TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My point was, taxes were higher in the 1990's, and yet, there was still the largest increase in wealth in the history of country. Why hardline Republicans are freaking out about Obama's tax increase for 250k+ income earners is beyond me.

Perhaps, but we were also not in the midst of a severe recession/credit crunch then either, rather we were in the heart of a secular bull market characterized by easy money, low inflation and massive productivity gains. And I think I've explained at least a large part of the wealth increase and that it was likely a once-in-a-generation event at best. I'd even argue that a good bit of it was fictitious as it borrowed from future growth as our binge on debt gained traction. Republicans aren't the only ones freaking out--they're just some of the more vocal opponents.

quote:

Instead of buying $1 million missiles and $10 billion stealth aircraft, perhaps our government could spend that money on making sure its citizens were well-educated, thus, improving the economy, and getting a return for the money invested, ay?

Or perhaps not spend that money at all and actually balance the budget and put themselves in a position to shrink government, not expand it.

quote:

Once a $1 million Tomahawk missile is fired, ultimately killing people, that's $1 million down the drain to some arms manufacturer.

I know. It is the worst kind of inflation. No argument from me on that front.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 this argument disregards the reality of bad schools and other factors contributing to the situation. How are those kids supposed to get to their new schools? many of the kids who go to bad schools walk to school because they are neighborhood schools, and the parents can't afford to provide transportation, otherwise, they likely wouldn't live in that neighborhood. since a school is provided within walking distance in many cases, the city is not obliged to provide transportation. the result is that the most at risk kids are left in the bad school until it closes, then when it does close, the city has a greater burden to transport students that would have walked to the local school.

Then that school suffers from diminished revenue. That is incentive enough for them to improve. Throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it. I graduated from a private school which charged less tuition per student than the government spends on their students.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Then that school suffers from diminished revenue. That is incentive enough for them to improve. Throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it. I graduated from a private school which charged less tuition per student than the government spends on their students.

you entirely ignored my comments on the effects to citizens. i could careless about schools closing if it didn't have an effect on citizens. i'm not sure you understand how difficult it can be for some people to transport their children to a school outside of their own district.

you also seemingly don't understand the dynamic of public schools. the threat of shutting down isn't going to compensate for the fact that the school no longer has money to improve (because the kids left the bad school as soon as they were permitted to leave). on top of that, good schools have a capacity issue. That means out of necessity, students will arbitrarily be accepted to the better schools while others will be denied. schools can't simply expand capacity overnight; and, if they did, the quality of education would be significantly impacted.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Pharmaceutical industry - can it ever be ethical to make a profit from this?!

Yes. Otherwise, how are they to come up with funds to continue to discover and develop new, effective drugs? Most drugs they try to develop fail and successful ones require years upon years of R&D losses before real profits are ever realized.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Pharmaceutical industry - can it ever be ethical to make a profit from this?!

the glaring problem nationalizing the drug industry is that that most drug innovations originate from private industry, and the prospect of making big money. if private industry wasn't involved, the chemists and engineers that develop breakthrough drugs and treatments likely wouldn't be interested in low paying government work.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 you entirely ignored my comments on the effects to citizens. i could careless about schools closing if it didn't have an effect on citizens. i'm not sure you understand how difficult it can be for some people to transport their children to a school outside of their own district. you also seemingly don't understand the dynamic of public schools. the threat of shutting down isn't going to compensate for the fact that the school no longer has money to improve (because the kids left the bad school as soon as they were permitted to leave). on top of that, good schools have a capacity issue. That means out of necessity, students will arbitrarily be accepted to the better schools while others will be denied. schools can't simply expand capacity overnight; and, if they did, the quality of education would be significantly impacted.

I'm sure there is a solution for the transportation issue. The fact is, our public school system is a joke. Look at countries like Belgium whose schools compete against each for students. Their average students pwn American best students across the board.

Belgium...population 10M vs. USA population 305M. Wasn't one of the main arguments/mockings of Sarah Palin that she was only the governor in little ole Alaska and therefore couldn't possibly be qualified to be a VP candidate? I'm just sayin' it's hard to say Belgium is a model for us. How are the public schools in say Indonesia or Brazil (still smaller than the U.S., but at least not fractionally so).

In other news, Drudge just posted this. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Their average students pwn American best students across the board.

that's an absolute load of shit. you really need to travel more. The best american students are superior to students in those countries; and, for the exact same reason students in those countries average better on these standardized tests. Since those countries have a more balanced public education system they don't need to send students to private schools, and more students end up in the public education system. while i'm not knocking the public education system (because i'm a product of it), many private high schools provide a far more rigorous curriculum. Students at the best private schools in the US would shit all over the average student from around the world. Also, the US is very economically segregated, so schools located in districts with more wealth have excellent public schools, and those students do exceptionally well. I know that many public high schools in NJ routinely have students with SAT scores well above the national average, and routinely send students to Princeton, Harvard, and Yale.

to add to that, the US has a much larger pool of students to dillute top scores. Take out scores from the bad schools (inner city schools where students aren't going to be productive anyway) and i'm certain the US is at least the same as other countries.

Belgium has to administer an education system for a population of 10M. That's about 1 million students, nearly the same as NYC. You're comparing apples to oranges.

You're also ignoring the fact that the education system in this country is actually 51 different education systems. the public schools in some starts are superior to others.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley By "free" I assume we're talking about government funded (ie paid for by the people for the people - nationalised), so, I would also like nationalised (or kept nationalised): Education - obvious Health care - obvious Energy - too few companies mean privatisation does not work (no competition), also economies of scale mean lower prices for consumers if nationalised Water - natural monopoly, doesn't work under competition Public transport - "mini" monopolies of routes mean no competition and no motive for improvement of service Pharmaceutical industry - can it ever be ethical to make a profit from this?! Also, I'd toy with the idea of nationalising the farming industry but mainly because farmers are greedy right wing bastards and this would be more to piss them off than to provide food to the masses for cheaper...

Yeah! You want everything for free, well its not for free you are right. All of this will be financed by the "rich" and those who pay taxes. Note, that these same people that want all this things for free dont pay any taxes they live off welfare, you know, they receive a check for not doing anything.

This is what Krypton wants. He wants someone to take care of him. Krypton has been exposed for the reason he wants to vote for Obama. He switced from being a so called "republican" because he couldnt get anything for free of them. He now wants to try Obama, although, this time i think he will suceed.

LMAO @ Krypton saying that Belgium students own American students. He probably is talking about an elementary level. Even a moron would know that higher education in the US is among the best in the world. No wonder Belgium leads in innovation

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that's an absolute load of shit. you really need to travel more. The best american students are superior to students in those countries; and, for the exact same reason students in those countries average better on these standardized tests. Since those countries have a more balanced public education system they don't need to send students to private schools, and more students end up in the public education system. while i'm not knocking the public education system (because i'm a product of it), many private high schools provide a far more rigorous curriculum. Students at the best private schools in the US would shit all over the average student from around the world. Also, the US is very economically segregated, so schools located in districts with more wealth have excellent public schools, and those students do exceptionally well. I know that many public high schools in NJ routinely have students with SAT scores well above the national average, and routinely send students to Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. to add to that, the US has a much larger pool of students to dillute top scores. Take out scores from the bad schools (inner city schools where students aren't going to be productive anyway) and i'm certain the US is at least the same as other countries. Belgium has to administer an education system for a population of 10M. That's about 1 million students, nearly the same as NYC. You're comparing apples to oranges. You're also ignoring the fact that the education system in this country is actually 51 different education systems. the public schools in some starts are superior to others.

I used Belguim as an example. We lag behind 16 countries in science, 23 in math, and you think we have the best students in the world? CLICK

I highly recommend everyone watch "Stupid in America" by John Stossel from ABC's 20/20.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover This is what Krypton wants. He wants someone to take care of him. Krypton has been exposed for the reason he wants to vote for Obama. He switced from being a so called "republican" because he couldnt get anything for free of them. He now wants to try Obama, although, this time i think he will suceed.

Investing in higher education helps the economy you idiot. The Republicans instituted the largest increase in government spending since the 1930's, but of course you're too dumb to realize it. And you never answered my question you little rat. How do you pay for two wars and not raise taxes?

quote:

LMAO @ Krypton saying that Belgium students own American students. He probably is talking about an elementary level. Even a moron would know that higher education in the US is among the best in the world. No wonder Belgium leads in innovation

Not just Belguim. 16 other countries beat us in science. 23 beat us in math. Look it up genius...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I used Belguim as an example. We lag behind 16 countries in science, 23 in math, you can think we have the best students in the world? CLICK I highly recommend everyone watch "Stupid in America" by John Stossel from ABC's 20/20.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007...-of-inequality/


select quote from the article

quote:

Achievement varies significantly by socioeconomic class and race The majority of U.S. students, who are white, �actually rank near the very top on international tests.� But minority and low-income students face obstacles to such achievement because of differences in the quality of educational systems and household income. Salzman and Lowell conclude: �The test results indicate that, rather than a policy focus on average science and math scores, there is an urgent need for targeted educational improvement to serve low performing populations, such as recent immigrants and some minorities.� The diversity of the U.S. population both contributes to economic competitiveness and lowers the average score of students on the test They point out that the United States �has a large population and the most diverse demographics of any industrialized nation,� and that averaging across such a mixed group of students ignores the size of the population and the distribution of student performance within that population: What does one infer from comparing the average test score in a nation of over 300 million with that of a nation of 4.5 million (Singapore) or using educational performance as an indicator of economic performance? We would expect India�s 39 percent illiteracy rate and its secondary school enrollment rate of less than 50 percent (World Bank 2007) to make it an inconsequential global power. Of course, that is not the case because rather than average performance it is the small percentage of high performers in a nation of 1 billion that is the more important indicator of its relative science and engineering strength. The use of average rates across a diverse group of nations and diverse populations is of limited use in drawing conclusions about global standing economically or educationally.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes. Otherwise, how are they to come up with funds to continue to discover and develop new, effective drugs? Most drugs they try to develop fail and successful ones require years upon years of R&D losses before real profits are ever realized.

That's not profit then is it? And how do you think they would come up with funds? Same way they come up with funds to buy weapons...

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 the glaring problem nationalizing the drug industry is that that most drug innovations originate from private industry, and the prospect of making big money. if private industry wasn't involved, the chemists and engineers that develop breakthrough drugs and treatments likely wouldn't be interested in low paying government work.

Don't forget that technologically the Russians matched or bettered a lot of American weaponry during the Cold War, they were also the first country to put a man in space, none of this came from the desire to make a profit...elsewhere, the universal health care systems of Europe are ranked much higher than the American privatised health care system.

The reason most of our new products come from the private sector is because most of our economy is private. I don't advocate privatisation in all industries, but there are certain vital services that I think should be provided by the state (the people) and these industries cannot be trusted to, and have been proven not to work when trusted to, private companies

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Yeah! You want everything for free, well its not for free you are right. All of this will be financed by the "rich" and those who pay taxes. Note, that these same people that want all this things for free dont pay any taxes they live off welfare, you know, they receive a check for not doing anything. This is what Krypton wants. He wants someone to take care of him. Krypton has been exposed for the reason he wants to vote for Obama. He switced from being a so called "republican" because he couldnt get anything for free of them. He now wants to try Obama, although, this time i think he will suceed. LMAO @ Krypton saying that Belgium students own American students. He probably is talking about an elementary level. Even a moron would know that higher education in the US is among the best in the world. No wonder Belgium leads in innovation

Everybody pays taxes one way or another, even those you despise so much at the bottom of your society (without whom, those at the top would not be able to gather the wealth they have acquired)

But you're wrong to say the only people who want those services provided by the state are those who pay no taxes (assume you mean income taxes as it is impossible to go through life and pay no taxes whatsoever). Some people aren't selfish cunts who care only about how much money they can hoard to themselves, and actually care that some people were not born with the same opportunities that the more well off people were born with.

Some people will never be able to afford an education, never afford health care. But neither of us live in third world countries, so why should we force our fellow countrymen to live that way if, as a nation, we can more than afford to give people an equal opportunity to make something out of their lives?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes. Otherwise, how are they to come up with funds to continue to discover and develop new, effective drugs? Most drugs they try to develop fail and successful ones require years upon years of R&D losses before real profits are ever realized.

i guess its lucky they can use the third world as free guinea pigs then.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That's not profit then is it? And how do you think they would come up with funds? Same way they come up with funds to buy weapons...

Then what is it? I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Pharmaceutical companies buy weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Then what is it?

Material costs? Turnover? You said yourself that it doesn't constitute "profit"

quote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Pharmaceutical companies buy weapons?

How do governments pay for weapons?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Material costs? Turnover? You said yourself that it doesn't constitute "profit"

You do know what a profit is don't you? Or are you just being adversarial?

quote:

How do governments pay for weapons?

With money. How do you pay for therapy?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't forget that technologically the Russians matched or bettered a lot of American weaponry during the Cold War, they were also the first country to put a man in space, none of this came from the desire to make a profit.

what happened to them and their system?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X He didn't miss the point. It's feigned ignorance. He's a socialist so he's going to dance around it like of all of the other pinkos on this board always seem to do when you bring it up. lol

so, you believe in 9/11, Illuminati and ET/UFO conspiracy theories, but you're a right winger?

Hmm.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 so, you believe in 9/11, Illuminati and ET/UFO conspiracy theories, but you're a right winger? Hmm.

I think you will find most hard core conspiracy theorists are very right wing.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think you will find most hard core conspiracy theorists are very right wing.

Fundamentalist Libertarianism is what I call it.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think you will find most hard core conspiracy theorists are very right wing.

really? Personally, I have my suspicions about UFOs and aliens (the evidence is overwhelming if people actually look at it objectively), but I tend to be a left leaning centrist.

What makes you think conspiracy theory advocates are mostly right wingers?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 really? Personally, I have my suspicions about UFOs and aliens (the evidence is overwhelming if people actually look at it objectively), but I tend to be a left leaning centrist. What makes you think conspiracy theory advocates are mostly right wingers?

Because I know them.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Because I know them.

hmm. I always figured (generally speaking) that hardcore conspiracy theory believers weren't either right wing or left wing as far as the offically recognised parties. It would make more sense if they were independents or just rejected the establishments entirely.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.