Socialism & The Public Option

HotShotX

HotShotX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
31 (100%)
Though the ranting and raving has died down a little now that the town halls are over, during that time we heard many complaints from Americans on how "they don't want the government involved in their affairs", or how "the public option will lead us to socialism", etc. etc.

I'm curious however, why with so much anger towards the public option and government "interference", that these people keep sending their kids to public schools.

I may be cutting this a bit awkwardly, and we can argue back and forth over the severity of Health Care vs. Education, but the overall argument and anger towards the proposed bill seems to consistently boil down to the "Public Option" / "Government Intervention".

Getting to my point, how is the public school system really any different in its implementation?

*Your location dictates where you go and who you see.
*You get the same education with everyone else.
*Fully paid for by the government (with your taxes).
*If you want additional, advanced (college), or private education, you seek out and pay a private party as you would health care and insurance.

I don't really see Americans clamoring for the shutting down of a "socialist" education system (which, in reality, is what it is if you want to make the same argument against health care), and I'd prefer to think I'd rather be sick and ill over being dumb and uneducated...but in the end, how is it really any different?

~HotShotX
 
These people don't even know what socialist means. They just call everything it because it is the new buzzword. I don't think that says anything good about our education system though.
 
Great analogy. And it is the reason people will often pay extra to send their children to private schools if they can afford it since the education is much better than the "public option," which often (usually) sucks ass. I don't know about you, but I don't want my healthcare to be as shitty as the public school system is!

Part of the reason there was such an outrage with healthcare was the specific way the House bill was written; it was clearly designed to "phase out" private insurance companies through the banning of writing new policies after the bill goes into effect (p16 of the House bill). Plus, there is always the concern of gov't undercutting the private insurance companies to put them out of business, it is just an option they would have. Finally, recent polls have shown that most people are reasonably satisfied with their current healthcare; why destroy everything and start from scratch when a few tweaks could be both more reasonable for people to handle and also have a better chance of being most effective?
 
When you send your kids to private school instead of public, you still are paying for the public school in your property taxes. So I guess it really is an apt comparison to the healthcare reform. If you're forced to pay for the one you don't choose as well, how is that fair to you?

People are going to call anything that requires them to pay for other people's stuff because of some "moral imperative" socialism. Does using incorrect terminology undermine their desire to not be saddled with paying for more of other people's needs?
 
[quote name='Ruined']Great analogy. And it is the reason people will often pay extra to send their children to private schools if they can afford it since the education is much better than the "public option," which often (usually) sucks ass. I don't know about you, but I don't want my healthcare to be as shitty as the public school system is!

Part of the reason there was such an outrage with healthcare was the specific way the House bill was written; it was clearly designed to "phase out" private insurance companies through the banning of writing new policies after the bill goes into effect (p16 of the House bill). Plus, there is always the concern of gov't undercutting the private insurance companies to put them out of business, it is just an option they would have. Finally, recent polls have shown that most people are reasonably satisfied with their current healthcare; why destroy everything and start from scratch when a few tweaks could be both more reasonable for people to handle and also have a better chance of being most effective?[/QUOTE]

You say that most people are satisfied with their healthcare, which I can totally believe it. (Even if I don't like mine. I can see where people do like it)

I think the sad part is that everyone doesn't have ANY healthcare.
I mean, for freaks sake, the "mobile health clinics" that we created so that we had something to help people in times of national emergency are being used to help normal, everyday Americans.

But back to the original topic, I kind of find it sad that people are throwing around the words "socialist", and even "communist". Anybody who has called the Obama administration either of these really, really need to open up a history book.

EDIT : Oh, and OP, you say that the town hall meetings have settled down? I totally disagree. Did you not see the lady in the wheelchair get heckled and ultimately laughed at WHILE she was telling her story about how she will probably lose her healthcare because she cannot afford it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The VAST majority (95%+) of K-12 education funding comes from the state level. Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes, and sometimes part of the state income/sales tax. Despite some oversight and standardized testing, your local elementary school is not funded by Washington D.C. Public schooling is almost entirely state/local, not federal.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']The VAST majority (95%+) of K-12 education funding comes from the state level. Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes, and sometimes part of the state income/sales tax. Despite some oversight and standardized testing, your local elementary school is not funded by Washington D.C. Public schooling is almost entirely state/local, not federal.[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is we should use local taxes to pay for healthcare?

Local socialism = good. National socialism = bad.
 
One thing I wanted to point out was covered (sort of) by Capitalizt:

[quote name='Capitalizt']The VAST majority (95%+) of K-12 education funding comes from the state level. Schools are funded mostly by local property taxes, and sometimes part of the state income/sales tax.[/QUOTE]

State level ≠ local property taxes. Just want to clear that up.

But Capitalizt is correct by pointing out that school funding is tied to very small geographic areas. Increases in funding are typically tied to levies at the municipal level, and monies allocated tied to property taxes.

And therein lies just a small portion of the inequality of public education. The money collected from property taxes is greater in wealthier areas (due to extreme fluctuation in property values and homeownership, etc.), and distributed among fewer students (less dense geographic area).

We already know this; so much of our concern about the failure of public schools (in terms of our public discourse about it) focuses on the modern inner-city public schools. Neglecting for the fact that my neighborhood, your neighborhood, and all of our neighborhoods have public schools through the 12th grade. Many of these schools are quite excellent.

But tied in with localized funding comes one portion of massive inequality in terms of the quality of education provided. People start off with differing quality in the public system.

Unless the public option is to be funded at the local level, which wouldn't make much sense, then I think the comparison b/w a public health care option and public education is okay - but it certainly has its limitations.

EDIT:

[quote name='Ruined']Part of the reason there was such an outrage with healthcare was the specific way the House bill was written; it was clearly designed to "phase out" private insurance companies through the banning of writing new policies after the bill goes into effect (p16 of the House bill).[/QUOTE]

This is as incorrect a reading of that portion of the house bill as it was several weeks back when I went out of my way to explain to you how it was incorrect.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']State level ≠ local property taxes. Just want to clear that up.

But Capitalizt is correct by pointing out that school funding is tied to very small geographic areas. Increases in funding are typically tied to levies at the municipal level, and monies allocated tied to property taxes.

And therein lies just a small portion of the inequality of public education. The money collected from property taxes is greater in wealthier areas (due to extreme fluctuation in property values and homeownership, etc.), and distributed among fewer students (less dense geographic area).

We already know this; so much of our concern about the failure of public schools (in terms of our public discourse about it) focuses on the modern inner-city public schools. Neglecting for the fact that my neighborhood, your neighborhood, and all of our neighborhoods have public schools through the 12th grade. Many of these schools are quite excellent.

But tied in with localized funding comes one portion of massive inequality in terms of the quality of education provided. People start off with differing quality in the public system.

Unless the public option is to be funded at the local level, which wouldn't make much sense, then I think the comparison b/w a public health care option and public education is okay - but it certainly has its limitations.
[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree with this more. I went to school K-12 in a small, wealthy town in Massachusetts, a state not known to skimp on education (nor are its towns). My public education was probably far better than most private options available in the area or anywhere. If I grew up in Baltimore, it would probably be a different story.

I work in the field of education and my company has contracts with several large state departments of education, and I can tell you that even within a single state there is often a striking disparity between the resources available in different communities. We see districts with thoroughly modern technology and facilities and also those running computer labs filled with MAC G3s or worse.

My point, and this echoes what mykevermin was saying I think, is that the education system is flawed in the same way that the health care system should not be. The OP's comparison isn't terrible, but if anything it illuminates that the health care system needs to beat a different path than our flawed education system.

I'm obviously granting here that both of these things should be government funded, which is what I believe. Obviously plenty disagree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']One thing I wanted to point out was covered (sort of) by Capitalizt:



State level ≠ local property taxes. Just want to clear that up.

But Capitalizt is correct by pointing out that school funding is tied to very small geographic areas. Increases in funding are typically tied to levies at the municipal level, and monies allocated tied to property taxes.

And therein lies just a small portion of the inequality of public education. The money collected from property taxes is greater in wealthier areas (due to extreme fluctuation in property values and homeownership, etc.), and distributed among fewer students (less dense geographic area).

We already know this; so much of our concern about the failure of public schools (in terms of our public discourse about it) focuses on the modern inner-city public schools. Neglecting for the fact that my neighborhood, your neighborhood, and all of our neighborhoods have public schools through the 12th grade. Many of these schools are quite excellent.

But tied in with localized funding comes one portion of massive inequality in terms of the quality of education provided. People start off with differing quality in the public system.
[/QUOTE]
You can throw as much money as you want at something, but it won't fix it. We spend the most in the world per capita on education, and yet we rank low on almost every educational statistic. Test scores, graduation rates, ect. Then let's look at an example here in the Twin Cities.
St. Paul Public Schools spends more money per capita than any other district in the state. Yet they also have some of the lowest test scores in the state. Their budget for 2008-2009 was $628 million.
http://www.stpaul.k12.mn.us/Saint_Paul_Public_Schools_2008-09_budget_approved.html
Anoka-Hennepin, the largest school district in the state had a budget of $400 million.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/06/anoka_hennepin_schools/
St. Paul had much lower test scores than Anoka-Hennepin, but spent more per student. Why does this happen? Well you should be able to come up with a guess by looking at this chart:
http://ww2.startribune.com/dynamic/no_child/district.php
 
The main argument the OP is targeting is the use of the word "Socialism" to attack the health care proposal. A lot of people missed this point and started comparing the quality of health care to the quality of education.

The point is "socialism." If people were truly against what they are claiming is socialist with the public option then they should also be protesting public education, police departments, and fire departments.

By these peoples definition of "socialism" police departments and fire departments are communist institutions. No one is screaming for the Gov't to sht 'em down because they are socialist now are they?

Imagine we privatized those. You would have to debate whether you should let the person robbing you take your wallet with a couple hundred bucks or call the cops and have to foot the bill which could be more.

Or if you're house is burning down, can you afford to call the fire dept. and have them put it out?

Sounds absurd right? Almost like if you have cancer and you have to wonder if you can afford to get chemotherapy! Oh, wait...that's reality..
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Before we go any further, I'm curious what your conclusion is by looking that that chart.[/QUOTE]
Look at the percentage of low income kids
% of test takers Math/Reading
Anoka Hennepin 25 | 29
St. Paul 71 | 73

Would you be motivated to learn if your family had always been poor, and you thought you had no opportunities in life? Plus, it doesn't help that the latest superintendent just used the job as a steeping stone to get a higher paying job in Austin, TX. You can throw as much money as you want at these problems, but it won't help. You need to be innovative to face these challenges. We need to be the land of opportunity again, the most egalitarian country in the world, like we once were. We need a productive capacity. What we have now is these people making barely enough to get by working at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is the only job they can get. If your entire family is struggling, and works at low paying jobs, are you going to be motivated to learn?
 
extrapolating.png


The folly of two data points.

Moreover, you use two data points to illustrate a trend when you have dozens more comparable data points available. You had to select your two counties out of those dozens. That is willful cherry picking at its finest.

But that's all beside the point. I pointed to municipal-level inequality in education funding as being related to differential/unequal outcomes. Would you deny variation in the quality of public schools from one district to the next?

You are, as you tend to do far too much, drawing false conclusions by assuming I mean something I didn't say. I pointed to this kind of inequality as an area where the public option/public education comparison falls short. And by no means did I propose greater spending as a means of repairing that inequality Because I don't believe that.

Please learn to read. I'm getting tired of having to explain things I did not say to you. Maybe you should spend a few weeks in the Ankh-Morpork school district or whatever it was you called it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
extrapolating.png


The folly of two data points.

Moreover, you use two data points to illustrate a trend when you have dozens more comparable data points available. You had to select your two counties out of those dozens. That is willful cherry picking at its finest.[/quote]
I selected two school districts, because I do not have time to look at every single one in the state. Let's look at another example anyway.
percentage of low income kids
% of test takers Math/Reading
Minneapolis 54 | 61 Spends $654,453,751 Students: 34,570
Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan 16 | 18 Spends $323,061,253 Students: 28,300
Same result. Do it all you want.
But that's all beside the point. I pointed to municipal-level inequality in education funding as being related to differential/unequal outcomes. Would you deny variation in the quality of public schools from one district to the next?
Click to expand...
There is variation in the quality of public school education from one area to another. However, municipal-level funding has little to do with it.
You are, as you tend to do far too much, drawing false conclusions by assuming I mean something I didn't say. I pointed to this kind of inequality as an area where the public option/public education comparison falls short. And by no means did I propose greater spending as a means of repairing that inequality Because I don't believe that.
Click to expand...
What I was pointing out is, funding matters little in education. I hoped you would understand what I was saying. Unfortunately, you didn't.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
There is variation in the quality of public school education from one area to another. However, municipal-level funding has little to do with it.

What I was pointing out is, funding matters little in education. I hoped you would understand what I was saying. Unfortunately, you didn't.[/QUOTE]

You couldn't be more wrong about this last point. I know you two are throwing barbs back and forth, and that's fine, but I work closely with state DOEs and I can tell you that "funding" does matter. It enters into every single decision made on a state-level regarding education, both in the quality of classroom teaching, facilities, testing programs, and the list goes on. It does matter. A lot. States are looking to slash budgets across the board in the current economic climate, and this has an observable effect on the quality of education.
 
public education in the US is pretty bad. Something like 18th out of all industrialized countries. Now what's your point Hot Shot? We can reach the same quality in heathcare that we currently enjoy in public schooling? That's a pretty sorry aspiration/comparison.

The thing is, when the govt. chooses where tax payers' dollars go, no one is really watching and making sure things are up to snuff (except the far removed bureaucrats and statisticians in Washington). Quality slacks off. v.s. having every set of parents conscientiously paying for it, evaluating their investment, etc. The same could happen with healthcare. Consumer's vote with their credit cards. They force competition and improvements. Removing that ability guarantees mediocrity.

But you're right, few people voice their disdain for the police, firefighters, public education. Maybe because any call for change would be futile - the government HAS NEVER relinquished any power. And maybe its the local/national differences (cost, quality, etc).

But what ever happened to self sufficiency. Now every believes they are owed something for doing nothing. I don't want to be sucking on the tits of the wealthy. I don't want to feel inferior to them because I can't take care of myself or my family. I'm a man and don't accept handouts. Am I the only one with pride around here? Am I surrounded by women? It's Wussies like you let the lockerbie bomber out on grounds of compassion.
/end rant.
I now fully expect a reply from myke and his goons talking about strawmen etc. and how the above connection is poorly grounded but really, its this whole mentality that these people have that gets to me and arches across almost all of the threads in the Politics and Controversy forum. Wussification of America.
 
[quote name='tivo']
The thing is, when the govt. chooses where tax payers' dollars go, no one is really watching and making sure things are up to snuff (except the far removed bureaucrats and statisticians in Washington). Quality slacks off. v.s. having every set of parents conscientiously paying for it, evaluating their investment, etc. The same could happen with healthcare. Consumer's vote with their credit cards. They force competition and improvements. Removing that ability guarantees mediocrity.[/QUOTE]

You think every set of parents is going to sit down and make a conscientious decision about what is best for their child's education? And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the idealists.

[quote name='tivo']But what ever happened to self sufficiency. Now every believes they are owed something for doing nothing. I don't want to be sucking on the tits of the wealthy. I don't want to feel inferior to them because I can't take care of myself or my family. I'm a man and don't accept handouts. Am I the only one with pride around here? Am I surrounded by women? It's Wussies like you let the lockerbie bomber out on grounds of compassion.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't even know how to begin to respond to this. This is one of the most misogynistic and vile things I've read in the vs. forum, and that's saying a lot.

Liberals: We're not just socialists anymore. We're a bunch of sissy women.
 
[quote name='bvharris']You couldn't be more wrong about this last point. I know you two are throwing barbs back and forth, and that's fine, but I work closely with state DOEs and I can tell you that "funding" does matter. It enters into every single decision made on a state-level regarding education, both in the quality of classroom teaching, facilities, testing programs, and the list goes on. It does matter. A lot. States are looking to slash budgets across the board in the current economic climate, and this has an observable effect on the quality of education.[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about on a local level. How is it that suburban school districts with half the budget of inner-city districts do twice as well in testing?
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']I'm talking about on a local level. How is it that suburban school districts with half the budget of inner-city districts do twice as well in testing?[/QUOTE]

I can't go into the specifics of refuting that for a variety of reasons, and I won't bother because you're mostly right. You also already know why that is, since you mentioned it earlier. I will say that its a more complicated issue than just how much money is spent.
 
[quote name='bvharris']I can't go into the specifics of refuting that for a variety of reasons, and I won't bother because you're mostly right. You also already know why that is, since you mentioned it earlier. I will say that its a more complicated issue than just how much money is spent.[/QUOTE]

True. Focusing on one area and saying that the quality of education is not dependent upon funding is an incorrect conclusion to come to.
 
[quote name='bvharris']You think every set of parents is going to sit down and make a conscientious decision about what is best for their child's education? And here I thought liberals were supposed to be the idealists.[/QUOTE]

not everyone. I was speaking in general, not absolutes. Some people (or groups) just make purchases without too much thought no matter what. But think about. If you had to make a purchase for YOU, i think you'd do some research, shop around, and get the best quality for the price. Now say, some elitist in Washington was going to make a big purchase on your behalf. Do you think he'd make anywhere as good a purchase. Hell NO.

[quote name='bvharris']I wouldn't even know how to begin to respond to this. This is one of the most misogynistic and vile things I've read in the vs. forum, and that's saying a lot.

Liberals: We're not just socialists anymore. We're a bunch of sissy women.[/QUOTE]

I'd probably say sissy girls. listen to yourselves, you think everyone is good. you want to abolish the death penalty, make punishments easier for criminals, you believe in rehibilitation, you want to grant illegals aliens amnesty, provide healthcare coverage for everyone, abortions for all, claim everything as your God-given rights but go back and ridicule anyone who believes anything other than science or the government, equality in everything, equality for everyone, social security is fine except reduce payouts to the rich, tax the rich even more, more welfare to the poor, support affirmative action, redistribute wealth, believe america is racist and to blame for 9/11 attacks, and overall believe that the elitists in Government have the answer to all of the problems everyone has etc. etc. If you can come up with a better comparison than a sissy girl, I'd like to hear it- especially if it refers to your intelligence.
 
ggggrrrarrr, I'm a man! My punishments are hard and straightforward! Like a penis! A grisly, hairy, manly penis! GGGRRRAAARRRR!!!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']True. Focusing on one area and saying that the quality of education is not dependent upon funding is an incorrect conclusion to come to.[/QUOTE]

Yep funding is key as you need talented teachers, up to date text books, current technology etc. etc.

But showing that places that have that stuff (or have lots of funding) do poorly doesn't mean that stuff and funding doesn't matter.

It just means some places, like inner cities, have more problems than can be fixed with just throwing more money into the system. No amount of funding, nice facilities etc. is going to improve student performance much if kids have parents who don't care, are abused at home, exposed to lots of violence in their neighborhood etc.

But that doesn't mean that other areas won't see improvements by getting more funding to higher better qualified teachers and have better resources in the classroom. It's just that funding is only one small part of the puzzle/problem.
 
[quote name='tivo']not everyone. I was speaking in general, not absolutes. Some people (or groups) just make purchases without too much thought no matter what. But think about. If you had to make a purchase for YOU, i think you'd do some research, shop around, and get the best quality for the price. Now say, some elitist in Washington was going to make a big purchase on your behalf. Do you think he'd make anywhere as good a purchase. Hell NO. [/QUOTE]

Well, I live in Washington and I'm sure by your definition I'd be considered an elitist, so... Probably about the same.

[quote name='tivo']I'd probably say sissy girls. listen to yourselves, you think everyone is good. you want to abolish the death penalty, make punishments easier for criminals, you believe in rehibilitation, you want to grant illegals aliens amnesty, provide healthcare coverage for everyone, abortions for all, claim everything as your God-given rights but go back and ridicule anyone who believes anything other than science or the government, equality in everything, equality for everyone, social security is fine except reduce payouts to the rich, tax the rich even more, more welfare to the poor, support affirmative action, redistribute wealth, believe america is racist and to blame for 9/11 attacks, and overall believe that the elitists in Government have the answer to all of the problems everyone has etc. etc. If you can come up with a better comparison than a sissy girl, I'd like to hear it- especially if it refers to your intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I actually don't support affirmative action. :)

Also, one of the sissiest girls I know is a conservative, it's like down is up and black is white!
 
[quote name='HowStern']The main argument the OP is targeting is the use of the word "Socialism" to attack the health care proposal. A lot of people missed this point and started comparing the quality of health care to the quality of education.

The point is "socialism." If people were truly against what they are claiming is socialist with the public option then they should also be protesting public education, police departments, and fire departments.

By these peoples definition of "socialism" police departments and fire departments are communist institutions. No one is screaming for the Gov't to sht 'em down because they are socialist now are they?

Imagine we privatized those. You would have to debate whether you should let the person robbing you take your wallet with a couple hundred bucks or call the cops and have to foot the bill which could be more.

Or if you're house is burning down, can you afford to call the fire dept. and have them put it out?

Sounds absurd right? Almost like if you have cancer and you have to wonder if you can afford to get chemotherapy! Oh, wait...that's reality..[/QUOTE]

HowStern hits the mark. We can debate back and forth for days as to what a public option of the health care bill should (or should not) entail, but why exactly is the idea of a "public option" considered such an outrage? With the public school system sown throughout their country, I find a level of hypocrisy in the "socialism" argument that thousands seem to be missing. The Public Education system might not be the greatest system in the world, but it did get me and many others in America to the college I wanted, the profession I wanted, and the life I look forward to working on.

Let's reverse roles: Instead of Health Insurance, what if the estimated 47 million Americans that do not have access to care or insurance did not have access or could afford Public Education? Do you think we would have more support for getting these people educated?

Let's require a bit of thinking for this one: When you respond, argue each side's viewpoint (i.e. Submit your "For" argument and your "Against" argument.

~HotShotX
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HotShotX']
Let's reverse roles: Instead of Health Insurance, what if the estimated 47 million Americans that do not have access to care or insurance did not have access or could afford Public Education? Do you think we would have more support for getting these people educated?
[/QUOTE]

If Obama was proposing the reform? I shudder to think..
 
[quote name='bvharris']If Obama was proposing the reform? I shudder to think..[/QUOTE]

Who cares who proposes it? The debate is about the option being available, not its contents or who proposes it. (I mention that contents aren't being discussed because most of us tend to agree that the educational system could be improved, but nonetheless we all not only use it, we rely on it.)

For the sake of argument, let's say the Education Public Option is proposed by Sen. Douchebag, and his opponent is Sen. Date-Rape. What might each sides' argument be? (Yes, I want you to argue BOTH sides for once, even if you want to be lazy and respond with "SOCIALISM!" and "IGNORANCE!" for either side).

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Who cares who proposes it? The debate is about the option being available, not its contents or who proposes it. (I mention that contents aren't being discussed because most of us tend to agree that the educational system could be improved, but nonetheless we all not only use it, we rely on it.)

For the sake of argument, let's say the Education Public Option is proposed by Sen. Douchebag, and his opponent is Sen. Date-Rape. What might each sides' argument be? (Yes, I want you to argue BOTH sides for once, even if you want to be lazy and respond with "SOCIALISM!" and "IGNORANCE!" for either side).

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

You have to be joking, right? If you didn't realize that I was being sarcastic, I feel bad for you. Read someone's posts in a thread to see what side they're on before you get all high and mighty. Jeez, some people just itch for a fight.

I was (I thought quite obviously) making the point that if Obama was proposing the reform, the same people who are opposing health care reform on the basis of things like SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM or even SECRET MUSLIM would oppose it, because its not really about the policy itself. You asked whether there would be more support? My answer is no.
 
Being that we still have close to a 50% dropout rate, I am not sure it's a good idea to try and compare the 47 million uninsured to roughly half of us that don't finish public education at all. I know you are going to argue "Well at least it's a choice though" but I'm just sayin... Choices are expensive. It warms me to know we spend so much on public education being a 'choice' that so many people ignore, why not do it with healthcare too?

Speaking of that 47 million figure being thrown out, it makes me kind of throw up in my mouth every time I hear it. Once you really start to analyze WHY those 47 million don't have insurance, who they are, what demographics they are and if they actually could afford it - it really makes Uncle Sam's eyebrow attached to his beady eye that's now focused on healthcare reform proposals raise a lot higher.

By some estimations the true number of those that want healthcare but simply can't afford it is between 5 and 12 million. If that is true, why are we so hellbent and desperate to throw 1/6 of our GDP and something that affects EVERYONE into the political meat-grinder with all the dialed-up urgency of George Michael at a sausage factory?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpazX']ggggrrrarrr, I'm a man! My punishments are hard and straightforward! Like a penis! A grisly, hairy, manly penis! GGGRRRAAARRRR!!![/QUOTE]

exactly, none of this slap on the wrist b.s.
"Oh, hello Chris Hanson".... "what? I'm on To Catch a Predator"....."hahahaha, I was gonna booze up and fuck that 13 yr old boy LOL."... "ok, Chris Hanson- you're much more personable in person- ill go off to jail for and be out on good behavior next year." "thanks a lot, I've really learned a lot talking to you tonight. Best Friends Forever! YAY!"

I can do comedy too.
 
[quote name='bvharris']
I was (I thought quite obviously) making the point that if Obama was proposing the reform, the same people who are opposing health care reform on the basis of things like SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM or even SECRET MUSLIM would oppose it, because its not really about the policy itself. You asked whether there would be more support? My answer is no.[/QUOTE]

Yep, just look at google news or other sites for stories about whether Obama should be giving a televised speech to school children on Tuesday, that will harp on the value of education and stress the importance of them taking responsibility in getting their education etc. :roll:
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Being that we still have close to a 50% dropout rate[/QUOTE]

source.

also, we already discussed who the uninsured were a few weeks ago. you were a part of this discussion. i'm let down that the demographics provided and discussed in the health care thread were so soon forgotten by you.
 
[quote name='tivo']I'd probably say sissy girls. listen to yourselves, you think everyone is good. you want to abolish the death penalty, make punishments easier for criminals, you believe in rehibilitation, you want to grant illegals aliens amnesty, provide healthcare coverage for everyone, abortions for all, claim everything as your God-given rights but go back and ridicule anyone who believes anything other than science or the government, equality in everything, equality for everyone, social security is fine except reduce payouts to the rich, tax the rich even more, more welfare to the poor, support affirmative action, redistribute wealth, believe america is racist and to blame for 9/11 attacks, and overall believe that the elitists in Government have the answer to all of the problems everyone has etc. etc. If you can come up with a better comparison than a sissy girl, I'd like to hear it- especially if it refers to your intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I've never met anyone who made a big show about toughness -- physical, emotional, political, whatever -- who wasn't a complete sham. The genuine hard-asses have been quiet, humble, and compassionate, without exception. Know why? They can afford to be.

I betcha I could pick you out of a line-up, champ.
 
[quote name='trq']I've never met anyone who made a big show about toughness -- physical, emotional, political, whatever -- who wasn't a complete sham. The genuine hard-asses have been quiet, humble, and compassionate, without exception. Know why? They can afford to be.

I betcha I could pick you out of a line-up, champ.[/QUOTE]

im the hardworking, no excuses, good all around guy who knows the value in listening to centuries of individuals, rather than the opinions of the few in Washington. chump

[quote name='mykevermin']Wearing a "TapOut" t-shirt?[/QUOTE]

you're the one with the wrestling avatar.
 
[quote name='tivo']im the hardworking, no excuses, good all around guy who knows the value in listening to centuries of individuals, rather than the opinions of the few in Washington. chump



you're the one with the wrestling avatar.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, how old are you?
 
[quote name='tivo']you're the one with the wrestling avatar.[/QUOTE]

ha.

I think Stern's point is that the tough guy schtick is typically reserved for people who truly aren't tough. Comparing, say, the willingness of "chickenhawk" Republicans to go to endless, spare-no-expense war with any country at any time for any reason - the simpleton "nuke 'em and pave it into a parking lot" mentality - comes from folks who've never seen an iota of war.

In terms of prison, the problems with the prison system (increases in recidivism and incarceration rates) correspond perfectly with an ideological shift during the Nixon era that made more crimes punishable, moved into a determinate sentencing policy, took away skills, education, and rehabilitation, increased sentence lengths, added three strikes policies, etc. This philosophy, which has more or less existed uncontested until today (i.e., longer than most of our lives), has existed alongside increasing crime rates, increases in drug use, and increases in recidivism. In short, it's not about "being tough" or "being a girly sissypants" that should be discussed. If we can be grown ups we can talk about effective policies that reduce crime generally and reduce reoffenses for those who are incarcerated.

If we have that discussion, then, having been confronted with the fact that "getting tough on crime" philosophy did nothing to improve/reduce crime/recidivism rates, why would the proper response be to become even tougher?
 
[quote name='docvinh']Seriously, how old are you?[/QUOTE]


from your trade list....

H: Black DSI W: Interesting trades!!
Black DSI, mint, has a large carrying case
.
.
.
DS
Chronotrigger
.
.
.
PS2
Rogue Ops sealed

Xbox games
Madden 2004 free with purchase
official xbox demo disk #59 and 60


360 games
Guitar Hero 2 with wired guitar
Guitar Hero 3 sealed
Ace Combat 6 Flight stick package (faceplate is brand new in package and unused)
Unreal Tournament III
Street Fighter 4
Virtua Fighter 5
Ghostbusters PENDING TO BRONSON-LEE

DVD's
Stargate Atlantis Season 1,2,3,4
Blade The series
Family Guy Volume 1,2
Futurama Season 1,2
Click to expand...

How old are you?
 
[quote name='HotShotX']For the sake of argument, let's say the Education Public Option is proposed by Sen. Douchebag, and his opponent is Sen. Date-Rape.[/QUOTE]

But Schumer and Vitter represent different states.

[quote name='HotShotX']what if the estimated 47 million Americans that do not have access to care or insurance[/QUOTE]

Please do not repeat fictitious statistics; they sour the debate and make people think you are not making an honest argument (I'm sure you're just repeating what you've heard). The true number is around 8-14 million.
 
Broken Windows is
1) A theory
2) A theory with mixed support in the research literature
3) A theory that addresses responses to crime as it occurs in the community
4) Also emphasizes the interaction at the community level b/w police officers and residents of the community and, lastly
5) Doesn't address prison conditions or policy at the correctional level; just the police level. Therefore it offers absolutely no support for the policies and ideas you just tried to use it to support.
 
^that's irrelevant.

but talking to myke, if getting tougher on crime -as you see it- does nothing to decrease crime, what do you propose? or are you just a critic against law enforcement and blame criminal actions not on the criminal, but on the environment/state of the country (racism + poor education + low income + other bull, etc. etc.)
 
[quote name='tivo']^that's irrelevant.

but talking to myke, if getting tougher on crime -as you see it- does nothing to decrease crime, what do you propose? or are you just a critic against law enforcement and blame criminal actions not on the criminal, but on the environment/state of the country (racism + poor education + low income + other bull, etc. etc.)[/QUOTE]

If the environment has no effect on the criminal, why would being tougher on crime decrease crime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top