PDA

View Full Version : Things you would get rid of



OldRightHander
03-03-2008, 07:24 PM
If you were in charge for a day and could get rid of anything you want, aside from certain people, what would it be?

1. Toll roads. We're already paying highway taxes.

2. Lower speed limits and lane restrictions for trucks.

3. Police cars that don't have an easily identifiable light rack on top.

4. Exits where you can't get back on the highway going the same direction and you have to go down some country road for three miles to get back on.

5. Rest area bathrooms that have the roof raised up somewhat from the outer wall so they're essentially open to the outside air. Those ones between Dallas and San Antonio come to mind.

6. Political advertising for the next election...the day after the current one ended.

7. Those incredibly bright headlights that blind the @#%$ out of you when someone comes up behind you.

8. The DH.

9. Drive up ATMs that no matter how close you pull up to them you still have to lean halfway out of the window to reach the buttons.

10. Those flashing pop ups that move around on the screen and are a pain to try to close.

11. The IRS.

12. Cheap freight.

That's my list. There are probably quite a few more, but I'll stop there.

GoReds33
03-03-2008, 07:33 PM
1. Blue headlights
2. As you said, the DH
3. The New York Knicks
4. Arena Football

Revering4Blue
03-03-2008, 07:36 PM
Automated Customer Service via telephone.

Outsourcing live Customer service lines, rather than providing jobs for people here in the Good Ole' USA.

Revering4Blue
03-03-2008, 07:42 PM
Aluminum bats in College Baseball.

Rap music.

Donald Sterling, George Shinn and Peter Angelos as Pro Sports owners.

The BCS.

SunDeck
03-03-2008, 07:47 PM
Golf balls that aren't white and golf carts for anyone under 50.

Classic Rock.

Bling.

Papermate pens (That's a lefthanded thing).

Cell phones (no one said this had to be a realistic list).

Ltlabner
03-03-2008, 07:47 PM
Right now the cat that keeps wizzing in my office because he's mad the Mrs. is preggers.

remdog
03-03-2008, 09:09 PM
Get a ticket, did ya', ORH?

Rem

OldRightHander
03-03-2008, 09:30 PM
Get a ticket, did ya', ORH?

Rem

Actually no. I don't drive fast enough to get them, but I often see these cops with folks pulled over and the cop car doesn't even look like a cop until you see the lights flashing from somewhere inside the car. I just think if the police are really out there to promote safer roads, then they will be more identifiable which will cause people to mind their manners when they know there is a cop around.

BUTLER REDSFAN
03-03-2008, 10:18 PM
You can get rid of all the political banners in everyone's yards--but save me one of the Rawnica Dillingham pictures. :) :) :)

*BaseClogger*
03-03-2008, 11:18 PM
Shopping Malls

Bip Roberts
03-03-2008, 11:24 PM
The internet

Gainesville Red
03-03-2008, 11:32 PM
The penny.

Quit junking up my pocket.

macro
03-04-2008, 12:46 AM
2. Lower speed limits and lane restrictions for trucks.


I'm glad we have those. Those things are surely much slower to stop than a passenger vehicle.

Me? I'd get rid of pennies! Pass a law that all items have to be priced such that, after tax, the total will come out on an even nickel. I HATE the total that comes to $4.02, especially when I have no change in my pocket. Is it really worth that cashier's or my time to count out that $0.98 when they could just hand me a dollar instead?

Caveat Emperor
03-04-2008, 12:50 AM
Actually no. I don't drive fast enough to get them, but I often see these cops with folks pulled over and the cop car doesn't even look like a cop until you see the lights flashing from somewhere inside the car. I just think if the police are really out there to promote safer roads, then they will be more identifiable which will cause people to mind their manners when they know there is a cop around.

With the way laser-detection devices work, by the time you can even notice the overhead lights you're already dead if you were speeding. Plus, I highly doubt that it promotes safer roads to have people in the high-speed lane slamming on the breaks as soon as they see a car parked in the median that looks cop-ish.

Overhead light bars also create additional wind resistance and drag on the automobile -- leading to decreased fuel efficiency. This can be minimized with the lightless tops or with the low-profile LED overheads that are becoming more common. For cars that are on the road as frequently and for as many miles as cop cars are, even a 2-5% decrease in fuel efficiency can cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year for a fleet of vehicles.

SteelSD
03-04-2008, 12:56 AM
1. If I don't have any kids, the I shouldn't be paying a single tax dollar for anyone else's kids to go to school.

2. Public aid for illegal aliens.

3. PETA extremists. Sometimes, culling the herd is good for everyone.

4. Side orders for which I have to pay extra at high-class restaurants. If my steak is $50.00, then you can surely include a side order you greedy bastitches!

5. Dumb Best Buy salespeople. Am I looking for something? Yep. And it's something you can't possibly explain to me without calling over a Manager or a "specialist" who'll both still know less than I do.

6. F.Y.E. You can just go away. Your prices on movies (and actually, everything) are two times too high and a few months ago, one of your robot salespeople told me you weren't carrying Blu-Ray movies because BR was "dying". Super call there, dorks.

7. Burger King fries. They've tried to get it right over the years, but they can't. It's like they're "fry-retarded". Really, it shouldn't be this difficult. Yet, it appears to be.

8. The stupid blue lights people use to deck out their car. Wow, your undercarriage is illuminated. Yet your car is still lame and the lights are the only redeeming quality. Find some other way to express yourself.

9. The Nintendo Wii. I've actually purchased four Wii units for folks I know. I've yet to find anyone who's been able to keep their attention span for more than six months. It's good for Nintendo that they're not releasing enough copies to saturate the market, because rarity is currently the only thing keeping the unit popular.

10. Police intersection cameras. Yeah, I've had to pay a fine because of this, but no one should have to pay a fine after a letter shows up in your mailbox a week after you did something stupid you didn't even remember. The message is that Big Brother is watching. The problem is that you'll never know when Big Brother is watching, and much of that crap is farmed out to agencies who have no actual ties to police departments.

Redsfaithful
03-04-2008, 01:21 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/you_know_whats_stupid


For far too long I've sat idly by, twiddling my thumbs and respecting the right of others to form thoughts and opinions independent of my own, and I can't take it anymore. I've got to speak up about the many things that annoy me or I'm going to go crazy. Take these new credit cards with the microchips in them, for instance. Man, those things really get my goat—trying to improve a device that was working perfectly fine as it was. Even worse are those wrappers on CDs that take forever to open. But you know what I hate the most? The one thing that makes my blood boil whenever I see it? Anything beyond my mental capacity, that's what.

MaineRed
03-04-2008, 07:19 AM
Overhead light bars also create additional wind resistance and drag on the automobile -- leading to decreased fuel efficiency. This can be minimized with the lightless tops or with the low-profile LED overheads that are becoming more common. For cars that are on the road as frequently and for as many miles as cop cars are, even a 2-5% decrease in fuel efficiency can cost taxpayers thousands of dollars per year for a fleet of vehicles.

You don't really believe this is why they removed the lights off cop cars do you?

If it is, good thing. Because the move to lightless cars coincided with the move to vehicles such as Ford Expeditions being used as patrol vehicles, and not just in winter.

Law enforcement is hardly worried about gas mileage. Watch any show about police, the DEA, FBI or whtever and they are all driving huge 4 X 4s that get about 11 miles to the gallon. It would be 10 miles to the gallon but they have the lights inside.

Funny things is I never see anyone get out of the back of one of these vehicles, nor do I ever see the back hatch door opened. If they arrest someone they will call in a black and white.

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 07:32 AM
I'm glad we have those. Those things are surely much slower to stop than a passenger vehicle.



There is a wealth of data showing that split speed limits are actually more dangerous and cause more congestion. More people run into the back of semis than are hit by them.

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 07:42 AM
1. If I don't have any kids, the I shouldn't be paying a single tax dollar for anyone else's kids to go to school.


10. Police intersection cameras. Yeah, I've had to pay a fine because of this, but no one should have to pay a fine after a letter shows up in your mailbox a week after you did something stupid you didn't even remember. The message is that Big Brother is watching. The problem is that you'll never know when Big Brother is watching, and much of that crap is farmed out to agencies who have no actual ties to police departments.

I'm with you on both of these. I've never liked funding so many things with property taxes. There needs to be something a bit more fair that hits everyone living in the district evenly, or at least hits everyone with a child in that school.

I read a study recently that seemed to show that intersection cameras are unsafe. People slam on their brakes at the last second at a yellow light out of fear of getting a ticket and get rear ended by the car behind.

TeamCasey
03-04-2008, 07:43 AM
Walmart

China

Paris Hilton

gonelong
03-04-2008, 08:23 AM
1. If I don't have any kids, the I shouldn't be paying a single tax dollar for anyone else's kids to go to school.

I don't have any relatives in jail, so I don't want to pay a single tax dollar for any one else's relatives to go to jail.

GL

919191
03-04-2008, 08:30 AM
I don't have any relatives in jail, so I don't want to pay a single tax dollar for any one else's relatives to go to jail.

GL

Same here- no family in the military, so none of my tax dollars should go there.


Isn't an educated society better than one which is not?

Ltlabner
03-04-2008, 08:56 AM
Not to get completey off on a tangent, but I don't mind paying for other kids to go to school. As 919191 pointed out education pays off for everybody down the road.

What I do object too, however, is being painted as a no-good, cold-hearted, son-of-a-you-know-what for daring to suggest that my tax dollars be spent wisely. That somehow I "hate the children" if I object to some facet to how those tax dollars are allocated. And that I'm a spawn of satan for saying no to a particular levy when it doesn't make sense to me to pass it.

I'll gladly pay for other people education, just don't expect me to keep writing blank checks and have no input over how that money is spent.

Unassisted
03-04-2008, 09:23 AM
I don't have any relatives in jail, so I don't want to pay a single tax dollar for any one else's relatives to go to jail.
So you won't mind if a convicted felon moves in to the house/apartment next door to yours while he waits for a prison cell to open up? :evil:

BRM
03-04-2008, 10:05 AM
Same here- no family in the military, so none of my tax dollars should go there.


Isn't an educated society better than one which is not?

A quality school district can help property values in the area. That's a good thing I would think.

That said, I can sort of understand why some people don't want to pay that portion if they don't have kids though. Especially in areas where property taxes are very high.

rotnoid
03-04-2008, 10:05 AM
Not to get completey off on a tangent, but I don't mind paying for other kids to go to school. As 919191 pointed out education pays off for everybody down the road.

What I do object too, however, is being painted as a no-good, cold-hearted, son-of-a-you-know-what for daring to suggest that my tax dollars be spent wisely. That somehow I "hate the children" if I object to some facet to how those tax dollars are allocated. And that I'm a spawn of satan for saying no to a particular levy when it doesn't make sense to me to pass it.

I'll gladly pay for other people education, just don't expect me to keep writing blank checks and have no input over how that money is spent.

You must live in my neighborhood. So many things I'd like to say here, but board rules don't allow it. Let's just say I'm sick of paying it too.

Puffy
03-04-2008, 10:14 AM
7. Burger King fries. They've tried to get it right over the years, but they can't. It's like they're "fry-retarded". Really, it shouldn't be this difficult. Yet, it appears to be.



When I was a kid Burger King was easily the best of the fast food restaurants. The flame broiled burgers way better than McDonald's. Then they changed the fries and now I go to Burger King maybe once every 18 months.

They are truly "fry-retarded"

Unassisted
03-04-2008, 10:34 AM
When I was a kid Burger King was easily the best of the fast food restaurants. The flame broiled burgers way better than McDonald's. Then they changed the fries and now I go to Burger King maybe once every 18 months.

They are truly "fry-retarded"You're right on about the burgers. IMO, BK's fries taste like crayons smell.

rotnoid
03-04-2008, 10:47 AM
You're right on about the burgers. IMO, BK's fries taste like crayons smell.

Back in my younger days I worked at the King when they made the switch. Anyone who tells you they don't taste different is lying. I got the chance to go side by side. No comparison, the old ones hands down.

At that time, the corporate talking heads were touting a new coating or something on the new fries. I don't remember what it was, but it always makes me think of the work scenes in Christmas Vacation and non-nutritive cereal varnish.

macro
03-04-2008, 10:55 AM
There is a wealth of data showing that split speed limits are actually more dangerous and cause more congestion. More people run into the back of semis than are hit by them.

I'll defer to you on this, ORH, because my opinion is admittedly an uninformed one. Assuming that eliminating the limits would be safer, why haven't lawmakers been convinced of it?

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 10:57 AM
On the subject of paying taxes for things we don't have a stake in, and I hope I can address this without sending this thread into Peanut Gallery territory, I think the current system needs to be seriously looked at. Using property taxes to fund everything under the sun but then putting those levies on the ballot where people who don't own property have a say seems a bit unfair to me. Let the renters pay their share too. If you get to vote on the levy, then you should pay something if it passes.

SunDeck
03-04-2008, 10:59 AM
I think renters do pay their share. It's not like landlords don't pass on the expenses of owning the property, is it?
And in many states, I believe rental property taxes are higher than residential taxes.

gonelong
03-04-2008, 11:01 AM
So you won't mind if a convicted felon moves in to the house/apartment next door to yours while he waits for a prison cell to open up? :evil:

It'd be better than a whole pack of uneducated 14 years olds with too much time on their hands. :)

GL

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 11:10 AM
I'll defer to you on this, ORH, because my opinion is admittedly an uninformed one. Assuming that eliminating the limits would be safer, why haven't lawmakers been convinced of it?

Let's try to address this without getting political. There are certain organizations that don't like the trucking industry and they have money. Lobbyists and politicians...enough said there.

Anyway, there are a couple organizations that like to show pictures of the aftermath of an accident between a car and a semi and then use those pictures to put more restrictions on the trucking industry. I would have to dig up the actual stats, but the numbers are something like 90% of all accidents involving a car and a semi are the fault of the person driving the car. People cut off trucks too close, not realizing how much more space a truck requires to stop. There is another study that has been ongoing for several years that shows that differences in speed account for more accidents. Uniform highway speed is safer because when there is a good traffic flow there are fewer lane changes. Also, how many times have you seen a line of cars behind a truck that's passing another truck but they're both doing way slower than the posted limit for cars. That's because if the truck punches it to pass the other one faster, he's not going to get the benefit of the doubt from the police. He'll get the ticket every time. Another thing that the split speed has caused are all the accidents where a car comes up behind a slower truck and runs right into the back of the trailer. Running into the back of a semi trailer is going to do a fair amount of damage to your car.

In short, more interaction between vehicles means more opportunity for accidents to occur, and when you have one group of vehicles going slower than the others, you have a lot of interaction when the cars are always trying to pass the trucks and often times behaving erratically in their efforts to do so.

15fan
03-04-2008, 11:21 AM
I think renters do pay their share. It's not like landlords don't pass on the expenses of owning the property, is it?
And in many states, I believe rental property taxes are higher than residential taxes.

Mrs. fan works for a company that builds & manages apartment complexes.

Property taxes are typically one of the biggest, if not the biggest, expense to the management company.

Rest assured that those taxes get passed on to the renters in the form of the monthly rent payment.

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 11:26 AM
It'd be better than a whole pack of uneducated 14 years olds with too much time on their hands. :)

GL

Probably not much of a difference.

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 11:30 AM
Rest assured that those taxes get passed on to the renters in the form of the monthly rent payment.

I was pretty much speaking from my experience when I was a renter. I lived in the same apartment for five years and the rent never went up once, although there were three or four tax levies passed during that same time. I didn't all of a sudden have to pay more because the property taxes went up, but maybe that's not the case with all landlords.

Caveat Emperor
03-04-2008, 12:45 PM
You don't really believe this is why they removed the lights off cop cars do you?

If it is, good thing. Because the move to lightless cars coincided with the move to vehicles such as Ford Expeditions being used as patrol vehicles, and not just in winter.

Law enforcement is hardly worried about gas mileage. Watch any show about police, the DEA, FBI or whtever and they are all driving huge 4 X 4s that get about 11 miles to the gallon. It would be 10 miles to the gallon but they have the lights inside

I can't speak for everywhere, but here with the HCSO and CPD, the overhwelming majority of their patrol cars are standard Fords. They do operate some SUVs, but the bulk of the miles go to ordinary sedans.

Caveat Emperor
03-04-2008, 12:50 PM
1. If I don't have any kids, the I shouldn't be paying a single tax dollar for anyone else's kids to go to school.

That kinda logic is a quick way to get funding revoked for parks (I don't go there, why should my tax dollars support them?), mass transit (I own a car, why should I pay for buses?), services for mentally retarded individuals (I'm not related to anyone mentally retarded, why should I pay for services for them?), and any number of government services that benefit some but not all.

I see the results daily of what happens when kids aren't in school. Trust me -- you WANT teenagers in school as much as possible. They do unbelievably stupid things when they have time on their hands.

SunDeck
03-04-2008, 01:02 PM
I can certainly understand the frustration with paying tax dollars to school systems that are failing. Unfortunately, the schools have no power to train parents to raise better kids. When I worked in the West End, virtually every kid who I worked with that was not a problem kid was also a kid who's mother or grandmother I knew. The delinquent kids, the ones who broke our windows, and ran with gangs (at 10 years old) all had one thing in common- no real parenting going on at home. They'd run the streets until midnight, sleep on the couch in the living room then get themselves a hardy breakfast of doritos and coke before school. Mom? Nowhere to be found.

Don't know what the answer is, but it would frustrate me too if I were a resident of Cincinnati and I saw something like 60% of my property taxes going towards a school district that is operating holding pens for future felons in the inner city.

Anyway, so there's something I'd get rid of- parents who are unqualified to raise good citizens.

MaineRed
03-04-2008, 01:03 PM
That kinda logic is a quick way to get funding revoked for parks (I don't go there, why should my tax dollars support them?), mass transit (I own a car, why should I pay for buses?), services for mentally retarded individuals (I'm not related to anyone mentally retarded, why should I pay for services for them?), and any number of government services that benefit some but not all.

I see the results daily of what happens when kids aren't in school. Trust me -- you WANT teenagers in school as much as possible. They do unbelievably stupid things when they have time on their hands.

I agree, if you had to pay to send your kids to school, a good portion of parents would consider it a waste of money and just let their kids drop out.

Rojo
03-04-2008, 01:14 PM
Seems like people didn't mind paying property taxes so much a year ago, when their home was a "gold mine".

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 01:40 PM
Seems like people didn't mind paying property taxes so much a year ago, when their home was a "gold mine".

I've never really liked paying them at any time.

Hap
03-04-2008, 02:13 PM
the company suck-ups, crap-starters, and do-nothings

OldRightHander
03-04-2008, 02:15 PM
the company suck-ups, crap-starters, and do-nothings

You get rid of those and some companies would have to close up shop.

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 07:00 AM
You get rid of those and some companies would have to close up shop.

And what about Redszone?

BRM
03-05-2008, 09:46 AM
And what about Redszone?

There are no crap-starters here. Surely you have this place confused with another site.

Dom Heffner
03-05-2008, 11:08 AM
That somehow I "hate the children" if I object to some facet to how those tax dollars are allocated.

It comes from all sides who use it when it suits their needs.

SteelSD
03-05-2008, 11:23 AM
That kinda logic is a quick way to get funding revoked for parks (I don't go there, why should my tax dollars support them?), mass transit (I own a car, why should I pay for buses?), services for mentally retarded individuals (I'm not related to anyone mentally retarded, why should I pay for services for them?), and any number of government services that benefit some but not all.

Slightly different stuff there. I can sure get behind the idea of paying tax dollars for access to services like public parks, mass transit, etc. I can choose to use those or not. My call. And I can sure do my fair share for folks who legitimately can't help themselves.

But when the subject turns to the same percentage of my property taxes being used to fund education as the family across the street with four kids, then all I can say is, "Ante up, folks!" If they can afford to have 'em, then they need to be able to shoulder the burden of paying for their education.


I see the results daily of what happens when kids aren't in school. Trust me -- you WANT teenagers in school as much as possible. They do unbelievably stupid things when they have time on their hands.

Oh, I understand completely. At the same time, I'm not suggesting a decrease in the amount of funding for schools. I'm only suggesting shifting the burden. Would that be a bit more painful for folks with kids than folks without? Sure. But in my eyes it should be.

vaticanplum
03-05-2008, 02:50 PM
Tax dollars paid for every one of us to go to school, public or private. In part I think of my contribution of tax dollars to schools as my own retroactive contribution. It's kind of like reverse social security in a way.

For all of its faults, the American education system is one of the strongest in the world and accounts for the country's economic success and international strength. In my opinion what we are paying for is not just textbooks, it's the foundation of this country's well-being, which very directly affects and benefits us all.

Ltlabner
03-05-2008, 06:33 PM
It comes from all sides who use it when it suits their needs.

Huh?

Sorry...have been in sales meeting all day and I'm fried....

OldRightHander
03-05-2008, 07:53 PM
Huh?

Sorry...have been in sales meeting all day and I'm fried....

He's right that a lot of groups will accuse people who oppose something of "hating" some other group that might benefit from what the first group is opposing. We can't discuss ideas any more. It's easier to accuse everyone of hating. If you vote against a school levy, you hate children, oppose the ideas of someone who is a minority and you must hate that group, etc.

Dom Heffner
03-05-2008, 09:28 PM
Thanks, OldRightHander.

I just meant to add to Abner's point by saying it's done by both ends of the spectrum.

My original post was a bit more explanatory but I edited it out of respect for board rules.

Roy Tucker
03-06-2008, 11:41 PM
I don't mind debate about school levies, whether they are good, bad, merited, needed, not needed, etc.... That's all good discussion and all the pros and cons need to be hashed out in public. All the issues need to see daylight.

Just my opinion, but I think schools do belong in the public domain just like parks, public transportation, fire, police, etc etc. You can choose to use the schools just like the rest of these publicly available services.

Locally speaking, they ought to put a plaque on a classroom in my name for the money I've pumped into local schools, both as a non-parent and parent.

SteelSD
03-07-2008, 12:16 AM
Just my opinion, but I think schools do belong in the public domain just like parks, public transportation, fire, police, etc etc. You can choose to use the schools just like the rest of these publicly available services.

Having no children, I can't choose to use public schools like I can other publicly available services.

The next time I'll be invited to a Parent/Teacher conference is exactly "never". So exacly why should I pay for other parents' kids schooling?

The answer always tends to be that we don't want kids out on the street, but if shifting the burden of expense to parents of kids who use public education produces an expected result of less children in school, haven't we actually identified the real issue?

Roy Tucker
03-07-2008, 12:28 AM
Having no children, I can't choose to use public schools like I can other publicly available services.



So you chose not to have or adopt children. I can choose not to ride public transportation or walk in the park. I don't mean to be thick, but I don't see the difference.

The big problem is that the US median income has essentially been flat since 1970. A disproportionate amount of the US economic growth during that time has gone to the 95th percentile and above. Property values (and hence, taxes and schools) have gotten skewed in a a similar way.

SteelSD
03-07-2008, 11:47 AM
So you chose not to have or adopt children. I can choose not to ride public transportation or walk in the park. I don't mean to be thick, but I don't see the difference.

There are light years of difference between having children versus taking a stroll in the local park. It makes no sense for me to acquire something I don't want (a child) in order to use a service I help pay for but currently can't use.

Rojo
03-07-2008, 12:34 PM
There are light years of difference between having children versus taking a stroll in the local park. It makes no sense for me to acquire something I don't want (a child) in order to use a service I help pay for but currently can't use.


You'll use it when all those kids are working adults paying for your Social Security.

To quote George Costanza, "We're living in a society here!"

pahster
03-07-2008, 12:42 PM
The next time I'll be invited to a Parent/Teacher conference is exactly "never". So exacly why should I pay for other parents' kids schooling?

Because other people's parents and lots of people without children paid for your schooling. If you went to college, they paid for a lot of that too.

pedro
03-07-2008, 12:49 PM
Did you go to public schools SteelSD?

registerthis
03-07-2008, 01:26 PM
I can choose to use those or not. My call.

...

But when the subject turns to the same percentage of my property taxes being used to fund education as the family across the street with four kids, then all I can say is, "Ante up, folks!"

I don't own a car, therefore my tax dollars should not be used to fund road construction.

I have no children, therefore my tax dollars should not be spent on youth centers and child welfare programs.

I am funding my own retirement, therefore my tax dollars should not be used to support social security.

I don't live near any public transportation, therefore my tax dollars should not be used to fund it.

...it's not difficult to see where this type of thinking leads. To the point specifically about schools: EVERYONE benefits from an educated populace, whether or not one makes use of public education (whether themselves or for their children). It's an uber-simplistic point of view to believe that you have received no benefit from public education simply because you do not have children and therefore do not make use of public schooling. The system only works when everyone contributes--and if anything the public school system is underfunded as it is.

Besides, whatever schools you attended--public or private, public university or private lib-arts school--benefitted in some way from public funding. Other people pay for stuff you use but they don't--and it's only reasonable that you be expected to do the same.

MaineRed
03-07-2008, 01:31 PM
Your tax dollars go to pay for the community you live in and the community you live in runs a school. It works the same way as the person who doesn't drive "paying" for potholes to be fixed. I don't ride a bike in the road but I have to pay for big wide bike lanes. Why? Because my community chooses to have bike lanes. I don't use public restrooms in the town I live in either. But ......

This is why we have the power to elect out public officials. You have the power to vote for someone who will run the community properly.

What is the old saying about it taking a community to raise a child?

15fan
03-07-2008, 02:04 PM
By definition, government is designed to be inefficient. Its primary functions is to provide services that the market would not ordinarily provide for one reason or another.

I used to think that the property tax needed to go away and be replaced with some sort of sales tax. But then thinking about the logistics of collecting that sales tax has swung me back around to accepting that the property tax mechanism is probably the easiest means available of collecting a consistent base of revenue for government operations.

And with the miracle of Al Gore's internet, it's really easy to see what the property taxes are when you are looking to buy a place. We bought our current home 4 years ago in large part because it was in a wonderful tax situation. Property taxes on our side of the street (unicorporated county gov't) are 1/2 of what they are across the street (different county and in the city).

RedsManRick
03-07-2008, 03:05 PM
Maybe we shouldn't consider children as property of the citizens but rather a segment of the citizenry itself. It is not the parents who most benefit from their children's eduction, but the children themselves. The funds are raised by the community to fund the service(s) provided to a segment of that community which cannot provide said service to themselves.

We decided as a society we wanted to provide a service to a limited segment of the population for the greater benefit of the society. We subsidize transportation infrastructure, public transportation, parks, medical aid, food stamps, housing, sewage systems, entertainment venues, etc. We use (or are eligible to use), these services in varying ways. I don't own a care and yet I fund the DMV. I don't see how education is unique. Though the case for it's public benefit is perhaps among the easiest to make.

Steel, is it your position that any service provided to a limited segment of society should be fully funded by that segment?

Strikes Out Looking
03-07-2008, 03:40 PM
1. Reality Television
2. Chicago Cubs...and there fans
3. Plastic Grocery Bags
4. Robo calls for elections
5. Robo calls for fundraising organizations
6. Automatic renewal of drivers licenses

You never said the list had to be realistic.

By the way, Steel, if you feel like your missing something by not going to a parent-teacher conference, you are more than welcome to sit in on one of mine in the future.

Rojo
03-07-2008, 04:03 PM
I'd get rid of reclining seats on airplanes. They add more discomfort to the person in back than comfort to the recliner.

NJReds
03-07-2008, 04:07 PM
Drivers who can't bother to clean off the tops of their cars after a snowstorm.

I've nearly been hit by chunks of ice off the tops of cars and semis a few times this winter. Nothing like a sheet of ice coming towards you at 70 MPH. Thankfully they're passing a law in NJ that has some teeth to it to punish those who can't be bothered.

pedro
03-07-2008, 05:12 PM
I'd get rid of reclining seats on airplanes. They add more discomfort to the person in back than comfort to the recliner.

I agree. I find people that recline back into my face incredibly rude.

The most I ever recline my seat is a couple of inches at most.

rotnoid
03-07-2008, 05:12 PM
Drivers who can't bother to clean off the tops of their cars after a snowstorm.

I've nearly been hit by chunks of ice off the tops of cars and semis a few times this winter. Nothing like a sheet of ice coming towards you at 70 MPH. Thankfully they're passing a law in NJ that has some teeth to it to punish those who can't be bothered.


Amen. My wife can't understand my frustration with people that do this. I mean, spend the $3 and get a brush for crying out loud.

improbus
03-07-2008, 09:30 PM
Slightly different stuff there. I can sure get behind the idea of paying tax dollars for access to services like public parks, mass transit, etc. I can choose to use those or not. My call. And I can sure do my fair share for folks who legitimately can't help themselves.

But when the subject turns to the same percentage of my property taxes being used to fund education as the family across the street with four kids, then all I can say is, "Ante up, folks!" If they can afford to have 'em, then they need to be able to shoulder the burden of paying for their education.



Oh, I understand completely. At the same time, I'm not suggesting a decrease in the amount of funding for schools. I'm only suggesting shifting the burden. Would that be a bit more painful for folks with kids than folks without? Sure. But in my eyes it should be.
Most of the money we educators spend in schools is already allocated for purchases and requirements before we even get our hands on it. The State and Federal guidelines don't give districts too much leeway in their spending habits, particularly in districts where money is tight, so its not like we have a whole pile of money to spend foolishly. I teach in a fairly well off school district with a strong reputation for education and our computers are almost 8 years old (pentium II and III's), we haven't bought new furniture in years and our chalkboards don't work with chalk.

Schools also perform services beyond education. They are a community center, arts center (music, plays, artistic works), and a sports location. I've always found that people in Cincinnati are identified first and foremost by what High School they went to, not where they live. If someone says, "I went to LaSalle", you already know an awful lot about that guy.

Revering4Blue
03-07-2008, 10:12 PM
On a lighter note, The Big Ten Network needs to go, at least until the impasse with Comcast is resolved.

SteelSD
03-07-2008, 11:24 PM
First, let me say that it was not my intention to turn this into a heated political/moral/ethical debate. Just wanted to post that for everyone so it's clear. And yes, I completely understand that my position is probably unpopular. That's ok. Moving on...


Maybe we shouldn't consider children as property of the citizens but rather a segment of the citizenry itself.

I don't think there's any way we can do that. Those kids are joining the "community" solely via the decision-making processes of parents who want to have them.


It is not the parents who most benefit from their children's eduction, but the children themselves.

The children benefit from the education, sure. However, that doesn't wash away the benefit parents get from having me pay for part of that education.


The funds are raised by the community to fund the service(s) provided to a segment of that community which cannot provide said service to themselves.

And there we have a fundamental issue as that community segment was produced through the choices of others who are legally responsible for supporting it.


We decided as a society we wanted to provide a service to a limited segment of the population for the greater benefit of the society.

As a society, we often do things that benefit the majority even if it negatively impacts the minority. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's not. But we're a democracy so it happens.

For example, I live in a state where access to video lottery is rampant, yet the vast majority of the public doesn't use it and wouldn't possibly go on record as stating that gambling itself is a good thing. Yet we've seen multiple attempts to end the practice fail at the ballot box because the majority of the public is now addicted to the tax dollars generated.

And I have no illusions about the likely result of a public vote on lowering property taxes for those without children and raising them for folks who've chosen to have them. Such a measure wouldn't be defeated due to the perceived effect on "society". After all, the actual funding dollars wouldn't change so the effect on society would be nil. Such a measure would be defeated, and soundly, almost solely due to the fact that the majority will not want to pay higher taxes.


We subsidize transportation infrastructure, public transportation, parks, medical aid, food stamps, housing, sewage systems, entertainment venues, etc. We use (or are eligible to use), these services in varying ways. I don't own a car and yet I fund the DMV. I don't see how education is unique. Though the case for it's public benefit is perhaps among the easiest to make.

Education is unique because it's the ultimate in conditional access. If you don't satisfy the first condition by having a child (which is about a bajillion times bigger a choice than buying a used car), it's impossible to use. Every other service you've described is accessible to you, or is a service provided for those who legitimately can't provide for themselves. As I noted earlier in the thread, I'm fine with doing my fair share for those who legitimately can't provide for themselves.

In the case of your DMV example, even without a car you have access to a driver's licence and/or an identification card. The public transportation drivers you likely use have to go through the DMV for their licences and vehicle inspections. Not having a vehicle, you don't pay registration taxes. You don't pay for tag renewals or plate renewals. You don't directly pay for taxes on fuel. Those with cars bear a higher tax burden for having them than those who don't. That's clear.

And, again, I'm not talking about reducing funding for education. I don't want that. All I'm looking for is that those with children pay their own way. If funding for education is reduced by that shift, then that really isolates the issue for me.


Steel, is it your position that any service provided to a limited segment of society should be fully funded by that segment?

No. It's my position that funding education is a unique circumstance that places a disproportionate tax burden on those who can't possibly use the service.

OSUredsFAN
03-07-2008, 11:38 PM
Drivers who can't bother to clean off the tops of their cars after a snowstorm.

I've nearly been hit by chunks of ice off the tops of cars and semis a few times this winter. Nothing like a sheet of ice coming towards you at 70 MPH. Thankfully they're passing a law in NJ that has some teeth to it to punish those who can't be bothered.

Cars, I agree. Semis, I don't. Kida hard to climb up there with snow.

registerthis
03-07-2008, 11:45 PM
Education is unique because it's the ultimate in conditional access. If you don't satisfy the first condition by having a child (which is about a bajillion times bigger a choice than buying a used car), it's impossible to use.

That's an exceedingly narrow-minded viewpoint. You benefit immensely from helping to provide an education for children across the street from you, in your neighborhood, and throughout your city. Those children who eceive that education go on to provide services to the community and the world at large that they would not be able to provide sans an education. Their education helps them fill jobs, grow our economy, and ultimately better our society.

From a slightly more cynical (and practical) perspective, schools keep children out of trouble by providing them an outlet and directing their energies towards something positive.

A publicly funded education cannot discriminate from who is responsible for paying for it and who is not. Like a majority of government services and programs, it requires the contributions of everyone--not a select few--in order to function appropriately. In spite of your quarrels to the contrary, your predicament is not unlike that of many others who pay for services for which they do not and could not have a need--to list every example of such a thing would be an exercise in futility. Yet our society has made a determination that the multitude services which our government provides--including education--are useful and necessary for the betterment of everyone, regardless of whether or not every individual does (or can) partake of them.

registerthis
03-07-2008, 11:52 PM
No. It's my position that funding education is a unique circumstance that places a disproportionate tax burden on those who can't possibly use the service.

You could make the same argument for government-funded homeless shelters, drug treatment facilities, public transportation, welfare agencies, and a litany of other government services and programs which cost taxpayers a significant sum of money yet which are used or available only to a selective group of the population.

OldRightHander
03-07-2008, 11:53 PM
Cars, I agree. Semis, I don't. Kida hard to climb up there with snow.

You beat me to it. I don't even drive a semi, just a Sprinter van that's a shade over nine feet high, and it's hard enough for me. On that note, maybe there could be something that could be installed at truck stops where a driver could drive under it and some kind of bar would push all the snow off the trailer while the truck goes underneath.

Another item to add to my list would have to be anti idling laws for diesel vehicles. I pulled into a truck stop in New York last night and saw a large sign reading that idling for more than five minutes is against the law in New York. I ignored the sign because I have a law against sleeping in a cold bed. No cops bothered to enforce the law at that truck stop, but some non trucker person made a comment about it to me, actually asked me if I planned to shut my engine off when I was coming back out from using the restroom. I asked him if he would mind if I came and shut off the heat in his house that night while he was sleeping, just to make things fair.

SteelSD
03-08-2008, 12:03 AM
That's an exceedingly narrow-minded viewpoint. You benefit immensely from helping to provide an education for children across the street from you, in your neighborhood, and throughout your city. Those children who receive that education go on to provide services to the community and the world at large that they would not be able to provide sans an education. Their education helps them fill jobs, grow our economy, and ultimately better our society.

Again, I fail to see how shifting the burden of funding said education to parents would mean that children wouldn't be educated. Same amount of funding. Different sources.

If the crux of your argument assumes that funding would be diminished to a point where parents would be unable to send their children to school then the real issue is pretty clear, isn't it?

SteelSD
03-08-2008, 12:15 AM
You could make the same argument for government-funded homeless shelters, drug treatment facilities, public transportation, welfare agencies, and a litany of other government services and programs which cost taxpayers a significant sum of money yet which are used or available only to a selective group of the population.

You've ignored my previous statement about doing my fair share for citizens who legitimately can't help themselves and I've already covered public transportation. You can try to paint me as inconsistent, but really I haven't been. During this discussion, I've actually gone to great lengths to stay both logically and ethically consistent.

Feel free to read my previous posts on the topic. If you can then actually find real inconsistencies with my position, then by all means point them out. If you can do so without positioning either straw men or red herrings, I'll be happy to reconsider my position.

OldRightHander
03-08-2008, 01:14 AM
The real crux of this argument isn't whether or not all of the aforementioned services should be provided by society, but how they should be provided. Is it the job of the government or the job of private citizens? Answering that question would probably best be done in the Peanut Gallery, so I'll just leave it at that.

Caveat Emperor
03-08-2008, 12:18 PM
Education is unique because it's the ultimate in conditional access. If you don't satisfy the first condition by having a child (which is about a bajillion times bigger a choice than buying a used car), it's impossible to use.

Maybe a bajillion times bigger a choice, but certainly nowhere near as difficult and as complex. Nobody asks for a credit check or requires paperwork be signed before a child gets conceived.


And, again, I'm not talking about reducing funding for education. I don't want that. All I'm looking for is that those with children pay their own way. If funding for education is reduced by that shift, then that really isolates the issue for me.

OK.

So what about the people who are indigent with children? Lots of people are on government assistance and have kids. They can't afford to provide for themselves and their kids as it stands, and they certainly won't be able to afford to pay an additional tax to send their kids to school.

That leaves us with two options: decline to educate their children because they can't afford to pay or require the state to pay for their kids to be educated. Option A clearly isn't workable for any number of legal reasons, so that leaves us with Option B. That passes the cost of their education onto the school, meaning that the school would have to raise the tax on those that CAN pay to compensate for those that can't. Since you've already established you shouldn't have to pay a dime if you choose not to have children, that means the tax burden would necessarily fall to the segment of the population who have kids and have the means to pay for those kids.

Thus, a community with heavy numbers of poor and impoverished people would see a hefty rise in taxes for those people with children who are not impoverished. I don't know about you, but if I'm in such a community, I'm looking to move out as soon as possible and get somewhere where everyone can afford to pay and the burden isn't passed solely to me. When that happens, where does the money come from?

Most likely the general fund which is, surprise, paid for by your tax dollars.

pedro
03-08-2008, 12:26 PM
I'm more than happy to pay for public schools even though I have no children.

I couldn't tolerate a world in which people were stupider than they already are.

westofyou
03-08-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm more than happy to pay for public schools even though I have no children.

I couldn't tolerate a world in which people were stupider than they already are.

Nope.. it would be akin to hanging out with "Guy" at Bonner Springs.

OldRightHander
03-08-2008, 01:14 PM
I'm more than happy to pay for public schools even though I have no children.

I couldn't tolerate a world in which people were stupider than they already are.

I don't mind paying for schools, but I would like more oversight and better financial accountability to make sure the money is spent wisely. A world where people are even dumber? :scared:

NJReds
03-08-2008, 03:26 PM
Cars, I agree. Semis, I don't. Kida hard to climb up there with snow.

There's a women from New Jersey that would disagree with you if she were still alive. But being that it's inconvenient an all...

Truckers definitely have more of an excuse than regular drivers, who have no excuse at all.

There are some stops in this neck of the woods that are installing an apparatus that looks like a football goalpost that sweeps the snow off of big rigs. From what I've read, they seem to work quite well.

Rojo
03-08-2008, 03:42 PM
The real crux of this argument isn't whether or not all of the aforementioned services should be provided by society, but how they should be provided. Is it the job of the government or the job of private citizens?

See, I don't really think that is the crux. I think the crux is whether school funding should be tied directly to property taxes or just another general tax stream. That's what makes the issue thorny. There aren't many taxes that are tied so directly to one expenditure.

BTW, in California, its not tied so directly. A state court ruled that tieing school funding to local property taxes was unfair to poorer communities. Subsequently, property taxes collected in affluent communities above a certain amount was forwarded to the state to be distributed to poorer districts.

This lead to Proposition 13 which capped all property taxes at 1% and annually rises at 2% -- no matter the rise in value. The state then had to step in with funding to an even greater degree for school funding while still collecting a lot of money from wealthy districts. In short, its a bit of a mess.

RFS62
03-08-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm more than happy to pay for public schools even though I have no children.

I couldn't tolerate a world in which people were stupider than they already are.



I believe the children are the future

teach them well and let them lead the way...

Ltlabner
03-08-2008, 04:57 PM
People so terrified by snow that they drive so slowly as to become a safety hazard. If you are that scared by the white death, stay home.

OldRightHander
03-08-2008, 08:31 PM
People so terrified by snow that they drive so slowly as to become a safety hazard. If you are that scared by the white death, stay home.

I might be one of those. Not that I'm so scared of it, but I only drive as fast as I have complete control over the vehicle, and driving a rear wheel drive van, that's not that fast. I'm generally the person that's over to the far right screaming at everyone else for going too fast for conditions...and then laughing every time I see a four wheel drive in the ditch while I'm just plodding along and staying on the road.

pedro
03-09-2008, 12:35 AM
I believe the children are the future

teach them well and let them lead the way...

hippy.

No really, I'm not having a ton of my own kids. I might as well invest in someone else's. I like them, they seem ok to me...... Despite their parents in some instances. (That goes for the full spectrum of socio economic ladder BTW)

Hell, if I actually thought it would result in better education I might be willing to pay more.

But I had the opportunity to go to some of the better schools, both public and private, in the country. Not everyone gets that. I just can't bring myself to cheap out on school taxes when I went to school in such great places myself.

cincinnati chili
03-09-2008, 04:56 AM
I'd get rid of reclining seats on airplanes. They add more discomfort to the person in back than comfort to the recliner.

Let me guess. You're tall

NJReds
03-09-2008, 11:19 AM
Let me guess. You're tall

I'm 6-1, and I agree with him.

Although some planes are better than others. I try not to recline very much if someone is behind me. When meals are served, I make sure that my seatback is up completely.

NJReds
03-09-2008, 11:20 AM
People so terrified by snow that they drive so slowly as to become a safety hazard. If you are that scared by the white death, stay home.

On the flipside. People who have SUVs who think that snow and ice will not affect their 4WD machines.

TeamCasey
03-09-2008, 11:28 AM
I might be one of those. Not that I'm so scared of it, but I only drive as fast as I have complete control over the vehicle, and driving a rear wheel drive van, that's not that fast. I'm generally the person that's over to the far right screaming at everyone else for going too fast for conditions...and then laughing every time I see a four wheel drive in the ditch while I'm just plodding along and staying on the road.

I agree. I've driven in bad snow much of my life. I'd rather get behind a slow, steady driver than in a situation where people keep braking and changing lanes.

One tap of the brake on the wrong road surface can send you flying in a split second.

Rojo
03-09-2008, 01:29 PM
Let me guess. You're tall

I'm 6'4", so, yes, space is at a premium for me.

Tyler Durden
03-09-2008, 01:38 PM
I believe the children are the future

teach them well and let them lead the way...

Ladies and gentlemen, Randy Watson!!!

http://media.tbo.com/tbo/graphics/sections/life/0719sexualchocolate.jpg

KronoRed
03-09-2008, 02:41 PM
I'd get rid of funding for highways unless funding for rail was matched by it.

Chip R
03-09-2008, 02:46 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, Randy Watson!!!

http://media.tbo.com/tbo/graphics/sections/life/0719sexualchocolate.jpg


That boy's good.

Caveat Emperor
03-09-2008, 05:17 PM
Let me guess. You're tall

6'10".

And yes, I hate people that recline back in their seats.

Tyler Durden
03-09-2008, 05:23 PM
5'11", and I hate it too.

TeamCasey
03-09-2008, 07:32 PM
I would get rid of the stretchy advertisement on the Enquirer's homepage. Very annoying.

SunDeck
03-09-2008, 07:47 PM
I would get rid of the stretchy advertisement on the Enquirer's homepage. Very annoying.

Is that the same as the stupid thing that causes the page to scroll after it loads? Man, that is annoying. It's gotta go.

Tyler Durden
03-09-2008, 10:22 PM
You should just get the Firefox plugin that blocks all banner ads. It's called Ad-Block Plus. I highly recommend it.

SteelSD
03-09-2008, 10:31 PM
Maybe a bajillion times bigger a choice, but certainly nowhere near as difficult and as complex. Nobody asks for a credit check or requires paperwork be signed before a child gets conceived.

A bajillion times bigger is a bajillion times bigger in my estimation, despite complexity. And if the decision to conceive and birth a child is somehow less complex than the decision to purchase a car, then that's simply backwards. 180-degrees backwards. Times infinity backwards.


OK.

So what about the people who are indigent with children? Lots of people are on government assistance and have kids. They can't afford to provide for themselves and their kids as it stands, and they certainly won't be able to afford to pay an additional tax to send their kids to school.

If a citizen has legitimately fallen on hard times (as I've mentioned before in no uncertain terms), then I have no problem helping out. None. But we're not talking about that scenario in the macro.


That leaves us with two options: decline to educate their children because they can't afford to pay or require the state to pay for their kids to be educated. Option A clearly isn't workable for any number of legal reasons, so that leaves us with Option B. That passes the cost of their education onto the school, meaning that the school would have to raise the tax on those that CAN pay to compensate for those that can't. Since you've already established you shouldn't have to pay a dime if you choose not to have children, that means the tax burden would necessarily fall to the segment of the population who have kids and have the means to pay for those kids.

Considering that I've already stated I'd be willing to help out citizens who can't help themselves, my tax dollars would already be helping those folks out via the "general fund" you note in your post.

After that, why would a re-distribution of responsibility to only homeowners or households with children mean that some of the rest of the children wouldn't be educated?

There's an answer to that question and no one wants to face it.

paintmered
03-09-2008, 10:38 PM
Here's one to chew on: the Federal Reserve.

Caveat Emperor
03-10-2008, 12:33 AM
Prescription drug advertisements.

"Ask your doctor about _______."

You know what, I'd prefer not to. Here's a novel idea: why don't I let my doctor diagnose my problems and prescribe the proper medication to treat whatever it is that ails me. I'm certain he can do a fine job of that without me suggesting some medication that I saw a 30 second ad for on television (15 seconds of which was listing horrific side effects).

Dom Heffner
03-10-2008, 01:35 AM
Is that the same as the stupid thing that causes the page to scroll after it loads? Man, that is annoying. It's gotta go.


I tried telling my friend about that and h said it was in my head.

That has to be the most moronic thing ever invented.

RedsManRick
03-10-2008, 02:34 AM
It's my position that funding education is a unique circumstance that places a disproportionate tax burden on those who can't possibly use the service.

It is my position that an education citizenry benefits all members of society by encouraging growth and investment. A completely privatized education system would lead to a less education, less integrated society with greater socio-economic stratification.

Education, paired with hard-work is currency by which the American dream of self controlled destiny is purchased. Unequal access to both education is a self-replicating scenario that we see play out across our communities already. Complete privatization of education funding would only exacerbate the problem.

I find your argument that parents benefit from kids' education more than you do odd. In what way? Is it cheaper to raise that kid? Does that kid in school everyday increase the parent's income? Are you talking tax deductions? Because those parent's increased taxes through increased consumer spending easily offsets that. And once he hits 18, he's not the responsibility of the parent regardless of his education. Yes, it was the parent's choice. But that kid is going to grow up whether we help pay for his education or not. However, if he's poorly educated, he's much more likely to require use of public services which do come straight out of all our taxes bill. It's a lot cheaper to pay for his book for 10 years than his apartment, food, and healthcare for the rest of his life.

Education is unique in it's ability to build raw capacity for increased economic growth. It's far and away the best investment the US government makes. The strength and breadth of the US education system is one of the, if not the prime reason(s) the US has the dominant economy in the world. And the relative failure of it is one of the prime reasons we're likely to slip behind Asian countries this century. The mass production of the industrial age would not have been possible without the advances in technology which resulted from the US education system. While production is the engine of an economy, intellectual capital is the fuel. I sure hope we don't just tell everybody to go find their own. That sort of libertarian approach, particularly for education, simply ignores the interdependencies which exist in American society.

TeamCasey
03-10-2008, 07:31 AM
I would get rid of political discussions on RZ.

Whoops we did that. :roll::roll::roll:

Just kidding ....... everyone's been very well behaved and the discussion is interesting.

registerthis
03-10-2008, 10:14 AM
Again, I fail to see how shifting the burden of funding said education to parents would mean that children wouldn't be educated. Same amount of funding. Different sources.

How so? If the funding is limited to families with children (and there needs to be a definition of what that entails--children in school? Children who are school-age? Children who have grown up and moved away?) then depending on how that is defined the tax burden placed on families to fund education becomes unafforadbly high. Forget merely the indigent as CE rightly pointed out, many middle class families would find the tax burden shifted onto them something they could ill-afford. If there is sufficient concern over education funding in its current state, the solution is not to wipe out a sizeable base of funding for it.


If the crux of your argument assumes that funding would be diminished to a point where parents would be unable to send their children to school then the real issue is pretty clear, isn't it?

That's not the crux of my argument, which you've evidently missed. Whether or not you have children who are (or were) in public schools, you have benefitted immensely from their existence. Education doesn't merely benefit those who receive it, it benefits society in general in incalcuable ways. Therefore, as a member of a society that benefits from an educated populace, you have a burden to help fund the system. There are a lot of things not "fair" about the items and programs our tax dollars fund, and if you're looking to even things out a bit education funding would be one of the last places I'd look to cut.

OldRightHander
03-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Another thing I would get rid of. Putting a truck stop next to a busy railroad track. It seemed like there were trains coming by all night long.

Ltlabner
03-10-2008, 01:25 PM
I might be one of those. Not that I'm so scared of it, but I only drive as fast as I have complete control over the vehicle, and driving a rear wheel drive van, that's not that fast. I'm generally the person that's over to the far right screaming at everyone else for going too fast for conditions...and then laughing every time I see a four wheel drive in the ditch while I'm just plodding along and staying on the road.

I don't have any issue with being cautious. I am also in the "slow and steady" snow driving club. It's when most of the cars are going 35mph and not having problems and then you have Mr. Scaredy-Cat going 5mph. At the other end of the spectrum is the 4x4 people going 65 in the same conditions. Either of those drivers are presenting saftey issues for those who actually know what they are doing behind the wheel when the white stuff is falling.

Heck, I went down the hill for breakfast this past Saturday at 6:00am as I always do. Didn't really think it was all that big of a deal. Slow down, take your time, use low gear.....

bucksfan
03-10-2008, 02:11 PM
1) reality TV
2) the controversy-driven, in-your-face type of sports talk show host; Just cannot stand it. I like a good discussion, but so few seem to be able to keep it civilized or open to the presentation of facts or even other's opinions.
3) Those little thingys that fall out of magazines
4) ANyone calling my home who I don't know and who has no buisiness with me (phone solicitors, politcal parties, etc)

Rojo
03-10-2008, 07:42 PM
"Servings per container: 3.5"

vaticanplum
03-10-2008, 08:07 PM
Prescription drug advertisements.

"Ask your doctor about _______."

You know what, I'd prefer not to. Here's a novel idea: why don't I let my doctor diagnose my problems and prescribe the proper medication to treat whatever it is that ails me. I'm certain he can do a fine job of that without me suggesting some medication that I saw a 30 second ad for on television (15 seconds of which was listing horrific side effects).

Prescription drugs are the product of capitalism as much as anything else, and they need to advertise as much as anything else. Drug companies have 11 years to get a drug on the market from the time they get a patent before it becomes generic, and between the four phases of testing, the compliance with FDA regulations, the millions of dollars spent researching any given drug, it can take up to 10 years for it to get approved. That means a company is looking at one year of moneymaking before the drug is free game for all other companies. Which means they have to sell sell sell it while they can. You take away those ads, you're taking away revenue from the whole industry, which means you're taking away novel cancer therapies, revolutionary heart drugs, singular pediatric research...basically the world-leading research and drugs in any therapeutic field.

Plus, your doctor sees those ads too. Drug companies push drugs on him or her as much as they push them on you, and provided that you have a good doctor who does research and prescribes something s/he believes in, it's going to be a lot easier for your doctor to push a drug on you that you've heard of, even in passing.

I know, I know, I'm not exactly the model for defending America's drug industry. Health care in this country is largely very messed up, no question about it. But the drug companies are such an easy target, and it's easy for people to throw blame on them without actually doing research. The drug company boom in this country over the past 20 years has saved countless lives in America and beyond, not to mention thrust basquillions of dollars into the American economy. Well, I don't mean to get political...just explaining why those commercials exist at all.

SunDeck
03-10-2008, 08:55 PM
"Servings per container: 3.5"

OTFL!

I ate three servings of pretzels today. Seemed like one little bag to me.

OldRightHander
03-10-2008, 09:29 PM
Prescription drugs are the product of capitalism as much as anything else, and they need to advertise as much as anything else. Drug companies have 11 years to get a drug on the market from the time they get a patent before it becomes generic, and between the four phases of testing, the compliance with FDA regulations, the millions of dollars spent researching any given drug, it can take up to 10 years for it to get approved. That means a company is looking at one year of moneymaking before the drug is free game for all other companies. Which means they have to sell sell sell it while they can. You take away those ads, you're taking away revenue from the whole industry, which means you're taking away novel cancer therapies, revolutionary heart drugs, singular pediatric research...basically the world-leading research and drugs in any therapeutic field.

Plus, your doctor sees those ads too. Drug companies push drugs on him or her as much as they push them on you, and provided that you have a good doctor who does research and prescribes something s/he believes in, it's going to be a lot easier for your doctor to push a drug on you that you've heard of, even in passing.

I know, I know, I'm not exactly the model for defending America's drug industry. Health care in this country is largely very messed up, no question about it. But the drug companies are such an easy target, and it's easy for people to throw blame on them without actually doing research. The drug company boom in this country over the past 20 years has saved countless lives in America and beyond, not to mention thrust basquillions of dollars into the American economy. Well, I don't mean to get political...just explaining why those commercials exist at all.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but you can't argue that the ads do get a little annoying at times. It almost seems like they have a pill for everything these days.

OldRightHander
03-10-2008, 09:31 PM
OTFL!

I ate three servings of pretzels today. Seemed like one little bag to me.

The same with the 2.5 servings in this bottle of lemonade. What am I going to do, drink half the bottle and save the rest for later?

vaticanplum
03-10-2008, 09:53 PM
You pretty much hit the nail on the head, but you can't argue that the ads do get a little annoying at times. It almost seems like they have a pill for everything these days.

I know, I know...just explaining why they have to exist in such dry, straightforward form. They're very bound language-wise by certain legal obligations.

OldRightHander
03-10-2008, 10:14 PM
I know, I know...just explaining why they have to exist in such dry, straightforward form. They're very bound language-wise by certain legal obligations.

Like having to tell you to see a doctor if something lasts more than four hours. I guess if you have that problem, the pill worked, maybe too well.

Rojo
03-11-2008, 12:30 AM
Prescription drugs are the product of capitalism as much as anything else, and they need to advertise as much as anything else. Drug companies have 11 years to get a drug on the market from the time they get a patent before it becomes generic, and between the four phases of testing, the compliance with FDA regulations, the millions of dollars spent researching any given drug, it can take up to 10 years for it to get approved. That means a company is looking at one year of moneymaking before the drug is free game for all other companies. Which means they have to sell sell sell it while they can. You take away those ads, you're taking away revenue from the whole industry, which means you're taking away novel cancer therapies, revolutionary heart drugs, singular pediatric research...basically the world-leading research and drugs in any therapeutic field.

Plus, your doctor sees those ads too. Drug companies push drugs on him or her as much as they push them on you, and provided that you have a good doctor who does research and prescribes something s/he believes in, it's going to be a lot easier for your doctor to push a drug on you that you've heard of, even in passing.

I know, I know, I'm not exactly the model for defending America's drug industry. Health care in this country is largely very messed up, no question about it. But the drug companies are such an easy target, and it's easy for people to throw blame on them without actually doing research. The drug company boom in this country over the past 20 years has saved countless lives in America and beyond, not to mention thrust basquillions of dollars into the American economy. Well, I don't mean to get political...just explaining why those commercials exist at all.

They used to not advertise and still produced medicines. Most of the research is still done on the university and NIH level anyhow.

TeamCasey
03-11-2008, 07:29 AM
Prescription drugs are the product of capitalism as much as anything else, and they need to advertise as much as anything else. Drug companies have 11 years to get a drug on the market from the time they get a patent before it becomes generic, and between the four phases of testing, the compliance with FDA regulations, the millions of dollars spent researching any given drug, it can take up to 10 years for it to get approved. That means a company is looking at one year of moneymaking before the drug is free game for all other companies. Which means they have to sell sell sell it while they can. You take away those ads, you're taking away revenue from the whole industry, which means you're taking away novel cancer therapies, revolutionary heart drugs, singular pediatric research...basically the world-leading research and drugs in any therapeutic field.

Plus, your doctor sees those ads too. Drug companies push drugs on him or her as much as they push them on you, and provided that you have a good doctor who does research and prescribes something s/he believes in, it's going to be a lot easier for your doctor to push a drug on you that you've heard of, even in passing.

I know, I know, I'm not exactly the model for defending America's drug industry. Health care in this country is largely very messed up, no question about it. But the drug companies are such an easy target, and it's easy for people to throw blame on them without actually doing research. The drug company boom in this country over the past 20 years has saved countless lives in America and beyond, not to mention thrust basquillions of dollars into the American economy. Well, I don't mean to get political...just explaining why those commercials exist at all.

You said it very well. I don't think people realize that a drugs profitability is only 1-2 years ....... and that's after millions of dollars of research and a decade or more went into it.

You can work an entire career in pharmaceuticals and not see a drug to market.

Ltlabner
03-13-2008, 08:13 PM
People who are not able to eat in a resturant without creating an unholy racket.

Had a man sitting in the next booth who pulled his fork against his teeth instead of his lips EVERY time he piled food in his gullet. Over and over I could hear his lips smacking as he "chewed" his food. He banged his silverwear repeatedly against the plates and felt the need to scrape (and I mean SCRAPE) every last morsel of food from his dinerwear. Add to that the repeated loud slurps while drinking, plenty of throat clearing and the ocassional wet nose snort.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to punch him or throw up.

I'm no Ms. Manners by any strech, but if you can't eat without making 10 different types of noises, stay home.

SteelSD
03-14-2008, 01:05 AM
It is my position that an education citizenry benefits all members of society by encouraging growth and investment. A completely privatized education system would lead to a less education, less integrated society with greater socio-economic stratification.

Yet, I'm not suggesting a "privatized" educational system. I'm suggesting a public system that relies on parents to shoulder the burden of paying for their offspring. I understand that such a notion isn't at all popular.


Forget merely the indigent as CE rightly pointed out, many middle class families would find the tax burden shifted onto them something they could ill-afford.

Please forgive my editing of your post to this one comment, but if the shifting of expense burden would impact parents to the point that they couldn't afford the education of their children, then we have again isolated the real issue.

Highlifeman21
03-14-2008, 04:47 PM
Here's one to chew on: the Federal Reserve.

I'm curious as to why you'd get rid of the Federal Reserve.

improbus
03-14-2008, 05:33 PM
Things I would love to get rid of:

Greeting Cards
The E Channel; ET; Access Hollywood; People; US Weekly, etc...
Ohio's Weather
Our Election Process
"Superstores"
Pontiacs
All Car Commercials
Dave Matthews/Jimmy Buffet
Mad TV
Dane Cook
The Super Bowl Halftime Show
Hatred of France
Raising College Tuition to build useless new buildings (I'm talking about you OU)
"Outraged" Sports fans/casters (Joe Buck/Jay Mariotti)
Overbearing Little League Parents
Local TV Newscasts
CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc...
Any New Fox Reality Show
Movie Inspired Video Games
Straight to Video Disney Sequels
India vs. Pakistan
Figure Skating
Botox, Non-Medical Plastic Surgery, etc....
Coach K
Roger Goodell, Bud Selig, Gary Bettman, and David Stern
LA

Rojo
03-14-2008, 05:34 PM
Things I would love to get rid of:

Greeting Cards
The E Channel; ET; Access Hollywood; People; US Weekly, etc...
Ohio's Weather
Our Election Process
"Superstores"
Pontiacs
All Car Commercials
Dave Matthews/Jimmy Buffet
Mad TV
Dane Cook
The Super Bowl Halftime Show
Hatred of France
Raising College Tuition to build useless new buildings (I'm talking about you OU)
"Outraged" Sports fans/casters (Joe Buck/Jay Mariotti)
Overbearing Little League Parents
Local TV Newscasts
CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, etc...
Any New Fox Reality Show
Movie Inspired Video Games
Straight to Video Disney Sequels
India vs. Pakistan
Figure Skating
Botox, Non-Medical Plastic Surgery, etc....
Coach K
Roger Goodell, Bud Selig, Gary Bettman, and David Stern
LA


Great list.

Rojo
03-14-2008, 05:35 PM
I'm curious as to why you'd get rid of the Federal Reserve.

Who's going to prop up our faltering banks?

improbus
03-14-2008, 05:59 PM
Great list.

I can keep going with Sports stuff:

People who complain about the NBA with the following excuses:
-they travel too much
-they carry the ball
-they don't play any defense
-they NBA is full of thugs (ahem....NFL....ahem....)
Any of the following sports arguments:
-Who is the MVP?
-Who was an All-Star snub?
-What "Bubble Team" should have gotten into the tourney?
-Trade Rumor Mills
-"Fire the coach" websites
-Complaining about Athletes salaries (would you rather have that money go to the owners?)
The following "At the Arena/Stadium" stuff
-Not watching the game
-The scoreboard telling you to cheer
-Between innings/quarters nonsense
-Passing out Towels, Thunder Sticks, Glow Sticks, etc...
-White-outs, Red-outs, etc.... (they should have died when Winnipeg left)
-National Anthems before games sung (and not played by a band) (I could do without them at all - I don't think I need to show how patriotic I am before screaming obscenities at the Dodgers or Louisville)
-Holding cities hostage for new stadia (the public has spent over 7 billion on stadia/arena)
-Going to baseball games for the "family" atmosphere - that change as made money for the teams and killed the crowd.
The Following Anti-Soccer Sentiments:
-It's too slow (if you broke down a baseball, basketball, or football game, only about 5 minutes of action REALLY determines the winner) - also, there are no commercials, which is HUGELY attractive
-nobody cares - soccer is the only way that the US can ever experience anything like the Miracle on Ice. The World Cup is the only event where ALL AMERICANS can come together for one sporting event. The Olympics are fragmented into different events. Ask the English about '66, the French about '98, the Koreans about '02, and so on. Even in the Super Bowl, the one event everyone watches, only about 20% have anything at stake (fans and degenerate gamblers). Imagine having something which got everyone on the country fired up at the same time.

A few other random sports stuff
-Arena Football
-ESPN programming that is not an actual game
-The following Jerseys need to go away; be changed (I'm very picky about Jerseys)
-the 76's (black?)
-the Brewers (go back to the Yellow and Blue)
-the Padres (they've all been bad)
-the Oregon Ducks
-Wisconsin's Helmets
-Marquette's Disasters (watch the tournament)

Rojo
03-14-2008, 06:40 PM
I'll add any team nickname, besides the Redsox and Whitesox, that doesn't end in an "s".

SandyD
03-15-2008, 08:15 AM
you mean like the Utah Jazz or the New Orleans Voodoo?
The Crimson Tide, the Stanford Cardinal, the Tulane Green Wave?
The West Tennessee DiamondJaxx? (Jackson, TN, southern league AA)

nate
03-15-2008, 08:18 AM
Or, "The Big Red Machine?"

Rojo
03-16-2008, 01:22 PM
you mean like the Utah Jazz or the New Orleans Voodoo?
The Crimson Tide, the Stanford Cardinal, the Tulane Green Wave?
The West Tennessee DiamondJaxx? (Jackson, TN, southern league AA)


Yes.

Caveat Emperor
03-16-2008, 06:14 PM
Yes.

Well this Green Wave alum thinks you can toss off. ;)

Staying in the college realm:

Greg Gumble. Single worst sports announcer in history.

SandyD
03-16-2008, 06:46 PM
CE, they could just shorten it to "Greenies" ... ;)

Redhook
03-17-2008, 08:39 AM
Greg Gumble. Single worst sports announcer in history.

I don't know, his brother, Bryant, gives him a run for his money. They're both bad, yet so high up on the announcing food chain. It's baffling.

SunDeck
03-17-2008, 10:51 AM
Imagine having something which got everyone on the country fired up at the same time.

Dude- we call that American Idol in the states.

westofyou
03-17-2008, 10:57 AM
Dude- we call that American Idol in the states.

Never seen it... I'm off the Pop Culture grid.

SunDeck
03-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Never seen it... I'm off the Pop Culture grid.

Why do you hate America?

RichRed
03-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Never seen it... I'm off the Pop Culture grid.

You're not missing much. But you probably knew that.

SunDeck
03-17-2008, 02:03 PM
I want to get rid of automatic espresso machines. I have not had a single good cup of espresso from one of those abominations. And the thing that gets me about them is that "baristas" use them instead of lever machines.

It takes practice to pull a good espresso and 95% of the "baristas" in this town have no idea how a real espresso should look, smell and taste.
The automatic machines pour a thin, foamless gruel that bears no resemblance whatsoever to real espresso. And these effete, bohemian pretenders want to charge me $3.00 for a demi of that stuff, despite not knowing how offensive it is to someone who loves espresso.
Criminal, I say.

Ltlabner
03-17-2008, 02:09 PM
I want to get rid of automatic espresso machines. I have not had a single good cup of espresso from one of those abominations. And the thing that gets me about them is that "baristas" use them instead of lever machines.

It takes practice to pull a good espresso and 95% of the "baristas" in this town have no idea how a real espresso should look, smell and taste.
The automatic machines pour a thin, foamless gruel that bears no resemblance whatsoever to real espresso. And these effete, bohemian pretenders want to charge me $3.00 for a demi of that stuff, despite not knowing how offensive it is to someone who loves espresso.
Criminal, I say.

Honestly I have no idea what most of this post means.

I'm pretty happy about that.

:p:

westofyou
03-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Honestly I have no idea what most of this post means.

I'm pretty happy about that.

:p:

I get it, it's one of the reasons Starbucks lost a bundle last year.

BRM
03-17-2008, 02:21 PM
Honestly I have no idea what most of this post means.

I'm pretty happy about that.

:p:

Same here. We drink "Cowboy Coffee" around here. Nothing fancy by any stretch.

Caveat Emperor
03-17-2008, 03:02 PM
I get it, it's one of the reasons Starbucks lost a bundle last year.

Yup...and why they shut down their entire operation for 3 hours to do re-training. There's been a noticeable decline in the quality of Starbucks over the last several years.

Overexpansion is killing them -- they've almost completely lost any quality control they have over their product.

KronoRed
03-17-2008, 03:16 PM
Caribou is superioir, when you want to pay 5 bucks for coffee go with them

SunDeck
03-17-2008, 04:08 PM
Honestly I have no idea what most of this post means.

I'm pretty happy about that.

:p:

Careful, or I'll come over there and hit you with my European man purse.

SandyD
03-17-2008, 08:45 PM
I'd get rid of Starbucks, but too many people would suffer withdrawl.

Ltlabner
03-18-2008, 08:28 PM
People who are not able to eat in a resturant without creating an unholy racket.

Had a man sitting in the next booth who pulled his fork against his teeth instead of his lips EVERY time he piled food in his gullet. Over and over I could hear his lips smacking as he "chewed" his food. He banged his silverwear repeatedly against the plates and felt the need to scrape (and I mean SCRAPE) every last morsel of food from his dinerwear. Add to that the repeated loud slurps while drinking, plenty of throat clearing and the ocassional wet nose snort.

I wasn't sure if I wanted to punch him or throw up.

I'm no Ms. Manners by any strech, but if you can't eat without making 10 different types of noises, stay home.

I'm on a streak of being seated next to Mr. I Must Eat So Loudly That Everyone in the Resturant Can Hear Me Guy.

There was a guy 3 booths over eating potato chips so loudly I could clearly hear the crunching racket. He made no effort to close his mouth when chomping down or chewing.

Then he got ribs and proceeded to suck the sauce off of each finger after EVERY bite. And he couldn't just do that quietly, no. He had to make a hideously loud smacking noise every time.

Again, I'm not a stickler for table manners, but come on people. Is it really neccessary to make sure the entire resturant knows you are eating dinner?

Cyclone792
03-18-2008, 08:49 PM
Because I'm being reminded right now, I'd get rid of Brent Musberger broadcasting any type of sporting event ... or any event for that matter.

improbus
03-19-2008, 07:11 AM
Some more things I would get rid of
-Powdered Flavoring (Doritos, Mac & Cheese, Hot Chocolate, etc...)
-Xenophobia
-Ben Stiller
-Lobbyists
-Pro Wrestling
-The Sense of Entitlement
-Mike Stanton
-Microsoft
-Stallone (just go away, Sly)
-Blaming teachers for youth's problems
-Wheat Beers (why would I want a beer that tastes like a fruit?)

NJReds
03-20-2008, 09:48 PM
I'd take away a good number of timeouts in college basketball. Down the stretch of these games it seems like there's a timeout after every possession change.

Highlifeman21
03-20-2008, 09:57 PM
I'd take away a good number of timeouts in college basketball. Down the stretch of these games it seems like there's a timeout after every possession change.

TV timeouts.

The necessary evil of March Madness.

Ltlabner
04-02-2008, 09:07 PM
Companies that still feel the need to have bikini-babes at their trade show booth. I walked a show today and there were 2 or 3 out of 450 exibitors doing this.

Don't get me wrong, I like looking at good looking women, but that sort of behavior at tradeshows went out in the mid 1980's. Now it's just plain tacky.

If you happen to have attractive business women working for your company and they are qualified to work the booth, more power to you. But for goodness sakes, having Ms. December out there is not called for.

Red in Chicago
04-02-2008, 11:32 PM
Companies that still feel the need to have bikini-babes at their trade show booth. I walked a show today and there were 2 or 3 out of 450 exibitors doing this.

Don't get me wrong, I like looking at good looking women, but that sort of behavior at tradeshows went out in the mid 1980's. Now it's just plain tacky.

If you happen to have attractive business women working for your company and they are qualified to work the booth, more power to you. But for goodness sakes, having Ms. December out there is not called for.

yeah, let's get mr. december out there in a speedo go-go dancing...yowzer:beerme:

Dom Heffner
04-04-2008, 11:53 PM
I would do away with all but 3 seconds of college basketball games. Just set the clock at
:03, put the scoreboard to a tie and just let somebody inbound the ball.

It would still last 30 minutes and would just cut out the waste of time that is watching two teams battle down to the wire.

Yachtzee
04-05-2008, 12:44 AM
I want to get rid of automatic espresso machines. I have not had a single good cup of espresso from one of those abominations. And the thing that gets me about them is that "baristas" use them instead of lever machines.

It takes practice to pull a good espresso and 95% of the "baristas" in this town have no idea how a real espresso should look, smell and taste.
The automatic machines pour a thin, foamless gruel that bears no resemblance whatsoever to real espresso. And these effete, bohemian pretenders want to charge me $3.00 for a demi of that stuff, despite not knowing how offensive it is to someone who loves espresso.
Criminal, I say.

No kidding. For my coffee needs, I've been sticking to the French Press at home lately. Caribou is good and there's a local joint that's good but out of the way. But the only way I found I can get true quality control is with the press pot at home.

OnBaseMachine
04-05-2008, 01:01 AM
Josh Fogg.

KronoRed
04-05-2008, 01:15 AM
The double switch

durl
04-05-2008, 10:15 AM
- Mobile phone wavers at sporting events.]

- Misleading polls as news stories. The worst offender: "Is the country heading in the right direction" poll. People from both sides of the political spectrum will say it's going in the wrong direction but for completely different reasons. It's a terribly misleading thing for news outlets to run.

- In the same vein as above: polls asking if people think we're in a recession. It doesn't matter what people "think" about it; a recession can be defined by specific criteria and is not open to what people "think." (For the record, we're not in a recession. :))

Dom Heffner
04-05-2008, 07:30 PM
I would get rid of the way broadcasters or stat sites use stats from the very late part of last season as a way to accentuate how long it's been between events happening early this season.

Example- CBS Sportsline wrote something like, "JR Towles hit his second career homerun last night (April 4), which is his first since last Sept. 20.

Which basically means he hasn't homered in the span of 14 games.

Wow. Really? You mean he didn't homer December 15th?

TeamSelig
04-05-2008, 09:12 PM
people who complain about getting speeding tickets

redhawkfish
04-05-2008, 10:19 PM
The "Your not a true fan" police!!

Cincinnati's infatuation with high school sports!

Yachtzee
04-05-2008, 10:31 PM
Clowns, particularly those of the "sad-faced" or "hobo" variety.

RFS62
04-06-2008, 12:03 AM
Mimes

OldRightHander
04-06-2008, 12:13 AM
Mimes

But if you get rid of them, be sure to use a silencer.