It's not a socialist plot
I know it's behind the paywall, but Paul Krugman makes an important point today about making healthcare available to children.
Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.
They’d have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren’t available, many families would pay for private schools instead.
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
O.K., in case you’re wondering, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled “The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door,” is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will “displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage.” [...]
But thinking about how we’d react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children’s health. The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care.
Note to Dems in Congress: this is an analogy that belongs in your talking points.
The FRIST Market!
The free market has worked wonders on our manufacturing base, on our financial base...NOW...on to healthcare. The trifecta!!
Police, Firefighters, all public roads & other works-now THAT'S socialism.
He makes an excellent point in a way that anyone could understand.
In Washington last week, the White House renewed George W. Bush's war against children's health care that dates back to his days as Governor of Texas. Just two weeks after the House and Senate each approved major expansions of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the Bush administration announced draconian new eligibility rules that would trim thousands of low income children from the rolls. But unlike his Texas two-step when he claimed credit for a program he fought tooth and nail, this time George W. Bush isn't running for anything.
For the details, see:
"Bush Repeats His Texas War on Children's Health Insurance."
I worked for an Ohio legislative program evaluation office that specialized in education programs. I saw way too many people advocating exactly what Krugman tries to play off as ridiculous. Very depressing. This charming quote from Texas State Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Houston, sums up their attitude perfectly: "Where did this idea come from, that everybody deserves free education, free medical care, free whatever? It comes from Moscow, from Russia. It comes straight out of the pit of hell."
Let's just call it for what it is...
Republicans hate children.
Um, I don't know why Paul thinks we might label him insane for his 'dump public schools' analogy, I've heard Republicans say it before. Wait, republicans are insane...nevermind.
Who thinks they are getting anything for free? People that are so wealthy that they don't pay taxes, to cover the cost of roads they drive on?
As I consider public health care, I think of other related systems. Our sewage systems were invented as a form of preventive healthcare. It was once thought that the odor of sewage caused disease.
If we're going to privatize healthcare, doesn't it make sense to privatize sewage systems too?
If the plague breaks out, we can privatize towers to party in, until the plague passes.
Krugman's piece is available free, outside the NYT firewall, at truthout.org:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082707N.shtml
Heh, well you might not have to wait long for that analogy to become a reality. The same people that brought you Ecoli Conservatism are eager to tell you why the Department of Education should be defunded ... it's only a hop, skip, and a jump to defunding public education in general. Because what's more important for our future, an educated populous or securing oil fields for ExxonMobile?
Avery Davis @ 11:
How much education do you need, to watch NASCAR?
Krugman is sharp as usual. Republicans are terrified that Americans will experience good social services in more sectors.
I normally cite schools, libraries and public parks (basketball courts, jungle gyms, etc.), and Miss Kitty's three (firefighters, police and roads) also work wonderfully. Speaking of which, I read some article where conservatives wanted to privatize more roads!
Um, I hate to burst Mr. Krugman's bubble, but as a former Republican, I can fully attest to the fact that the hard right does believe, exactly that "...we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated" and that "the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models."
It's a prime goal of the hard right to dismantle the public education system and has been since the early 80s when I first heard Fallwell calling for "Christians" to take over local school boards.
Yes I've heard the same sort of talk about private and home schooling.
The Republican model increasingly looks like it is based on 19th century Mexico.
Strawberry @ 8:
Remember..."charter schools", "voucher programs"...the extreme right has been trying to eliminate public education since its inception. They view it as government pervading on their private lives! LOLOL!
Public education created the middle class, public education raised the learning standards of the country, public education assimilated thousands of immigrants into the country. Is public education a panacea? No. But the good outweighs the bad. Public education today is in disarray because the GOP has undermined it. They have undermined it by funneling money off for charter schools (a free market HANDOUT), by limited attempts at jury rigging the tax system to enrich rich people who CAN AFFORD to send their kids to private schools and DO, etc etc.
Education, healthcare, children, labor...these are the bread and butter of the Democratic Party, and with the economy segregated into haves and have nots and the middle class being squeezed...the Dems should be clubbing the GOP over the head with each of these issues.
The New Deal, the GI Bill, and all the programs that followed are what drove the GOP into the political wilderness the last time. They can do it again.
you have to listen to miss south carolina to understand the geniouse of the souths education system, its un belivable , that poor girl!
Giving health care to all children....only "commie liberals" (tm) would be so caring.
It belongs in the dem's talking points except that they work for the same client/masters that the "other" party does.
"Note to Dems in Congress: this is an analogy that belongs in your talking points."
Well....sure. 'Cept that Krugman's analogy has wayyyyy more than three syllables; the average republican really just likes about 3-5. Something like, ohhhhh:
"U-S-A!"
"U-S-A!"
"U-S-A!"
"U-S-A!"
Guaranteed to work at ballgames, debates, talk shows, backyard family barbecues, political rallies, formal dinners, christenings and many more!
Unfortunately, the 27%-ers don't think there should be public education, either. How can you be certain your children are held in the dark if they are sent into the light with secular humanists? There are many crazy Evangelicals who think public education is a Marxist polt to turn all our children into heathen homos.
the tactic of refering the ideas/initiatives and the such as 'socialist' has been such an effective tactic for the GOP.
but, like him or not, michael moore came up with, i thought, the best way to reframe the rhetoric in regards to universal healthcare.
the rightwing tries to label it as 'socialized' medicine
don't fall into the trap, call it what it is 'christianized medicine'. now, let them debate that. ask them: who would jesus cover? who would jesus refuse treatment too? what sort of preconditions would cause jesus deny coverage of?
if the dems had real guts (and most don't) they would take off the gloves and stop just reacting to GOP bullshit and change the discussion. put the supposed family values party on the defense. why does the GOP want children to suffer? why does the GOP want my grandmother to be in pain?
Bonkers @ 20:
I wonder if they chant that when they are violating pale young boys, or servicing large black men out of fear?
Those so busy sniffing out socialist plots are usually anti-social.
Republicans are terrified that Americans will experience good social services in more sectors.
This is precisely why they have that vitriolic loathing of FDR and to a lesser extent Clinton. Anyone that makes our government actually WORK for the PEOPLE must be thrown down and demonized. It is in fact the same reaction they have to anything that clashes with their manufactured reality.
Socialism is anytime money is spent on the public good instead of the top 1%.
Batocchio Says: "I read some article where conservatives wanted to privatize more roads!"
they want to, and some have started. again, texas is in the forefront...
Perry in early 2002 outlined what seemed to be a pie-in-the-sky plan for 4,000 miles of rural toll roads called the Trans-Texas Corridor. After hearing people scoff for more than two years, Perry introduced some Spaniards who said they'd spend $7.2 billion on the first 300-mile piece, including a $1.2 billion payment to the state. And Perry's Department of Transportation declared Texas "open for business," inviting private companies — foreign or domestic — to privately finance and operate the next generation of Texas expressways and railroads.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/19/20transgo...
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in goverment, it belongs to the poor. No says the man in the vatican, it belongs to God. No says the man in moscow, it belongs to EVERYONE.
tyree @ 17:
This girl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQdhMSEqhfg
I have to say that I am now against public education. I'm tired of paying all those taxes. That money would be better spent on private education. Why pay a lifetime of taxes for other people to go to school when our children have graduated? What about people without children? The way we fund education is a bad idea. The non-education pro-state propaganda they're taught in Social Studies is apalling. Insurance and healthcare need an overhauled but I don't want my taxes paying for it. The government will only screw it up anyway. They totally screwed up education.
Note to Dems in Congress: Are you ready to start playing offense yet? I didn't think so.
>>Such an expansion, says Heritage, will “displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage.”
and most Americans' response to that is going to be: "....ummmm....okay"
We all know the system isn't working and those kind of commie-pinko-boogeyman tactics don't resonate anymore. When your only other option is no health care, government-sponsored doesn't sound bad at all.
To misquote Patrick Henry, "Give me government-sponsored health care, or I'm gonna die"
PNAAC Minister @ 31:
That's why we need to get rid of liberals and elect progressives (see Jim Webb for an example).
Maybe we can have a free market war also and only let them wage war with the part of our taxes that each individual gets to mark or opt-in for "defense" spending. I no one allocates for war, then no war.
xxx @ 28:
Are we not our brothers keeper?
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
Why pay a lifetime of taxes for other people to go to school when our children have graduated? What about people without children? The way we fund education is a bad idea.
How about not having a totally ignorant git taking care of you in your old age. How about having a populous educated enough to bring worthwhile jobs to your are so you don't have to live out your golden years in a shithole? The way we fund education may be far from perfect, but defunding education I assure you is NOT the solution.
Jasper @ 30:
Jasper, you dolt, when we educate every child they will get better jobs and pay more in taxes too, making sure YOU GET YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, unemplyment insurance, good quality roads, bridges, defense etc. We're all in this together, bonehead. We're all Americans, let's start taking care of each other.
Obviously it's an apt analogy and certainly easy for most people to understand. But i too know first-hand that there are a LOT of people out there (incl. some of my fam and friends) who DO think that it's "wrong" for anyone to pay for someone else's kids' education via taxes.
We've all heard the "ok moron, are we gonna let the free market dictate our fire-response??" thing. Those who understand the insanity of it don't need to hear it again. Those who really do think we're absolutely better off with free-market healthcare aren't going to listen anyway.
[here's where my own insanity is revealed...]
The real power in such a "talking point", is in framing it as a *question* so that those Republicans who believe such a public service is "wrong" will (instinctively playing to their base) criticize (or better yet, condemn) it. This is something that i think could be effectively used to sway votes of working-class Republicans: especially those who consider themselves Republicans only because their parents are/were. Can you imagine the soundbites being played in a commercial during a NASCAR event?
Avery Davis @ 25:
Happy, healthy workers make for pesky people to control as they get enough free time to think and have concept of their own self worth.
Unhappy, unhealthy workers terrified of the possibility of being left out in the cold sans health insurance or socialized safety net. Also overworked peons don't have free time enough to think and realize they are being robbed blind.
Thus republicans tend to side with big business and keep the serfs terrified so that they shut up and do as they told. It worked great for the millennia. However, these idiots never see the mob with them pitch forks coming.
However, I am amazed about the patience and capacity to take abuse by the American populace.
Strawberry @ 37:
With more education comes less crime, less squalor.
These are societal issues. Education is an INVESTMENT IN OUR SOCIETY.
What I think is funny is how they say that it will end privatized insurance. Privatized insurance has become so large, and out of control, not to mention unaffordable as overpriced as it is, that they are the primary reason we need universal coverage. We've given insurance several decades to get it right, and the industry ended up showing how corrupt and greedy humanity actually is. Most people seem to go with the tide that says universal coverage will close private insurance companies, and defend them. On a macro sense, American citizens really have to become more knowledgeable to prevent being taken advantage of. Leave it to FOX to add more dumbfounded programs to take away from the education the public needs. I better go, I'm getting off topic.
Jasper @ 30:
Jasper, are you an example of guv'mint education or homeschooling?
amall gib @ 38:
I believe in subsidized education, but I'm not sure I believe that everyone should pay the same fee.
If you have more kids, shouldn't you pay more? Should someone with eight kids pay the same as someone with none?
xxx @ 28:
Yes, because the man used the sweat of his brow to build the roads that took him to his work place, the man also build with his own hands the sanitation system that was able to flush the loads of bullshit that the man produced along with the sweat of his brow. Also the man build with his own hands the hospital, and he personally trained every one of the doctors which treated the man's condition of uncontrollable sweating.
Thus republicans tend to side with big business and keep the serfs terrified so that they shut up and do as they told.
Ummmmm, smells like feudalism to me! These dolts cry - 'That's SOCIALISM!' everyone someone mentions a program that promotes the general welfare. I think we should start shouting 'That's FASCISM' everytime anyone advocates tax breaks for business or 'That's FEUDALISM' anytime the investor class get's a break.
Avery Davis @ 45:
Why'dya think they coined that oh so clever sobriquet Islamo-fascism?
So they could usurp the latter term against them.
Liberal AND Proud @ 40:
Too deep Liberal, I agree with you 100% but you must tell some folks how it will effect them personally. Right in the pocket book.
Strawberry @ 37:
Is this necessary to disrespect people that have an opinion. We should be fostering ideas that may work. The education system is broke, this is an idea to privatize it and hope leaders don't take advantage of people. I personally also think there are better ideas then cutting funding for education. I like C&L for the most part because the people that comment are educated enough to not make insults at people that have ideas or comments. If you want to squash ideas and start going backwards that's the way to start. Don't stoop down to neocon statements that distract from the problem rather than offer a solution.
[Your "concern" is duly noted -- Sitemonitor]
Weaseldog @ 43:
Nice. I like the backdoor racism. We need to limit the amount of children birthed by the poor. The free market at work, eh.
If you have more kids, shouldn’t you pay more? Should someone with eight kids pay the same as someone with none?
No no NO NO NO! We're all in this together!!!! We all benefit from having an educated populous. One child, no child, grown child ... doesn't matter. If we spread the cost across the entire workforce equally no body get's hammered.
Jasper @ 30:
I'll be brief... everyone benefits from a well educated population. The childless couples, the single people, the right wing capitalists... everyone. I'm constantly amazed at how many Americans seem to want to revert to the middle ages.
xxx @ 28:
and the roads this sweaty man travels down? the police that sweaty man might need someday? the sweaty man's burning house, what about the firemen?
no, and i don't mean to cause offense, but this is a simplistic argument. actually, it isn't even an argument, its just nonsense.
and, pray tell, when the government is drown in a bath tub (thank you grover), who will take care of the services? corporations. like KBR taking over privitized military functions.
here's an idea, reduce the tax burden on the upper middle class, middle class, working-poor, etc. by increasing the tax on the uber wealthy, getting rid of corporate-tax loopholes, corporate subsidies, etc.
the idea that if only the govt would go away the sweaty man might have a chance was a successful argument in 1979, but in 2007 we are wise in the ways of the privatization schemes (see, skillful buy-off of politicians by corporations).
the costs are underestimated, the service worse than promosed, and unsustainable cost cutting (for an example, check out atlanta, ga's 1998 experiment in privatizing water [spoiler: it didn't work out too swell])
What Paul misses is that Republicans DO feel this way. They want to end public education and want education to be just for those who can afford the private school or homeschool. I have heard this from Michael P. Farris ( http://www.phc.edu/administration/chancellor/default.asp and http://www.hslda.org/about/staff/attorneys/Farris.asp ) himself.
They even use the argument that if you don't have a child in the public school system (whether home ed, private school, or you don't have children or they are grown) then you shouldn't be paying into the public school system.
The analogy is incorrect as it is exactly how they feel about education... no child is entitled. At least they are consistent.
Strawberry @ 47:
Taxes are not inherently bad. That's the bottom line. This whole view propagated by the right that there is no benefit to taxation and that people should spend the money in their own way...well...we see the results today. We are moving toward a segregated society. Segregated by INCOME.
And "free market talk" is just racism concealed. It is well known that the majority of the poor is comprised of "people of color". So, the issue isn't about market theory at all, it's about dyed in the wool bigotry.
To take the proceeds of one mans labour
and give it to another
so that the other may have an education
is to make a slave of the former
to the benifit of the latter.
You would justify stealing from a man
if it is for "the benifit of society"?
I don't see a problem with the source of the funds for public education, it's the management of those funds by the state and federal governments where the problems enter the picture (see "no child left behind", etc.)
Hum... yes, the old free market place for the privatization of public services.
The funny thing is that most of the free marketers sure do enjoy demonizing those who want the common good at the expense of the good of the few.
If healthcare is fully privatized, the trend is towards monopolization as it maximizes profit... profit is further maximized by denying care.
If education is fully privatized, since they no longer have to compete against public schooling they can simply undercut their services. I.e. offering a class with 200 children per teacher, in order to maximize their profit.
Remember a corporation's main raison d'etre is maximizing profits. If educational institutions did not have to compete against state funded (non-profit) organization they would not have as an incentive the education of your children... but rather maximizing their profits.
Same goes for any other public service, such as infrastructure.
And before we go out about what a bad job the government does, let's keep also remembering that we pay more than twice for health care and we get a service that is not even ranked in the top 20 among industrialized nations. Also look at how deregulation has worked for utilities: Enron. We so enjoyed in California being held ransom by a corporation.
So yeah corporatists... before you come knocking on how bad government runs things, just remember SHUT THE FUCK UP... your alternatives have worked so god damn well, haven't they?
So Krugman has a point. Big deal.
Doesn't he always?
Liberal AND Proud @ 49:
Racism didn't occur to me. I wonder why it occurred to you?
I didn't have kids because I knew I couldn't afford them. It wasn't until later in life that I felt I could give them the kind of life they deserved. By then it was a bit late.
Why should I pay the same in taxes as someone who has lots of kids and makes more money? Why should my taxes be based on the same scale as Mitt Romney's? Shouldn't he pay more?
If I get the gist of your argument, you want to maximize the number of children born to poor people. Why?
I don't have any relatives in prison, why should my tax money pay for prisons?
Pawn @ 48:
Are you kidding me? TRUST OUR LEADERS? And no, I'm way past treating selfish people with respect. These same selfish people are getting people killed. DEAD! So no, it's time we put our feet down and say HELL NO! NO FRIGGIN' MORE! If you don't like taxes, don't drive on roads, don't take social security, don't call 911. I gladly pay taxes to make sure guys like Jasper don't starve in his old age, I'm not old, and I also send my kids to a private school and I don't mind my taxes paying for other peoples' children. Now paying for an illegal war so Cheney can make another million, THAT PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!!!!
They don't think about the logical and visual consequences of their idiological (or idiot-logical) conundrum. As as way of addressing people who think that both education and health care should be free market products for those who can enter that market - where - precisely - should we place the large boxes for the dead children who will not have health care. In parks? Outside emergency rooms? And what sorts of jobs are possible for those who do not receive adequate educational opportunities. Perhaps - we can set up something where those who "weren't left behind, but can't read anyway" can go directly to prison from school. Would certainly save a bit on policing and lawyers. Whattya think?
I recall seeing a little boy - in our local cancer hospital - his family was loving - they adored their little kid with a brain tumor, but when he was not in the hospital - well they were homeless. Can't keep a job if your kid is that sick all the time - and people don't want to know about your dying kid. This culture is without any sense of moral responsibility - it was taken away by the Reagan administration and we're real comfortable without it.
Raymond @ 55:
So I guess you will be the first one in line to return the amount of taxes you wasted and which I paid for your sorry ass, right?
Clever prose does not hide the fact
That for all those lines you wrote
One thing comes to pass
What it is really meant to say is this:
"I got mine, so fuck you"
To take the proceeds of one mans labour
and give it to another
so that the other may have an education
is to make a slave of the former
to the benifit of the latter.
You would justify stealing from a man
if it is for “the benifit of society”?
Oh for Pete's sake, looks like we have a libertarian "intellectual" lurking about. Do you realize there has NEVER been a functional geo-political grouping that didn't pay some form of taxes? If you don't want to pay taxes you should divorce yourself from all of society's benefits! Go find yourself a cave in the middle of nowhere and celebrate your selfish freedoms. People who live in reality based reality will find a way to keep their taxes from lining the pockets of war profiteers.
Weaseldog @ 43:
Yeah, and if your parents die before they are 65, you shouldn't have to pay Medicare or Social Security taxes anymore. And, if you live in NYC, or near a military base, you should pay more in federal taxes, because you are being protected more by our defense spending than the rest of Americans, because you are more likely to be subject to a foreign attack than people living in the middle of nowhere. Right? Who's with me?
Thinker @ 62:
I don't think Krugman is under any illusions that the Republicans favor free public education for all. What he's asking is how we, meaning the voting public, would react if the Republicans were to attack the idea of publicly funded schools the same words and with the vigor that they attack the idea of publicly funded healthcare. Conservatives who desire political power know that attacking the idea of public education, like attacking the idea of Social Security, is political suicide. Instead, they pay lip service to the ideas while proposing measures to destroy them. There are ideologues who will say what they're really thinking, but these are safely in the punditocracy and away from where people might actually vote for them.
Every elderly person, of whom I am one, has the right to Medicare, no matter what their financial situation is. Every child no matter what their financial situation is, should have Medicare, as well. As soon as we get all the kids insured, then we can start with the rest of the population and say buhbye to for profit health insurance companies. Until that happy day, we are a third rate nation.
call me crazy, but the push for privatization is just so glaringly obvious.
this has NOTHING to do with the workers, the laborers, the 'average american'-- no, it is all to increase market opportunities for corporations. and, NEVER fool yourself, the corporations DO NOT have my interest, your interest, the communities interest, children's in mind. they serve to make money, whatever that requires: cutting corners, reducing services, etc.
and, like so many other issues, the corporations have duped the populace again. it hurts me so to see 'average americans' argue for the strengthening of the corporatocracy. its sad and depressing, really.
ysbaddaden @ 46:
Indeed, fascism usually implies some sort of corporativism, i.e. unification of state and corporate interests. Islamo-fascism is a misnomer, since those Al-Quaida idiots only want to establish theocracies and have not even developed a rudimentary economic theory.
It makes as much sense to call these groups Islamo-fascists as it would be to call Elton John a glitter-fascist.
Also remember that "United we stand, divided we fall" is a fascist slogan. The fascio is the visual representation of said slogan. Always got a chuckle about the talking heads for the GOP saying that slogan, while defending the dept of "Homeland" security (Had they said Fatherland would have made the direct translation from German far easier) and then labeling some stupid goat fucker hiding in a cave as a "Islamo-fascist." I guess it really takes one to know one.
Dang, xxx @ 28. I never would-a thought that a quote from the video game Bioshock would get such a reaction.
Weaseldog @ 59:
I want neither to maximize nor minimize. I want what you exercised...free will. It is an inalienable right to all.
My point...and I apologize if I got personal...is that so much of right wing rhetoric is couched racism. The extreme right wingers are SO off the wall, that they WILL expound on limiting family size for the poor, manadatory birth control, etc. The so-called "moderates" use code words to placate their "base"...words such as "personal responsibility", "ability to pay", etc etc. Of course, they never speak of personal responsibility for themselves (see the myriad of sex scandals, illegitimate children, racists siring children of color, etc.).
The numbers speak for themselves. Public education works. Social programs (such as Pell Grants, Head Start) WORK. I believe PNAAC Minister made the comment above, and he is right, it is the MISUSE of money that is the problem.
Note to Dems in Congress
YEAH RIGHT!!!! My dem congressperson when I wrote to them back in June or July about the child health bill before the house then wouldn't sign on and used the rethug talking point that it only helped the middle class. I think it's safe to say that Peter Welch would be happy to do away with public education. Just another rethug in dem diguise if you ask me.
MeMyselfAndI @ 63:
And remember to send back your SS check too. 'Cause you will certainly be drawing out more money than you ever put in.
Samson- @ 69:
GOPers, Libertarians and their ilk always have had the same modus operandi: Run for government, run it to the ground, and with a straight face say "see the public institutions don't work, so lets use this company." Usually said contractor is controlled by the GOPer or libertarian who just ruined the public institution.
Sad part is that a bunch of idiots fall for it. The problem is not the government, but the people who run it. And the idea is that, people for the most part, have direct control of their government via the political process. People do not have control of the corporate world, thus it makes sense for GOPers and Libertarians to remove the oversight from the people, as they represent the interests of the few not the many.
In any case, I dully recommend attending a Libertarian gathering before expiring in this world. It is far better than any funny movie you are likely to ever watch.
Well if the US is gonna totally privatize education.......im sure theres a whole range of foreign companies waiting to take advantage of the the US. A countys wellbeing is dependent on getting the most of the population. It has been proven time and time again that societies that promote competence more than what social class a person was born into when promoting people, is more sucesssful. China is now releasing 1 000 000 Masters of Science grade students per year into the workforce. If the US want to limit education to those that can afford it you limit the number of people that can contribute and therefore miss out on a lot of talent. Surefire way of falling behind in the globalized economy.
Liberal AND Proud @ 72:
I can agree with you here.
I'm not sure why I should be taxed the same as Mitt Romney. I never had kids, because I didn't feel I could cover the costs, and give them the life they deserved. I had my family on my mother and sister's side as negative examples.
And we're white if that means anything. i have a niece right now who is 19, has the mind of a child. Her 55 year old boyfriend (dim bulb) plan to have a big family, because it makes her feel like an adult. If she wants to have a lot of children that she can't afford to raise, that is her choice.
Intellectually, I understand the arguments here. But I personally feel conflicted, with so many NASCAR relatives in my family living in trailer parks on government aid.
It is hard to romanticize about people you personally know.
At least they quit sending me daily freeper jokes.
Liberal AND Proud @ 74:
I don't believe that at all. I'm at the tail end of the boomer generation. I expect us to be in a full blown depression by the time my turn comes.
You can't have infinite growth on a finite planet.
Clever prose does not hide the fact
That for all those lines you wrote
One thing comes to pass
What it is really meant to say is this:
“I got mine, so fuck you”
It is no prose. It was just edited it in a small window and I didnt take the time to format it.
What you really meant to say, i assume is
"You got yours through your own labour, however I don't feel like making mine with labour of my own, so I will vote to steal yours and give it to myself, and if anyone says that I should take responsibility for myself and not depend on others for my own well being I will cry "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN"."
The free market as the best fix for all problems is a model - one that I believe is usually correct. However, when reality yields something different than a model predicts, you realize that reality has exposed error in the model. To stubbornly insist that reality is somehow less real than one's model is silly, but extremists on the right continue to make this error.
The free market is not solving the health care problem. It just ain't working; kids are sick and not getting care. What could be a more obvious piece of evidence that the market isn't yielding a solution on healthcare than kids that are sick due to a lack of resources?
Some things need to be bottom-lined for clarity.
xxx @ 28:
I wonder if anyone else got this Bioshock reference. I've been playing the crap out of that game too.
To clarify, having more children, reduces one's tax burden. I don't see that this is fair, even if it is a popular system.
Why is the idea of paying for what you got, evil?
Should the government penalize people with fewer children and reward those with more? If not, why should the reverse be true? Why not a flat rate?
Weaseldog @ 82:
It isn't evil. Why is the idea of offering discounts to people evil?
As for your trojan flat tax comment. Flat taxes are inherently regressive, and impose the heaviest burden on those least able to pay.
Nice try, though.
Kinchyle @ 71:
that was from bioshock? oof, my bad. i guess i'm not as up to date on videogame dialogue...
sadly, though, i have read REAL comments that are almost indistinguishable from that one
Raymond @ 79:
Right, I get your point "you got yours, so fuck the rest."
We can play the same game, since there are crooked business man, I suppose we should ban business altogether.
Since there are some assholes born every now and then, we should basically exterminate the human race. Why run the risk right?
Liberal AND Proud @ 83:
No, I honestly don't understand why some people have to pay more. Why do you think I should pay more than Mitt Romney? Why do you think that Mitt Romney should get more tax breaks than me?
What you really meant to say, i assume is
“You got yours through your own labour, however I don’t feel like making mine with labour of my own, so I will vote to steal yours and give it to myself, and if anyone says that I should take responsibility for myself and not depend on others for my own well being I will cry “ITS FOR THE CHILDREN”.
If you TRULY feel that paying your share of taxes is equal to theft, you should really consider relocating to Mexico. They have simultaneously the most multi-millionaires per-capita and the most dilapidated infrastructure on the continent. They are a perfect example of the libertarian ideal. You don't have to pay money into a strong central government if you have enough money to bribe the local officials to look the other way. You're close enough to other 1st world countries with a working infrastructure so that if you or yours need health care you can leave your shit hole country and pay for it elsewhere. You don't have to worry about the police because you can hire armed mercenaries to ride shotgun (literally) with you. I mean really it's win win for the uber rich and selfish.
To tell the truth (since several posters have mentioned it) I am not a huge fan of public education myself. In my state at least, all the top public schools are in rich suburbs. Understand that I don't propose doing away with Pub Ed, but the way we are doing it now truly sux.
Mark Twain said something to the effect of "God made an idiot for practice, then he made a school board."
Having said that (and as a firm believer in unions) I must also say that teacher's unions are a big part of the problem. In my state they have resisted competency testing (some turned out to be functionally illiterate!), merit pay, increased pay for science and math teachers (absolutely necessary to attract competent people in that field) and other measures that will be needed to improve the system.
Meanwhile administrators in large school districts siphon off hundreds of millions to build palaces for themselves while the actual schools are falling apart. I went into the bathroom at my son's high school once and it was appalling! And here in Texas, administrators don't blink an eye at building multimillion dollar football stadiums while other needs are unmet.
The right wingers in this Country have always wanted to end govt. for as long as I can remember. The extreme right, like the Klan, and other Nationalists had tried to destabilize the United States from the outside with anarchy of sorts, for a hundred years, but that proved to be futile. So from the 50s to the 70s they decided to try a different approach, from the inside.
It was understood that the "nutjobs" in these groups who would terrorize others cast a bad light on their kind (because times were changing and all that) and they couldn't effect the change that was needed for the extreme right to succeed at their agenda, so the KKK members in particular, began to send their offspring to the top colleges in this country, with the Klans support, in an attempt to put these people into the govt. to do the job (they are also deeply in the Military and the Christian movement). Quoted from 2004 Kingsport Times-News author unknown--- Ninety percent of their message that day was a biblical-based, right-wing, conservative tirade about the evils of pornography, drugs, crime, etc., in our society and that the grand imperial wizard of them all was a long-time Boy Scout leader. If you removed their robes, all the nonsense about the purity of the white race and replace the shouts of white power, with hallelujah, you would have thought you were at a fundamentalist church picnic and revival meeting
Now, most people view these groups as being poor uneducated idiots. Well think again. They're idiots, but that's all. The Klan of today wears suits and ties, and they are in positions of power.
So if you keep that in mind when you consider what has happened in the Republican party over the past 3 decades, and especially the Bush-Clinton-Bush years, you begin to realize that they have nearly succeeded at this. In my opinion this is the real untold story of the Republican Party.
PS Their #1 stated goal is to bring down the Financial Institutions of America.
steve @ 80:
one thing to note:
this "free market" you refer to is a myth
there is no free market, never has been. it is has been an effective form of PR, but--like unicorns--it exists only in the imagination. it is a theory that does not, and cannot, exist in the real world.
Weaseldog @ 86:
Why penalize people for having children? The government, at least not THIS government, has no right to legislate family size. I didn't realize you were a Chinese socialist. Oh, and I do know that the limitation on children in China was not political. It was a political solution to overpopulation. However, they are paying the price for it now.
This accidentally points out the difference between most Democratic health care plans and our socialist public education. Dem candidates are not proposing a socialist solution at all. I'm as liberal as the day is long, but I'm not a socialist. Public Education is America's primary example of pure socialism: government ownership, production, and provision of a good or a service. That's why public education fails in this country. If we instead had public full and partial subsidy plus required education and regulation, we could have an efficient and equitable education system. But the teachers lobby has the Democrats wrapped around their fingers. Ironically, a large percentage of teacher vote Republican every election and force conservative principles down our kids' throats. When are we going to throw these undereducated, low-IQ "professional" out so we can save the next generation of youth. I know why: kids are minors and aren't allowed to vote or choose their education or complain about their schools, or file charges against kids who beat them up. Democrats need to wake up and reexamine their priorities. Let the teachers' unions protect themselves. They don't need our help. The nation does, though.
Kinchyle @ 6:
Nothing more hellish than improving quality of life for your neighbors.
What the greedy don't understand - or perhaps they do, but their greed is so great it trumps truth - is that without public education we would be a third world country and that great job that allows them to live in a 3000 square foot house with one wife and no kids - it wouldn't exist. Presumably, they'd be iliterate too so they'd probably by standing in the middle of a quarter acre of hardcaked clay using a hoe to break up the earth enough to grow a few plants.
But they wouldn't have to pay taxes on that McMansion so those snot nosed little brats get a free ride.
And of course, we can justify the rant by bringing up the example of a mythical administrator who rides from school to school in a chauffeur driven stretch Hummer. Hey - it makes for a great story down at the bar and the third or fourth time it gets repeated it's the truth.
Morons
Samson- @ 84:
That's ok. It's a miracle that I had time to play the demo (and get it to run on my tired old PC), otherwise it would have gone over my head, too. From what I've seen in the demo, the game is literally like a sci-fi Ayn Rand novel gone bad.
The thing is: Education isn't an industry that is all about big business as the health care and health insurance industry is and that's why conservatives do not care about what happens to public education.
modernenglish.wordpress.com
The problem with public school is that its based on the wealth of the area it resides in. Inner city education is horrid compared to upper middle class schools. There is also the problem of government shoving their propoganda crap in the school system as well as standarized testing that teaches kids to take tests and not expand their knowledge. You can say the GOP has destroyed education but it has been on the decline for decades. The government is trying to dumb children down on purpose not to mention get them use to a police state with their fake raids, cameras, etc. You should never let government control what knowledge you get or what it is.
The same thing will happen with healthcare, our current system is horrible but thats because the corporate work hand in hand with government which is fascism.
The police you are talking about being controled by government are becoming more and more fascist government/corporate protectors as well.
There is no privatization because the corporations and government walk hand in hand which is fascism.
There is no free market the corporations and government walk hand in hand. The only corporations are the ones allowed to exist and get all the contracts and free cash. The government decides whats best for us we in fact are no wheres near a free market.
By the way I am not right in fact I am not a fan of either party or side. We live in an Oligarchy not a Democracy. Divide and conquer, own both parties. We pay our politicians less than 200,000 so why are all these multimillionaries so involved in politics? To serve the public? I think not.
Right, I get your point “you got yours, so fuck the rest.”
We can play the same game, since there are crooked business man, I suppose we should ban business altogether.
Since there are some assholes born every now and then, we should basically exterminate the human race. Why run the risk right?
No, It seems you completly missed my point. No one is forced to buy anything from the crooked businessman. Perhaps he will rip someone off. That person can then sue if they were a victim of fraud or theft. I would assume this would harm the reputation of said buisnessman though. Eventually he will loose customers or be sued to the point of bankruptcy. He may even be prosocuted under criminal law if the fraud is blantant enough. In the end all relationships with said buisnessmen however are voluntary. This isnt so with the government. Paying taxes is not voluntary. Yet there is a massive amount of fraud, waste and "crookedness" in the government.
The government takes your money from you using the power of the gun. The businessman does not.
When you advocate taxing me, you advocate taking my money, the product of my labour, at gunpoint. The only difference between you and a common criminal is that the common criminal doesn't have the audacity to suggest that the theft is for my own benifit.
Education is a national priority and should be funded from a national source.
Social Security is a national priority and is funded from a national source. Imagine if Social Security taxes were collected at the city or County level and spent at the city of County level. Florida would be nearly bankrupt, with Seniors moving there, while cities with young families would benefit. But in reverse, we apply this same logic to school systems. It makes no sense. Any cost or benefit that crosses city, county, or state lines should be funded and disbursed at a national level.
Liberal AND Proud @ 91:
Exactly, why penalize them? I agree. they shouldn't be penalized?
But why reward them? Why should we give people discounts for spreading their seed indiscriminately? Why reduce their taxes to reward them for being irresponsible?
The government is legislating family size by giving tax breaks in favor of large families. It is discriminating against small families.
What price is China paying for underpopulation?
#98, Raymond: I've seen the conservative vision of no taxes. It looks like Somalia. No services, no liberal government, a strong respect for religion, no gun control. It's a horrible place to live. Raymond, you could, literally, rent a boat, go to Mogadishu's gates, and at gunpoint take over a house, or if you're more charitable, find a piece of empty land and build a new one, and live there free of US taxation and interference. There is no state authority to stop you. Go for it -- write back and tell me how it works out.
straight shooter @ 94:
Thank you for calling me a moron.
As I said. I believe in public education. I just don't understand why taxes are ona sliding scale were you get rewards for having more kids.
If you can explain why it is the government's business to reward people for having more children, then please do. The moron doesn't understand why you want the government in the business of legislating family size.
John Jay @ 101:
Somalia is like it is, because the US and IMF keep it that way. It is an oil rich nation that has been destroyed by the IMF in one of it's austerity programs.
Somalia is being raped of its resources to keep the US rich. Somalian kids have to die from starvation, to keep US kids fat. Somalian kids have to give away their oil, so that US kids can ride in SUVs.
When you advocate taxing me, you advocate taking my money, the product of my labour, at gunpoint. The only difference between you and a common criminal is that the common criminal doesn’t have the audacity to suggest that the theft is for my own benifit.
CLASSIC libertarian rubric (and I do mean rube). Look at it from a Libertarian angle ... nothing is keeping you from moving to a tax bracket where you don't have to pay any taxes. You can opt to make less and the government will actually pay you! Or you can make enough to move your assets into a offshore venture and you will have no tax liability. Raymond, taxes aren't coercion, they're the price of living in a 1st world society! Now you can complain about the percentage of your income that goes to pay taxes, but to argue that any taxation is akin to armed robbery is simple absurd.
One could argue that in a few years the kids in the large family grows up and contributes to society? That the tax break is actually an investment in the future for the society? Most people is net contributors after all.
"Raymond: I’ve seen the conservative vision of no taxes. It looks like Somalia. No services, no liberal government, a strong respect for religion, no gun control. It’s a horrible place to live. Raymond, you could, literally, rent a boat, go to Mogadishu’s gates, and at gunpoint take over a house, or if you’re more charitable, find a piece of empty land and build a new one, and live there free of US taxation and interference. There is no state authority to stop you. Go for it — write back and tell me how it works out."
John Jay, I've seen the progressive version of high taxes. It looks like the USSR. Mass starvation, low standard of living, totalitarianism, disarment of the population. It’s a horrible place to live. John Jay you could litterally start a garden in your back yard to grow some extra greens. If your harvest was too large and you tried to trade some of it for maybe a bicycle you could be shot for "exploitation".
Why if I am so adamantly against government theft, would I be for "private" theft. Theft is theft and it is always wrong whether it is done by an individual or a government.
Weaseldog @ 100:
Taxing someones wages is anti-constitutional and didnt start until the 1900's. Before you attack a Libertarian you should at least understand what he is talking about. Much of our tax money goes into the bankers pockets and the military industrial complex.
Raymond high taxes was never the relevant problem in the USSR.
If you want to discuss high taxes take Sweden for example. We live just as well, if not better, than you.
While we're at it, lets get rid of Fire/Rescue services. If you want someone to put out fires, buy fire insurance that will send someone when the flames start shooting up from your home.
What do we need police for? Private security companies are available.
Liberal AND Proud @ 107:
Greup @ 109:
My issue is still, unfair taxes.
To your credit, it appears that Swedes spend their tax dollars more responsibly.
If we did the same, I probably wouldn't be so upset. But then my taxes wouldn't have paid to ship my career to India, and I wouldn't be in bankruptcy covering my wife's uninsured hospital visit. I guess we could do the conservative thing and have kid, and let government welfare cover the costs, but I feel that would be irresponsible.
CLASSIC libertarian rubric (and I do mean rube). Look at it from a Libertarian angle … nothing is keeping you from moving to a tax bracket where you don’t have to pay any taxes. You can opt to make less and the government will actually pay you! Or you can make enough to move your assets into a offshore venture and you will have no tax liability. Raymond, taxes aren’t coercion, they’re the price of living in a 1st world society! Now you can complain about the percentage of your income that goes to pay taxes, but to argue that any taxation is akin to armed robbery is simple absurd.
Yes lets look at it from a libertarian level. Suppose I do something that does not increase my "net value", I will not be taxed. However try to increase your standard of living without increasing your net value. This is akin to saying you will only be punished if you are rewarded. Get no rewards and you get no punishments. Your solution to avoid punishment from the goverment ( taxes ), is to preemptivly punish myself ( lower my income )?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
"taxes aren’t coercion", taxes are voluntary?
Misanthropic Anthropoid @ 34:
Ummmmmmmmmm, the Bush admin's version of free market war has already arrived, (see Haliburton, Blackwater and their subsidiaries) and the neo-cons like it just fine.
Samson @ 90
this “free market” you refer to is a myth
there is no free market, never has been. it is has been an effective form of PR, but–like unicorns–it exists only in the imagination. it is a theory that does not, and cannot, exist in the real world.
You mean that a *true* Laissez Faire system, with 0 gov't influence, isn't possible in the real world? If this is what you mean (and please correct me if this is not a fair characterization), I agree. But it's pretty academic to my main point, which is:
1. the 'free market' (i.e., people freely trading goods, services, etc. on a mass scale, even if impure in that it's not completely unfettered) is usually the best way to create wealth, and wealth can help people live better lives
but
2. Although the 'free market' has many self-organizing features, the idea that this self organization will always solve all problems best, is silly. I think this is the 'unicorn', as you put it.
Taxing someones wages is anti-constitutional and didnt start until the 1900’s. Before you attack a Libertarian you should at least understand what he is talking about.
Oh, but I do. Unlike some, I don't just make shit up out of whole cloth like say 'Theft is theft and it is always wrong whether it is done by an individual or a government.' or 'Taxing someones wages is anti-constitutional'. I actually take time study the issue from multiple sides and then make my own informed decision. Lots (most ... maybe every) of libertarians that I've tried to debate fall back to the same argument - Taxes Are EVIL. Now we may reasonably differ on what the tax rate should be or what taxes should pay for, but to simple spout foolishness like 'taxes are theft' ... well how can you debate someone who obviously has their head up their ass? It is my observation that Libertarianism is greed and or selfishness wrapped up in faux patriotism. I say again ... name for me a single country that has ever existed with a 0% tax rate (the libertarian ideal). When a philosophy is based upon an absurdity it's best to just shut its practitioners down before they even open their mouths.
clytemnestra @ 66:
miss_kitty @ 3:
Don't forget the public water system. Downright Marxism, if you ask me.
Socialism is a good thing. The people that dont like it also dont want people controlling their own societies. They want corporations doing that.
Weaseldog @ 9:
Can you just see one private sewage company trying to compete with others?
"Use OUR sewage pipes!" "No! Use ours!" "No! We do sewage better!" What happens when you change companies? Do they dig up your whole neighborhood? Or just your front yard?
Republicans are insane.
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
“taxes aren’t coercion”, taxes are voluntary?
Ah finally we get to the true libertarian rhetoric. The wild eyed frothing at the mouth anti-tax libertarianism. Sadly, when faced with reality based reality they always resort to chanting discordant nonsense about how they are being oppressed neigh trampled upon by a big bad government twisting their arms and stealing the fruit of their labor. What a load of bullocks! I say again, show me a society that can exist with a 0% tax rate. If you are going to live in society, taxes are the price you pay for say roads, rule of law, relative stability ... all the things you take for granted because you've been fortunate enough to be born somewhere where you don't have to think about it.
myiq2xu @ 117:
"The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care."
While the analogy is a valid one, Krugman fails to carry it through. Public Education is mostly financed at the STATE and LOCAL level not the federal level. So if he were being intellectually rigorous, he would not use this in the SCHIP debate and it really doesn't help the argument for universal heathcare as a federal policy. It does support a Massachusetts or Wisconsin type approach. So good in that regard.
Weaseldog @ 102:
I called people morons who's greed is so great that they cannot understand the value of public education because THEY have no children of their own. They are morons because they either fail to understand (or understand and are so greedy they don't care) that taxes pay for a literate public which is the foundation of our economy. If the shoe fits...
Rewarding people for having big families? Come on. That's a Rovian tactic - fling out a barrel or two of completely off the wall crap in order to sidetrack the discussion. Jeez.
FWIW - not everyone can afford the $6-$10 thou a year it costs to educate a child. If you can - congratulations.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Literacy is fundemental to the above. BTW - do you know what I'm quoting? I'm betting GWB doesn't.
@71:
Yep, Thanks for pointing it out. Just reading the story made me think of that opening speech in Bioshock.
William @ 108:
Considering that the 16th Amendment made it constitutional your argument is mendacious, fallacious and/or fellatious.
Many of the comments in this thread make fallacious arguments similar to yours that because our tax money is sometimes misspent (like my youth) we should eliminate taxes.
Waste, fraud and abuse are reasons to reform, but not eliminate the current system. But "privatization" is a cure far worse than the disease.
BTW - "Fellatious" means "it sucks."
straight shooter @ 124:
Tax breaks are used as an incentive to change behavior. The government gives people tax breaks based on the quantity of children they have. They do so to motivate people to have more children. This is part of the government's efforts to legislate how many children people have.
No, I can't afford to raise a child. There was a time when I could, but the Republicans sent my career to India. Though I'm working again after nearly two years of unemployment, I am now in bankruptcy, and making dramatically less money. I am struggling just to keep my home and have started raising chickens and have turned my yard into a garden in order to afford fresh vegetables. On a positive note, the fresh eggs taste better than store bought.
Apologies if this has point already been made ....
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be — a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise.
I know that's supposed to be provocative, but that's exactly what a lot of wingers really believe -- particularly the fundamentalist home-schoolers and rich pricks whose offspring infest the finest private schools.
We used to have an entirely market-based educational system. As it turned out, no surprise, that did not meet the needs of a modern society, which operates much more effectively with education for all, EVEN (OR ESPECIALLY) FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT.
Just like for education, healthcare for all will benefit our whole society.
straight shooter @ 124:
No I can't afford to raise a child. The Republcans shipped my industry overseas. I spent two years unemployed (did freight dock work to get by), and am now in bankruptcy. Though I am working again in the software industry, my pay scale is much lower.
I raise chickens and keep a garden now. It at least allows us to enjoy fresh vegetables and fruit. The eggs are better than store bought as is the meat from the extra chickens we keep.
Right now, with high taxes and low income, I can't see how I could afford to raise a child.
clytemnestra @ 66:
steve @ 115:
ok, just making sure.
but, for future reference maybe just say 'market based economy'
this is just my opinion (and a few other wackos like me), but i see the use of term 'free market' as a rhetorical trojan horse. an orwellian use of language to affect psyches (see what i mean by wacko), if you will.
deregulation and a stronger economy do not necessarily go hand in hand. (not that you said they did).
simply put, the 'free market' is a misnomer, and only helps to help provide cover for those wishing to deregulate every industry in every part of society. a way to project their goals/dreams if you will, that, i think, would be dangerous and detrimental to individuals and society.
straight shooter @ 124:
No I can't afford to raise a child. The Republcans shipped my industry overseas. I spent two years unemployed (did freight dock work to get by), and am now in bankruptcy. Though I am working again in the software industry, my pay scale is much lower.
I raise chickens and keep a garden now. It at least allows us to enjoy fresh vegetables and fruit. The eggs are better than store bought as is the meat from the extra chickens we keep.
Right now, with high taxes and low income, I can't see how I could afford to raise a child.
Samson @ 130
Couldn't agree more. I mean, who can argue with 'freedom', right?
steve @ 132:
LOL
well said, exactly
Paul Krugman might have thought he was being facetious, but indeed a lot of hardcore right does believe that public education is a pimple on the ass of America.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger86.html
The ironic thing is these guys haven't read their Adam Smith too closely. Smith advocated public education.
“The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the publick, more than that of people of some rank and fortune” (WN V.i.f. 15, page 784).
The Republcans shipped my industry overseas. I spent two years unemployed (did freight dock work to get by), and am now in bankruptcy. Though I am working again in the software industry, my pay scale is much lower.
Welcome to my world brother! After 6 years in the wilderness, I'm finally making only 5K less than I did in 2000 (if you don't count bonuses). Sadly though it wasn't the Republicans that screwed us, it's our boy Bill Clinton. He didn't have to sign the Off-Shoring tax breaks into law and he didn't have to quadruple the number of H1B work visas when tech companies complained they just couldn't find enough qualified (meaning willing to work for 1/2 your current salary) American tech workers. This is the main reason I have no love for Hillary. When no one was watching Slick Willy caved into the Republican congress and their business backers for what? To look bi-partisan ... to look like the guy businesses could work with?
Avery Davis @ 135:
Yeah, Bill certainly played a hand. Dick Armey from my own District was the architect of that abomination. After it passed, and the lay offs commenced, he promptly moved his family to Hawaii. He was smart enough to run away from the tens of thousands of people, he put out of work in this area.
Weaseldog @ 131:
Being poor doesn't square with the idea that public education is a bad idea. There are people who believe that education is a matter of individual financial responsibility. They may call themselves libertarians or conservatives or any number of benign labels, but they are acolytes in the church of Norquist and their motivation is greed. They are the people I called morons. If this doesn't apply to you, then I didn't call you a moron.
You mean like the socialist conspiracy to give welfare to the corporations?
Better to have socialism for kids.
straight shooter @ 137:
I keep saying that public education is a good idea. I just don't see why taxation should be based on the quantity of children that we have.
You're arguing that the more children people have, the less they should be taxed. Essentially the government should continue to give people incentives to have more children. We both agree in taxation for the public good. I just don't understand why the government should legislate family size.
straight shooter @ 137:
You did tell me that my argument was based on greed because you believe that I have to be wealthy in order to wonder why I'm being taxed so highly.
Republicans hate "land of the free", if you know what I'm saying.
Socialism doesn't work.
Never has. Never will.
johnny @ 144:
CYA, I'm gonna go drive on roads that were built because of a socialistic government policy.
The cons are protecting the insurance industry whose profits are in the billion$. When is someone going to go after big insurance instead of the uninsured? Many studies have shown that the government is more cost-effective at administration of existing entitlement programs than insurance companies are at administering private programs.
"Tort reform" is a big deal with the pubs and is only a protective device for big insurance.
Just look at the insurance hassles Katrina victims are going through to get a pay-out.
johnny @ 144:
Socialized Health Insurance like they have in Canada and most of the industrialized nations in the world not only works well, but delivers superior health care at half the costs!
Samson @ 27
Thanks for the link! I've read a little on that highway, but not that piece. Alas, I can rarely spend as much time in the threads these days... :(
I agree, but most candidates are only talking about universal health care, but who's going to check on the insurance companies to make sure they don't deny benefits to those who need them.
"Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education."
Krugman makes a valid point in the comparison between education and healthcare, but that's only to the choir. The Heritage Foundation and similar ilk would end public education tomorrow if they could - and their blinded debt rich faithful would go right along with it: "Vouchers" that wouldn't get them crap in terms of a public school with public schools themselves closed in the meantime. Then, of course, the vouchers called "welfare" in short order.
Comments are closed on this entry