not your own thoughts. That would include your post on the DC schools.

Would it? You're right, maybe I shouldn't do research and look up statistics to better understand the issues which we are dealing with. I live in DC and have a first hand knowledge of the area. As I mentioned above I cut and pasted from In and Out's website. Clearly I did not just know the statistics on the income gap in DC. I didn't think I needed a link for that to be apparant.

http://www.in-n-out.com/
http://www.dcfpi.org/7-22-04pov-pr.htm
http://www.census.gov/

There you go. Some of the resources I used, coupled with my brain activity and own thoughts and judgements and knowledge I have picked up throughout my years and studies.

Rojo

07-22-2005, 01:22 PM

traderumor

07-22-2005, 02:02 PM

Would it? You're right, maybe I shouldn't do research and look up statistics to better understand the issues which we are dealing with. I live in DC and have a first hand knowledge of the area. As I mentioned above I cut and pasted from In and Out's website. Clearly I did not just know the statistics on the income gap in DC. I didn't think I needed a link for that to be apparant.

http://www.in-n-out.com/
http://www.dcfpi.org/7-22-04pov-pr.htm
http://www.census.gov/

There you go. Some of the resources I used, coupled with my brain activity and own thoughts and judgements and knowledge I have picked up throughout my years and studies.Who criticized doing research? All I asked for was you to provide links since it was obvious you were quoting someone else's work, even though you didn't add a few simple quote marks. That is a common courtesy on this board. Thanks for the info, but sorry I asked.

traderumor

07-22-2005, 02:08 PM

You make it sound so complicated. If McDonalds had to pay more - through minimum wage hikes or collective bargaining -- it would just come out their bottom line. Might hurt shareholders or McD management. But everyone else will be just fine.I make it sound complicated or you are oversimplifying? A smaller bottom line would only affect shareholders or management, but then that doesn't set off a entirely different chain of events? Guns and butter are nice to teach basic economic principles, but to reduce paying low skill/low wage workers more to "might hurt shareholders or...management" is a bit simplistic.

pedro

07-22-2005, 02:11 PM

traderumor

07-22-2005, 02:23 PM

He said "Quoted from their Website" in his post. You are acting like he was trying to plagiarise. I recall you quoting the bible quite a lot without providing links. Are we to assume you wrote the Bible?But use quote marks or note if I'm paraphrasing. And if I do not provide a link, I apologize for my laziness and inform folks I can provide them upon request. As for plagiarism, please, this is a forum, but as I said "common courtesy" to note when you are quoting something is too much to ask? It's pretty much the accepted norm around here, and the writing in the DC post looked a bit polished for a post on this forum.

Rojo

07-22-2005, 02:24 PM

I make it sound complicated or you are oversimplifying? A smaller bottom line would only affect shareholders or management, but then that doesn't set off a entirely different chain of events? Guns and butter are nice to teach basic economic principles, but to reduce paying low skill/low wage workers more to "might hurt shareholders or...management" is a bit simplistic.

Ok. I'll tease it out a bit. Shareholders or management might, in turn, spend a little less. OTOH, the cooks and cashiers will have more money to spend.

Prices might rise for consumer but there are always competitive checks to that tendency (or there are supposed to be).

And, since service industries can't offshore, there is little danger of layoffs.

traderumor

07-22-2005, 02:35 PM

Ok. I'll tease it out a bit. Shareholders or management might, in turn, spend a little less. OTOH, the cooks and cashiers will have more money to spend.

Prices might rise for consumer but there are always competitive checks to that tendency (or there are supposed to be).

And, since service industries can't offshore, there is little danger of layoffs.What about the effect on share price and the ability to raise capital if needed, which would also create jobs, and perhaps create jobs for higher wage classes? And what if the stock tanks because of not offering shareholders an appreciating investment, which could result in the elimination of the cooks and cashiers jobs?

We don't have to go on, but the point is that simply raising the wages of a certain class of worker to some level is going to affect a lot more folks than just owners and management, the latter being the intended target, I imagine. While it seems like it would be a simple reallocation from upper class to lower class, you are probably going to squeeze the middle class in the process, which is what most artificial transfers of wealth accomplish. For example, who has healthcare in this country? Generally speaking, the rich and the poor. Middle class like myself are priced out (choosing food and shelter over health ins) and don't always qualify for assistance.

PickOff

07-22-2005, 02:58 PM

Who criticized doing research? All I asked for was you to provide links since it was obvious you were quoting someone else's work, even though you didn't add a few simple quote marks. That is a common courtesy on this board. Thanks for the info, but sorry I asked.

I did not quote any one else's work except in the IN and Out instance, and I said 'quoted from their website' in that post.

In the DC post I researched for information on DC's poverty rate and wealth gap, as I figured that was an issue as to why the education system was so poor in DC.

The following exerpts written by be were furthered by information from a study from the links I posted above, but I consolidated the data:

"...The income gap in DC is larger than any other major city in the nation. The average income of the top fifth in DC is $186,900 and the bottom fifth is $6,126. 31 times higher. The average in the nation's large cities is 18 times. NYC and Boston are in the twenties..."

"...DC's poverty rate is also over 20%, while the major city average is around 16%. Because DC's top fifth is the third highest in the US, there is money for services, hence the ability to spend on schools..."

"...the bottom fifth's income rose 3.3%, the next fifth rose 3.9%, the next 8.2%, the next fifth 21.2%, and the top fifth's rose 35.7%..."

"...the poorest are living just with the poor, no real dispertion of incomes throughout the city in terms of housing... crime is higher in the lower income neighborhoods. Transportation is worse, jobs are scarce, the environment is less healthy...

...Children that grow up in families that have a substailly low income have poorer health, higher rates of learning disabilities and developmental delays, and poorer school acheivement. They are also much more likely to be unemployed as adults..."

"...which by the way has not increase adjusted for inflation since 1979 while other income rates have raised significantly..."

As all of this is data and or lists, I thought that would be obvious that I did not just calcualte it on my own. The last three were things I have read many places and experienced here in DC. I took lists of factors and statistics and used them to support my argument. I did not use anyone else's opinion or paraphrase an article that was making my point.

Here is what your post said:

'I see you know how to use Google. Links help explain when something is not your own thoughts. That would include your post on the DC schools.'

-Traderumor

Not my own thoughts? It was my own thoughts, supported by data and studies. If you wanted a source for the stats you could have simply asked what sources I used. I assure you I put my own work into the post. You were not simply asking for a link, so that is why my reponse was testy. If you insist on being sarcastic and accusitory then you should expect the same in response.

We all gain information from various places all the time. TV, radio, newspapers, websites, message boards, and so one. Nobody has a copyright on all thoughts and hardly any thought is truly original. My post was first a response to someone question about DC schools, I gave my opinion based on what I thought to be true and supported by my research. That then dovetailed into my larger point. I won't argue that my larger point has never been expoused by anyone else ever, but these points were my thoughts, observations, feelings, and analysis.

I will sometimes post a link, and in this case it would have been nice to do so for those more interested in the DC topic, so I should have. I have no problem doing so when asked. But the piece was mine.

traderumor

07-22-2005, 03:13 PM

Pickoff,

Thanks for the explanation. Issue closed for me.

PickOff

07-22-2005, 03:13 PM

Pickoff,

Thanks for the explanation. Issue closed for me.

Cool

Rojo

07-22-2005, 03:19 PM

What about the effect on share price and the ability to raise capital if needed, which would also create jobs, and perhaps create jobs for higher wage classes? And what if the stock tanks because of not offering shareholders an appreciating investment, which could result in the elimination of the cooks and cashiers jobs?

We don't have to go on, but the point is that simply raising the wages of a certain class of worker to some level is going to affect a lot more folks than just owners and management, the latter being the intended target, I imagine. While it seems like it would be a simple reallocation from upper class to lower class, you are probably going to squeeze the middle class in the process, which is what most artificial transfers of wealth accomplish. For example, who has healthcare in this country? Generally speaking, the rich and the poor. Middle class like myself are priced out (choosing food and shelter over health ins) and don't always qualify for assistance.

First of all stock price and capital have almost nothing to do with each other. I know that's a shock but 90% of the money raised by American business for expansion comes from internal revenue or from borrowing. The stock market is just a mechanism for centralized control.

Second, capital doesn't create jobs, consumers do. McDonalds isn't going to lock their doors to hungry consumers. And if they do, you better believe somebody will step in to pick up the slack. That's what this country is all about.

Lastly, a transfer from wealthy to poor would likely help the middle class. The rich can only spend so much money. And much of what they do spend will be on a few pricey luxury items - a lot them imported. Instead of 500 buying BMWs you get 5000 buying Fords.