Liberals: The "RICH" keep more of there wealth, they are given nothing

[Oddball]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

Is that a yes or a no? Why can't you answer the question?

 

[rightwinger]

You draw your money from our society and you are expected to contribute back. It is part of being a member of a civilization. Those who exact the most from our society are expected to contribute more. That is where the wealthy come in.

Nobody exists in a vacuum......you are part of the whole

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts. That and the vast amount of infrastructure available to them has increased their wealth more then in any at time in the history of wealth accumulation. The system works for them. And the reason they do not want to put back in..is simple.

Short sightness and greed.

Who do you propose government contract with when doing business?
The government?
WTF does the government manufacture that government can buy?

Give me an example where government contracts with a private company to buy something and that is bad for government.
One example.

The government is primarily prohibited from competing with private companies. As such they have to award contracts to private industry. Is it bad for government? Depends on how you look at it. There is a tremendous profit made over government contracts. Some is fair...some is excessive

 

[rightwinger]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

You would have to ask the hundreds of million of Americans who have received a government education.

 

[Oddball]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

Is that a yes or a no? Why can't you answer the question?

I just did answer the question....It's not so valuable that liberoidals like you can't leave people to *ahem* choose whether they'll purchase the service or not.

And I think I've just touched on the greatest of all fears of the Fabian socialist progressives: If given the choice, the proletariat wouldn't choose you.

 

[Oddball]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

You would have to ask the hundreds of million of Americans who have received a government education.

Hopelessly flawed boilerplate premise...Since you can't turn back the clock and let them experience any alternative, then nobody has any objective frame of reference from which to judge.


Besides that, how many of them had any choice in the matter?

 

[rightwinger]

If gubmint edumacation is so valuable, why is it people have to be forced to pay for it?

Is that a yes or a no? Why can't you answer the question?

I just did answer the question....It's not so valuable that liberoidals like you can't leave people to *ahem* choose whether they'll purchase the service or not.

And I think I've just touched on the greatest of all fears of the Fabian socialist progressives: If given the choice, the proletariat wouldn't choose you.

You don't get to choose to use police or fire protection. You don't get to choose which roads and bridges your tax dollars pay for. You don't get to choose to support the military or not.

Your tax dollars support the society as a whole. You don't get to "opt out" of services and receive vouchers in return

 

[Oddball]

Is that a yes or a no? Why can't you answer the question?

I just did answer the question....It's not so valuable that liberoidals like you can't leave people to *ahem* choose whether they'll purchase the service or not.

And I think I've just touched on the greatest of all fears of the Fabian socialist progressives: If given the choice, the proletariat wouldn't choose you.

You don't get to choose to use police or fire protection. You don't get to choose which roads and bridges your tax dollars pay for. You don't get to choose to support the military or not.

Your tax dollars support the society as a whole. You don't get to "opt out" of services and receive vouchers in return

Non sequitur.

Police and fire protection and the military are the collectivized extension of the individual right to protect their person and property from aggression.

You have no inherent right to burglarize my home to pay to educate your children.

 

[rightwinger]

I just did answer the question....It's not so valuable that liberoidals like you can't leave people to *ahem* choose whether they'll purchase the service or not.

And I think I've just touched on the greatest of all fears of the Fabian socialist progressives: If given the choice, the proletariat wouldn't choose you.

You don't get to choose to use police or fire protection. You don't get to choose which roads and bridges your tax dollars pay for. You don't get to choose to support the military or not.

Your tax dollars support the society as a whole. You don't get to "opt out" of services and receive vouchers in return

Non sequitur.

Police and fire protection and the military are the collectivized extension of the individual right to protect their person and property from aggression.

You have no inherent right to burglarize my home to pay to educate your children.

I may not be satisfied with my local Police Department. I think they are lazy and overpaid. My neighbors and I decide to "opt out" and take OUR money that pays for police protection and use vouchers to hire a private company to protect our neighborhood.

Same thing

 

[rightwinger]

School Vouchers seem like a good idea on the surface. You take the money you send to public schools and receive a voucher to send your kid to a private school.

Private schools seem more efficient, but when you get to select the students you want and kick out students you no longer want it makes your job much easier. It also makes student performance seem much better.

Let the private schools pay to teach a child with autism or provide special services to a handicapped child. Let them spend double to teach learning disabled children or deal with disruptive students. See how their costs and performance would compare.

All vouchers will do is pull money from public schools and leave them with the discards of the educational system. There is no way to provide vouchers without raising taxes on the community.

 

[Oddball]

You don't get to choose to use police or fire protection. You don't get to choose which roads and bridges your tax dollars pay for. You don't get to choose to support the military or not.

Your tax dollars support the society as a whole. You don't get to "opt out" of services and receive vouchers in return

Non sequitur.

Police and fire protection and the military are the collectivized extension of the individual right to protect their person and property from aggression.

You have no inherent right to burglarize my home to pay to educate your children.

I may not be satisfied with my local Police Department. I think they are lazy and overpaid. My neighbors and I decide to "opt out" and take OUR money that pays for police protection and use vouchers to hire a private company to protect our neighborhood.

Same thing

No, it's not the same thing.

As I already pointed out, you have no inherent right to steal from your childless neighbor in order to educate your kids....However, you do have the right to protect your person and property from being robbed.

The relative efficiency of a public police force is irrelevant to the case, other than to serve as an object model of the inherent inefficiencies of running a society under an ethos of "aggression for your own good".

 

[Oddball]

School Vouchers seem like a good idea on the surface. You take the money you send to public schools and receive a voucher to send your kid to a private school.

Private schools seem more efficient, but when you get to select the students you want and kick out students you no longer want it makes your job much easier. It also makes student performance seem much better.

Let the private schools pay to teach a child with autism or provide special services to a handicapped child. Let them spend double to teach learning disabled children or deal with disruptive students. See how their costs and performance would compare.

All vouchers will do is pull money from public schools and leave them with the discards of the educational system. There is no way to provide vouchers without raising taxes on the community.

Vouchers are food stamps for education.

The entire mess needs to be fully privatized.

 

[rightwinger]

Non sequitur.

Police and fire protection and the military are the collectivized extension of the individual right to protect their person and property from aggression.

You have no inherent right to burglarize my home to pay to educate your children.

I may not be satisfied with my local Police Department. I think they are lazy and overpaid. My neighbors and I decide to "opt out" and take OUR money that pays for police protection and use vouchers to hire a private company to protect our neighborhood.

Same thing

No, it's not the same thing.

As I already pointed out, you have no inherent right to steal from your childless neighbor in order to educate your kids....However, you do have the right to protect your person and property from being robbed.

The relative efficiency of a public police force is irrelevant to the case, other than to serve as an object model of the inherent inefficiencies of running a society under an ethos of "aggression for your own good".

Your childless neighbor still benefits from a strong educational system in his community. Who paid to send that childless neighbor to school? It wasn't his parents

Much like the parent who wants to send their kid to private school, people in wealthier neighborhoods can say.."Crime rate here is low, I don't need all the police protection I pay for....I want a voucher so I can hire a private security firm for my neighborhood"

Libertarianism is a fantasy

 

[Oddball]

Says you.

The burglar has one positive attribute over the collectivist authoritarian: They don't stand around and preach to me about how much a benefit to society their robbery is.

 

[rightwinger]

Says you.

The burglar has one positive attribute over the collectivist authoritarian: They don't stand around and preach to me about how much a benefit to society their robbery is.

?

 

[Uncensored2008]

About $15,000 in 2000 dollars. It was only $1,000 when the TMR was zero, which is just about as relevant.

So your claim was false then? Lower taxes have resulted in far greater economic growth.

But you claim that the poor have gotten poorer, right? In microeconomics, one of the key indicators is "purchasing power." Basically, how much labor is expended in exchange for something.

For instance, a loaf of Wonder White Bread is $.99 at Albertsons (I just checked.) Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So for the poorest working Americans it takes about 7 minutes of work to earn a loaf of bread.

In order for the claim that the poor are getting poorer to be true, the number of minutes to purchase bread must be higher now than it was in 1980.

Is it?

In 1980, the minimum wage was $3.35 an hour. Wonder Bread was $.49 a loaf (How Much Did Groceries Cost in the 1980s? - Frugal - Families.com) meaning it took 9 minutes to earn it.

Hmmm.. Must be an anomaly.

Electronics aren't fair, right? I mean, they have dropped so much in price we can't compare - though this does offer our "poor" a lifestyle undreamed of in 1980.

Okay, how about a car? A Toyota Corolla has an MSRP of $14,445 (2010 Toyota Corolla | New Toyota Sedans - Yahoo! Autos) which means our poor person must work 1992 hours to buy it.

In 1980 a brand new Toyota Corolla 1.6L manual ran $8,354. That's 2494 hours of labor. This isn't really fair though, the 2010 has air conditioning, AM/FM/CD/MP3 in a 6 speaker stereo. The 1980 had, well tires...

Homes then, housing was way more affordable, right?

As odd as it is to believe now, the average home in 1980 was 1400 sq ft. McMansions came later.

According to Zillow, a 1400 sq ft home in Chandler AZ will set you back $129,000. At minimum you'll be working an astounding 17,793 hours to buy that home. (Zillow - Real Estate, Homes for Sale, Home Prices & Values)

In 1980 the same home would have cost you $68,700. At minimum that was 20,507 hours of labor. (The Changing Prices of stuff in 70 years comparison of prices over the last 70yrs)

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've pointed out on multiple occasions on this that the largest "private" corporations and "private" institutions are large because of government grants and contracts.

Doesn't that support the position of the capitalists to defund government so that looting of the public on behalf of the well connected ceases?

You argue higher taxes and more government, whilst admitting that government takes those taxes and lines the pockets of looters.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

No monopoly can exist without the government supporting and enforcing said monopoly. AT&T, Amtrak and the USPS are examples. So isn't it a fact that higher taxes and more government only work to create monopolies - such as is occurring with the banks? Obama (Bush is just as guilty) is working on behalf of Goldman Sachs to consolidate all large banks into one - a government monopoly on the leash of the federal reserve.

Yet we should support higher taxes and more government?

Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Education adds no value to the population, the economy?

Seriously?

Read my sig, seriously.

Government indoctrinates. Any educating of people is purely coincidental.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You would have to ask the hundreds of million of Americans who have received a government education.

You would have to contrast them with those who received a Catholic education.

HOW do public schools stack up?

Read my sig.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I just did answer the question....It's not so valuable that liberoidals like you can't leave people to *ahem* choose whether they'll purchase the service or not.

And I think I've just touched on the greatest of all fears of the Fabian socialist progressives: If given the choice, the proletariat wouldn't choose you.

Socialized education is a conflict of interest. Government's primary interest in education is to teach a permanent underclass obedience and loyalty to the state. Actually teaching math, science and English is a distant second, if a consideration at all. It does not serve the interests of the state to have the masses too well educated.