The problem with America is...

[JackANSI]

But that leaves the states like montana, north/south dakota, idaho, etc with very little money for schoolin'... Seein' as you can't get no where without the schoolin'... Unless you want to be a farmer like Pa the rest of your life.

I'm assuming you think that they (the residents) need to move to another state and take those residents' jobs in order to get a slightly better education for their kids as well as better side benefits?

If they don't get jobs, they are overloading the 'richer' states with people freeloading on the state taxes, causing them to raise taxes to pay for all these immigrants?

Sounds like a cluster foxtrot in the making.


Granted the opposite could happen... All the freeloaders leave your state and your taxes could go way down. Heck its someone else's problem then.. Out of sight, out of mind.

[bassist_25]

Question for those saying that government, particularly federal government, is bad: If you lost your primary day gig tomorrow, which is not that far-fetched at the moment, and you were offered a federal position starting as a GS-12, would you turn down the job offer due to your philosophical beliefs about the role of government?

[DirtySanchez]

Question for those saying that government, particularly federal government, is bad: If you lost your primary day gig tomorrow, which is not that far-fetched at the moment, and you were offered a federal position starting as a GS-12, would you turn down the job offer due to your philosophical beliefs about the role of government?

As long as they don't block access to rockpage. I'm in.

Are philosophical beliefs like principles?

[bassist_25]

Are philosophical beliefs like principles?

Indeed.

[songsmith]

Question for those saying that government, particularly federal government, is bad: If you lost your primary day gig tomorrow, which is not that far-fetched at the moment, and you were offered a federal position starting as a GS-12, would you turn down the job offer due to your philosophical beliefs about the role of government?

Nope, I wouldn't turn it down. My not taking the job would NOT result in that position being left vacant, the money would be spent whether I like it or not. Of course I am a bleeding heart-pinko-Marxist-treehugging-babykiller. Apparently. --->JMS

[lonewolf]

But that leaves the states like montana, north/south dakota, idaho, etc with very little money for schoolin'... Seein' as you can't get no where without the schoolin'... Unless you want to be a farmer like Pa the rest of your life.

In 2009, the Department of Education will fund only 8.9% of the total cost of state and local education for a total of $57,689,833,000. If the federal government reduced the tax burden on the citizens by that amount, the states could easily offset that with state & local tax increases that are significantly less than their federal counterpart.

Advantages:

1. No federal DC money pit overhead money laundering costs.

2. The school districts would be unencumbered by the insane mandates from the continual tug-of-war between the D's & R's that forces them to change policy every 4 or 8 years.

3. Higher local taxes will put the local school boards under more scrutiny to perform--something that cannot be done with a gargantuan centralized department of education.

4. It would encourage innovation in educational techniques.

5. Significantly reduces income redistribution.

6. Its Constitutional

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget ... index.html

[lonewolf]

I'm assuming you think that they (the residents) need to move to another state and take those residents' jobs in order to get a slightly better education for their kids as well as better side benefits?

I doubt if this would be significant for the education issue, but it might be a big issue if aid to the poor (you know, the W word) was shifted to the states.

Public assistance is by far the biggest chunk of the federal pie and the overall tax burden to the citizens would be significanty reduced. Each state could develop their own programs to handle public assistance tailored to their particular needs. A system that works well in Maine would probably not do as well in California.

States who start with more liberal programs would probably end up with deadbeats from other states. In that case, they would have the flexibility to change their program to something that would discourage this kind of action. The "reverse competition" between the states would produce better, more effective programs for the poor. Hopefully, ones that produce gainfully employed citizens.

Life should always be more difficult for the poor than for those who aspire to wealth. Otherwise, human nature as it is, most people will choose the easier path to poverty.

[Baceman Spiff]

Of course I am a bleeding heart-pinko-Marxist-treehugging-babykiller. Apparently. --->JMS

If the beret fits... jk

[songsmith]

Life should always be more difficult for the poor than for those who aspire to wealth.

I get your drift, but I think life should be good for everybody. I realize not all poor people want to be poor, and not all people have your opportunities and resources. The standard conservative view is, "I have a job. If you don't, it's YOUR fault." If you are poor, it's because you're stupid and lazy.
Well, maybe poor people feel the same way about rich people. If all poor people are losers, since many of the rich people I know are assholes, all rich people are assholes.
Live a good life, man.--->JMS

[whitedevilone]

My wife and i are both conservatives.We both work for rich people.These rich assholes have never been anything but incredibilty good to both of us.In fact i've worked for the same rich asshole for 16years now.Iwork in alot of rich assholes' homes everyday.I'd say over 95% of them are very kind and hospitable.I've never had a problem and have gotten many jobs through these rich assholes recommendations to other rich assholes.Maybe you're reading these people wrong.
Life is good man.

[RobTheDrummer]

Without the rich, we would have to pay more taxes to make up for what they pay.

[lonewolf]

Life should always be more difficult for the poor than for those who aspire to wealth.

I get your drift, but I think life should be good for everybody. I realize not all poor people want to be poor, and not all people have your opportunities and resources. The standard conservative view is, "I have a job. If you don't, it's YOUR fault." If you are poor, it's because you're stupid and lazy.
Well, maybe poor people feel the same way about rich people. If all poor people are losers, since many of the rich people I know are assholes, all rich people are assholes.
Live a good life, man.--->JMS

First of all, I didn't "have" opportunities and resources. I moved out at 19 with a junk Ford Granada, a Marshall Amp, an Ibanez guitar, 2 suitcases and $100 in cash and never looked back. I didn't have any connections or know anybody influential. I searched for and seized opportunities and worked my ass off to gain resources. At one point, I was working full time, going to college, playing in a band, rebuilding my house ($2000 at a tax sale) and rewiring my apartment building ($3000 at a tax sale) all during the same period in time. It was difficult, but it was a very good and gratifying time in my life.

Perhaps I can explain my statement so that even a liberal might understand :

1. I never said they shouldn't have a good life, I said they should have a more difficult one. There is a difference, as I just illustrated.

2. Aspire: to seek to attain or accomplish a particular goal

In other words, those who aspire to wealth don't have it, but are working their asses off to get it. These people work a hell of a lot harder and longer than anyone I know of. Many will not attain wealth, but few will regret their struggle. I never mentioned the wealthy, so I don't know why you brought them up at all.

If the life of the poor becomes too comfortable, or "less difficult," most will lose the incentive to improve their condition. They are not stupid and lazy--they are simply comfortable. Comfort is the destroyer of ambition.

"Poverty" has beome so comfortable that teenage girls get pregnant just to move away from their parents and get the comfortable life that the government provides free of charge. It may not be glitzy or glamourous, but it is comfortable.

3. You called up Mr. Snerdly again.

[Banned]

Without the rich, we would have to pay more taxes to make up for what they pay.

Good chart Rob. Those statistics are from 2004. The newest one available is from 2006, and guess what, the percentage the rich pay has gotten even bigger and the amount the lowest pay has gotten even lower. From what I understand about the new spending bill B. Hussein wants, only the top 44% of wage earners will actually be paying federal income taxes.

Someday all the business owners will run out of money because of paying all the taxes these socialists need, and will stop hiring employees. That will be just peachy for the economy.

[metalchurch]

Well said Jeff, I agree with alot of what you said.

[JackANSI]

But that leaves the states like montana, north/south dakota, idaho, etc with very little money for schoolin'... Seein' as you can't get no where without the schoolin'... Unless you want to be a farmer like Pa the rest of your life.

In 2009, the Department of Education will fund only 8.9% of the total cost of state and local education for a total of $57,689,833,000. If the federal government reduced the tax burden on the citizens by that amount, the states could easily offset that with state & local tax increases that are significantly less than their federal counterpart.

Advantages:

1. No federal DC money pit overhead money laundering costs.

2. The school districts would be unencumbered by the insane mandates from the continual tug-of-war between the D's & R's that forces them to change policy every 4 or 8 years.

3. Higher local taxes will put the local school boards under more scrutiny to perform--something that cannot be done with a gargantuan centralized department of education.

4. It would encourage innovation in educational techniques.

5. Significantly reduces income redistribution.

6. Its Constitutional

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget ... index.html

1. Thats a given in a state system.

2. There are still parties at every level.

3. If you think you can hold anyone in public school administration accountable at all, you're a tad off. They just don't care beyond letting their assistants answer their email and putting 4-6 times as much as a teacher earns in the bank.

If you think they care beyond making sure money gets to the district (and thus their pockets), go work for a school district. If some teachers make sure kids get an education, they're ok with that.

They will just make the teachers make do with less so they don't have to raise taxes and risk their paychecks. Assuming anyone in the area gives even that much of a damn.

4. You try to encourage that kind of stuff now, without getting a grant to pay for it, and the district will make sure you never advance in your teaching career. Rocking the AASD boat means you'll be moving to another district quickly.

5. The number you quoted is pretty small to really help with that..

6. I hope someday you are stranded somewhere remote with nothing but a copy of the constitution.

[JackANSI]

Life should always be more difficult for the poor than for those who aspire to wealth.

I get your drift, but I think life should be good for everybody. I realize not all poor people want to be poor, and not all people have your opportunities and resources. The standard conservative view is, "I have a job. If you don't, it's YOUR fault." If you are poor, it's because you're stupid and lazy.
Well, maybe poor people feel the same way about rich people. If all poor people are losers, since many of the rich people I know are assholes, all rich people are assholes.
Live a good life, man.--->JMS

I do side with the conservatives there... There are jobs out there, just maybe not dream ones. I don't think their lives need to be harsh to the point of busting their balls just to get paid enough to put food on their table. But they should be working at least 80% of the time the people paying for their cheese are.

But the conservatives need to conceed that its a good thing for people who need help and most of all deserve help should be able to get it without having to grovel in front of an alter or convert to the current popular religion.

If the governement doesn't do it, charities would have to. My experience with religion makes me believe that if the needy had no alternative to religion based charities, they would seize on that to make converts. Or else you starve...


PS The richer you get the more conservative you lean. I pin that one on greed.

You also rarely get rich by being nice. You need to step on something to raise yourself up


I guess I'm more case-by-case when it comes to welfare...

[JackANSI]

If the life of the poor becomes too comfortable, or "less difficult," most will lose the incentive to improve their condition. They are not stupid and lazy--they are simply comfortable. Comfort is the destroyer of ambition.

"Poverty" has beome so comfortable that teenage girls get pregnant just to move away from their parents and get the comfortable life that the government provides free of charge. It may not be glitzy or glamourous, but it is comfortable.

Then their parents should have lit a bigger fire under their asses to get it straight.

Sounds more like a failure of the parents, not an issue with the government providing a safety net to keep our standard of living higher than Ethiopia.

[lonewolf]

2. There are still parties at every level.

3. If you think you can hold anyone in public school administration accountable at all, you're a tad off. They just don't care beyond letting their assistants answer their email and putting 4-6 times as much as a teacher earns in the bank.

If you think they care beyond making sure money gets to the district (and thus their pockets), go work for a school district. If some teachers make sure kids get an education, they're ok with that.

They will just make the teachers make do with less so they don't have to raise taxes and risk their paychecks. Assuming anyone in the area gives even that much of a damn.

4. You try to encourage that kind of stuff now, without getting a grant to pay for it, and the district will make sure you never advance in your teaching career. Rocking the AASD boat means you'll be moving to another district quickly.

5. The number you quoted is pretty small to really help with that..

6. I hope someday you are stranded somewhere remote with nothing but a copy of the constitution.

2. Yes, but at the state level, they are much more accountable and have a different agenda than their parties in DC. Ask Mr. Jubilerer. With a few exceptions, state governments tend to be more incremental with change rather than the sweeping changes like "no child left behind" that shocked many school systems. Also, these federal mandates may work OK in some states and completely suck in others. Let the states decide what's good for them, not a bunch of power grabbers in DC.

3. You don't bother with the administration, you target the school board. Its very easy to change the school board at the local elections--just a bit easier than the US Congress, I think. School boards have the power to hire and fire administrators among other things

4. In my engineering R & D jobs, innovation meant improving quality and cutting cost at the same time. Only in DC does innovation mean "spend more money". Hell, everything in DC means "spend more money".

5. Yeah, it was only $58 billion with a "B". Just chump change.

6. That would be redundant.

[grimmbass]

I doubt we'll see a massive migration of poor folks from one state to another to get a better deal on welfare. I, too, think that most poor people are poor for a reason, be it lack of education, intelligence, motivation, etc., meaning that these folks probably aren't formulating strategic plans for finding the best welfare deal!

Lonewolf, Whitedevil, and all the other conservatives: Do you think we should have public education (i.e. a government funded and owned industry, which fits under many folks' definition of Socialism) or not? As far as I know, the Constitution and its amendments guarantee us a lot of rights, but NOT an education. Should I have to pay tax dollars if I don't have kids? Did your kids go (or will they go) to public school? If so, why do I and my childless brothers and sisters have to pay for it?

BTW, it seems like a lot of people are associating Socialism with Communism. There are plenty of primarily Socialist countries that still are democracies, England and much of Europe for example. I still favor a free market for most things, but Socialism does not preclude an electoral process. Like it or not, America is a democracy with both Socialist and Capitalist sides, and neither approach is precluded in the Constitution.

I think that people who are smarter and work harder should be more successful. If "conservative" in political circles really meant "conservative," I'd call myself one. The political parties lose me on social issues. Raving Bible thumpers, pro-cop idiots, and folks on moral witch hunts scared me away from the "right" side of things. Keep religion the hell out of my Government! That being said, I agree with a few of the things that Rob the Drummer said in one of his recent posts, and I have few more things to add:

1. Drugs SHOULD be legal (and many of our "Conservative" buddies on this board are probably as big of users as the "Liberal" crowd here). I agree with taxing the hell out of them, but I don't think that users should have to register. If it's legal, do what you want.
2. All couplings (male/female, male/male, female/female) should be civil unions in the eyes of the government. Marriage should be a religious status and not a legal one. If your church will marry you, great. If not, tough shit. It's not up to the government to decide the morality of what people do in their homes.
3. We need a real plan to address healthcare in this country. I'm not so sure the free market and competition will solve all of our problems. Insurance companies make money by denying benefits. Regardless of free-market competition, someone with a chronic condition is still not going to be able to afford coverage (anybody have a relative with diabetes?). Romney's plan was a good start, but has the fatal flaw of trusting insurance companies to be moral. If we can regulate the price of eggs and milk, we should be able to have real checks and balances on the insurance industry.
4. Law enforcement is out of control. Between ridiculous BAC standards, PLCB harassment of musicians and clubs, and pulling over motorists for not wearing seat belts, state and local police gestapos are making a habit of extorting citizens. This end of things is government I can do without. I'm not anti-cop, I just want to see pointless harassment of good people come to a stop.
5. Personal freedom should only be limited by the extent you infringe on someone else's freedom.
6. People who want this country to succeed would do well to support local businesses and put money back into their local economies. Next time you think about buying a guitar online and saving 20 bucks, try to remember the last time Musician's Friend was there for you when you needed a cable ten minutes before a show.
7. Guns: I have no problem with guns and own several. I do have a problem when people try to use the Second Amendment as a guarantee that they are entitled to own automatic weapons. The Second Amendment, which was written in a time before cartridges and automatic weapons, is open to interpretation, meaning that there is no specific language as to what citizens should or should not be able to own. This kind of vague terminology is why we have the Judicial branch to interpret the Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, but does not grant (or take away) our right to have 30-round clips, fully-automatic weapons, or military explosives. The specific laws and conditions are up to the Judicial branch to debate.

The greatest part is that we're all free to argue and to waste utterly ridiculous amounts of time posting these thoughts to other people who have, like us, ultimately already made of their minds anyway. Most of us on this board could write each other's scripts if it came down to it. I would so love it if someone would completely (and sincerely) change their philosophy just to keep it interesting. Not one person on this thread (including me probably) will have changed their opinion about anything as a result of reading.

[nickisrb]

The media and greed

[JackANSI]

2. Yes, but at the state level, they are much more accountable and have a different agenda than their parties in DC. Ask Mr. Jubilerer. With a few exceptions, state governments tend to be more incremental with change rather than the sweeping changes like "no child left behind" that shocked many school systems. Also, these federal mandates may work OK in some states and completely suck in others. Let the states decide what's good for them, not a bunch of power grabbers in DC.

3. You don't bother with the administration, you target the school board. Its very easy to change the school board at the local elections--just a bit easier than the US Congress, I think. School boards have the power to hire and fire administrators among other things

4. In my engineering R & D jobs, innovation meant improving quality and cutting cost at the same time. Only in DC does innovation mean "spend more money". Hell, everything in DC means "spend more money".

5. Yeah, it was only $58 billion with a "B". Just chump change.

6. That would be redundant.

2. True.

3. Heh, seems like it would be that easy... But it only is on paper. I've worked in the AASD in a position that let me see just about everything that goes on. A school board is just as corrupt as the US senate.

4. You need money to make any changes in how our schools work. Its a public institution, everyone has their hand out when you ask for help.

5. only take 1 or 2 of the right people to pay that off Why put us all through hell? They can take one for the team, just like the little guys who work hard their whole lives and get nowhere.

6. Good one

[lonewolf]

If the life of the poor becomes too comfortable, or "less difficult," most will lose the incentive to improve their condition. They are not stupid and lazy--they are simply comfortable. Comfort is the destroyer of ambition.

"Poverty" has beome so comfortable that teenage girls get pregnant just to move away from their parents and get the comfortable life that the government provides free of charge. It may not be glitzy or glamourous, but it is comfortable.

Then their parents should have lit a bigger fire under their asses to get it straight.

Sounds more like a failure of the parents, not an issue with the government providing a safety net to keep our standard of living higher than Ethiopia.

But their parents didn't, so little Missy intentionally dives into the safety net and ends up with a cushy apartment with all her needs taken care of. If we are lucky, all she needs is cable TV and she's set for life.

It is now the government's responsibility to light a fire under her ass.

Public assistance should be clean, safe and healthy, but it should not be a living condition that anybody would want to live in for very long.

[JackANSI]

Public assistance should be clean, safe and healthy, but it should not be a living condition that anybody would want to live in for very long.

A little like a prison? Some still get addicted to that type of living.

[JackANSI]

Question for those saying that government, particularly federal government, is bad: If you lost your primary day gig tomorrow, which is not that far-fetched at the moment, and you were offered a federal position starting as a GS-12, would you turn down the job offer due to your philosophical beliefs about the role of government?

BTW, I'd snatch that up like a hundred dollar bill in the street.

I mean government is a big growth segment that isn't going away soon..

[lonewolf]

ILonewolf, Whitedevil, and all the other conservatives: Do you think we should have public education (i.e. a government funded and owned industry, which fits under many folks' definition of Socialism) or not? As far as I know, the Constitution and its amendments guarantee us a lot of rights, but NOT an education. Should I have to pay tax dollars if I don't have kids? Did your kids go (or will they go) to public school? If so, why do I and my childless brothers and sisters have to pay for it?

Kent, a guarantee of public education is in the constitution of every state in the union, but the words "school" or "education" do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.

Curious, isn't it? I wonder why they did that?

Its time to think outside the Federal Box.

Anyway, of course we should have public state education and it should be funded in whatever manner that particular state's legislature sees fit.