Tax burden

[Ardentfrost]

I give up on you. You're obviously right. It's impractical to think that if states were forced to support their own school systems they could. Right now they are able to defer their funds into other projects because hey, the federal gov't is there to bail them out, right? That could have NOTHING to do with these states that just CAN'T (according to you) afford their own school systems. Nothing at all.

And these poor poor counties with no money to support their school systems. It's too much to think that the wealthy within their own state should be helping them out, no, we should steal from people all over the nation to help out this county... you know, so no one giving the money can tell where the problems exist. That way if they continue to suck, they have no one to answer to.

That's obviously the best method.

Thank God 100 years of politicians have thought like you do so we can have the awesome school system we have now.

NOTICE: This post MIGHT have been too sarcastic

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

NOTICE: This post MIGHT have been too sarcastic

Perhaps, but you made your points well.

Bottom line the idea that the Federal Government is spending money in better ways than could be done with the same tax dollars at the State and local level is nonsense. It does not mean leaving some kids in the local poor county out in the cold. It just might mean giving many poor families more choices in education beside the failing public school systems.

As an example LA Unified is a mess and should have been broken up long ago. The smaller districts perform better. But the size creates a power base and the people involved will not give it up. All kinds of scare tactics are used everytime some city wants to break away.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I give up on you. You're obviously right. It's impractical to think that if states were forced to support their own school systems they could. Right now they are able to defer their funds into other projects because hey, the federal gov't is there to bail them out, right? That could have NOTHING to do with these states that just CAN'T (according to you) afford their own school systems. Nothing at all.

And these poor poor counties with no money to support their school systems. It's too much to think that the wealthy within their own state should be helping them out, no, we should steal from people all over the nation to help out this county... you know, so no one giving the money can tell where the problems exist. That way if they continue to suck, they have no one to answer to.

That's obviously the best method.

Thank God 100 years of politicians have thought like you do so we can have the awesome school system we have now.

NOTICE: This post MIGHT have been too sarcastic

The changing funding and methods of education has been almost constant, we still have schools that face de facto segregation, this year the Supreme Court had to rule on just a small example of such cases, not mention de jure segregation and most of its effects were only ended a decade or two ago

But yes, I am a radical who doesn't think the rich in their private schools will be falling over each other to donate to lower class schools so they are just as good as their kids schools

it goes against just about every human nature for the rich of a state to band together and make sure every school is just as good as the elite private ones they are sending their kids to, but it's not impossible

after we take this million to 1 odds gamble, and it fails, we'd have millions of children suffer and someone would blame it on a technicality and we'd be back at square one: trying to re-segregate schools by culture and wealth

[Ardentfrost]

I never said a state was restricted from taxing its citizens to fund the schools. Lord knows that's what my state does, and our public schools are rated really low nationally too (so, if it's just money = do better, which is what you and politicians seem to think, GA being rated 49/50 would mean we have the 2nd least amount of money out of all the states and all our counties, as well as the state itself, levies taxes to pay for the school system).

On the subject of my parenthetical statement above, it is my opinion that accountability, which would greatly increase the more local the money is sourced, would see greater returns than just increasing money more and more and more. This can be seen in private schools easily, and if we're going to have public schools, then taking away the accountability is the worst thing that can happen. The more federally controlled education becomes, the less accountability there is at the local level. Or was No Child Left Behind supposed to fix that? (lol)

As for segregation, that's not allowed... so I don't see how abstracting education down to a more local level reverses that at all.

Request to the Mods: we need a :strawman: and :redherring: smilie

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I never said a state was restricted from taxing its citizens to fund the schools. Lord knows that's what my state does, and our public schools are rated really low nationally too (so, if it's just money = do better, which is what you and politicians seem to think, GA being rated 49/50 would mean we have the 2nd least amount of money out of all the states and all our counties, as well as the state itself, levies taxes to pay for the school system).

On the subject of my parenthetical statement above, it is my opinion that accountability, which would greatly increase the more local the money is sourced, would see greater returns than just increasing money more and more and more. This can be seen in private schools easily, and if we're going to have public schools, then taking away the accountability is the worst thing that can happen. The more federally controlled education becomes, the less accountability there is at the local level. Or was No Child Left Behind supposed to fix that? (lol)

As for segregation, that's not allowed... so I don't see how abstracting education down to a more local level reverses that at all.

Request to the Mods: we need a :strawman: and :redherring: smilie

Didn't say money = success

But it's common sense that better money attracts better staff and facilities...why do you think the top schools in the country, like the High School Bush went to, charge $30,000+?

Couldn't they just be accountable, cut waste, and charge $3,000?

Elite schools cost elite money, and we better start cranking them out for all Americans or else we have no hope of overcoming the rising Asian economic powers

[Thorgrim]

In regards to segregation...what would you call it when two school districts are:
1) 95% black 5% white
2) 95% white 5% black

I'd say that was pretty segregated, after it's found out that that the state was racistly keeping the black kids bottled in school district 1, a court orders the schools desegregated

It goes to:
70% white, 30% black
70% white, 30% black

Okay great, now, seeing no segregation, the state drops all integration measures

A decade or so later, it's back to:
1) 95% black 5% white
2) 95% white 5% black

Now we've re-segregated the school, only now by the wealthier white families...now which district do you think is going to get more money in local property taxes? What state, strapped for cash already, like every state is...can afford to supplement them...? What are the chances that giving substandard schools to minorities or the lower class will continue a cycle of a working poor because no matter what, the white kids are better prepared

[Ardentfrost]

I guess for some reason you think the federal education system is fixing these issues? If that were the case, they wouldn't be happening and when they did, they'd be handled by the DoEd, not the supreme court.

As for the money, I've already addressed all those issues. You restating the same stuff over and over doesn't invalidate a more localized system.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I guess for some reason you think the federal education system is fixing these issues? If that were the case, they wouldn't be happening and when they did, they'd be handled by the DoEd, not the supreme court.

As for the money, I've already addressed all those issues. You restating the same stuff over and over doesn't invalidate a more localized system.

Of course they haven't, we haven't had a progressive Democratic legislature, courts and executive for some 40 years

and the localized system depends on...the locals...and not all locals are rich, and right now I can tell you in my state, rich doctors and businessmen in Philadelphia could give jack and shit about struggling school districts in the poor rural central PA

No one ever runs out of problems in their locality, and they'll always direct their money there, this dream of people going "oh, well my school district could use some upgrades for my own children, or I could give to someone on the other side of the state who I heard is really struggling...hmm let me think, ok screw my kids im giving my money to somebody elses kids"

People look out for themselves, thats why we have taxes to begin with...why do you think we can never really cut all taxes? The US military would collapse as everyone just cared about their region, someone from my state couldnt care less if people in Alaska didn't have proper military protection

I guess this is where you come in and suggest we'd have a national charity that would pay hundreds of billions of dollars a year for a US military

[Ardentfrost]

State sees funding problems in certain counties.
State raises money to give to those counties to fix funding problems (eg. State taxes rich people or whatever).

This is the same shit I've been saying over and over. I'm not NECESSARILY against a state taxing its citizens. I AM against the federal gov't taxing its citizens. Federal tax = federal government getting bigger and bigger and more and more powerful. A state can only get SO big. I mean, if one state was slap full of socialists, I don't think it should be prevented from trying out socialist programs (to an extent... I can't think of any off hand that shouldn't be allowed, but I'm sure someone could think of something), but I sure as shit wouldn't live there.

[Thorgrim]

just like the GOP wins almost on taxes alone, same thing works at the state and local level

make some absurd claim that u can fix everyones problems and fund everything while cutting taxes, and they'll vote you in office

once you do that, the next person who comes in has a really hard time raising taxes because the entire state legislature and the governor himself all want to be re-elected

better to let some of their schools suffer than get booted out of office, especially when "raising money" is particularly difficult in states that are very poor...the rich who live there could easily move to another state

however, as a federal citizen, you get taxed even if you work overseas on a company that has nothing to do with the US

[Ardentfrost]

that's the most pitiful thing I've ever heard in my life.

If people wanted the programs you were offering, they wouldn't mind the higher taxes. A smart democrat would say "we'll cut over here so we can have this other thing." That's basic economics.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

that's the most pitiful thing I've ever heard in my life.

If people wanted the programs you were offering, they wouldn't mind the higher taxes. A smart democrat would say "we'll cut over here so we can have this other thing." That's basic economics.

cut the military? You're unpatriotic, we're fighting the war on terror! 9/11!

Let's look at the other big programs: medicare, medicaid...Democrats aren't going to cut money from poor elderly folks or poor children to get basic healthcare, and the last reform of the program was by REPUBLICANS, and they can't reform it until they get their own person in the white house and enough senate votes

However, if the Democrats do finally get some solid control after the 40 years I mentioned, trust me, we'll get to Education when we can actually pass something and end the deficit

[Ardentfrost]

I'm all about ending the deficit, but I just can't support an ever-increasing tax system on ME, a average-joe middle American. Poor people get benefits from democrats, rich people get benefits from republicans, and the rest of us get fucked sideways by both sides from the horribly managed and corrupt systems created by the people WE are paramount in electing.

Seems painfully ironic. That line of thinking is what used to make me REALLY apathetic to politics.

But seriously, if what you're saying is true, those democrats who may eventually be in power wouldn't be saying stuff like "There's going to be increased taxes, just get used to that idea." If you're going to get in there and manage shit better, the you won't NEED anymore money. If the government can't survive on the amount they take from us already (which they obviously can't), there is something seriously wrong.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I'm all about ending the deficit, but I just can't support an ever-increasing tax system on ME, a average-joe middle American. Poor people get benefits from democrats, rich people get benefits from republicans, and the rest of us get fucked sideways by both sides from the horribly managed and corrupt systems created by the people WE are paramount in electing.

Seems painfully ironic. That line of thinking is what used to make me REALLY apathetic to politics.

But seriously, if what you're saying is true, those democrats who may eventually be in power wouldn't be saying stuff like "There's going to be increased taxes, just get used to that idea." If you're going to get in there and manage shit better, the you won't NEED anymore money. If the government can't survive on the amount they take from us already (which they obviously can't), there is something seriously wrong.

The only thing on the table is increasing taxes on those making over 250k a year, i assume that is not you

Also, there MAY be another tax increase to deal with the Iraq War, as an American, you have to face the reality that 52% voted for Bush and a continuation of the Iraq War, they have to pay for that too, unfortunate as it may be, Americans chose this war and we must find some way to pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars it has cost us...racking up a deficit we have to pay interest on is just burning money...better to tax now than pay interest and be mirred in debt forever, that's basic economics

[Ardentfrost]

Funny, I saw the Bush win in 2004 as a statement AGAINST the democrats. His popularity was low then too, and the dems didn't really need to do a lot to beat him, they just chose the most God awful candidate known to man.

As for tax increases, that's STILL more money to the gov't when they already get a trillion dollars in tax revenue already. Do they NEED more money? I just don't understand.

And I probably know what you're going to say. It certainly does look good for a democratic president to operate without deficit spending. However, if tax revenue is up, what's the difference?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Funny, I saw the Bush win in 2004 as a statement AGAINST the democrats. His popularity was low then too, and the dems didn't really need to do a lot to beat him, they just chose the most God awful candidate known to man.

As for tax increases, that's STILL more money to the gov't when they already get a trillion dollars in tax revenue already. Do they NEED more money? I just don't understand.

And I probably know what you're going to say. It certainly does look good for a democratic president to operate without deficit spending. However, if tax revenue is up, what's the difference?

We were good in 2000, Bush's tax cuts set us down a spiral, the bleeding has to stop, the rich were not suffering in 2000, and infact you yourself well not be hurt as the tax change would only affect those making $250,000+ a year

As for the Iraq War, the Democrats picked what looked to be the best candidate far over what would be the most liberal (Dean)

Had it not been for SBVT, I believe he would have won and been a good president

Before people start whining about how horrible Kerry would have been, just a quick reminder that Clinton, Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, etc all looked horrible at points during their initial campaign...remember Reagan lost before he won, and he was laughed at as some sort of nut, let alone the rest...Bush I being so unpopular he was down 20pts as a non-incumbent candidate....There is enough opposition research on Bush in 2000 to make a thorough case that he is a complete idiot, and his administration has done everything it could to reinforce that

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We were good in 2000, Bush's tax cuts set us down a spiral

This is absurdly false and shows a complete lack of any understanding of the economy.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

This is absurdly false and shows a complete lack of any understanding of the economy.

set us down a spiral of deficit, I'm not saying a tax cut ruined the economy on its own

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

ib "Well a professor of economics at Princeton, who writes Economic class textbooks for college students around the country, and wins award in economics...lacks any understanding of the economy"

[JaJae]

Well I guess an op-ed article from the most biased liberal extremist from the NY Times and quite possibly the most biased liberal columnist in the nation clears that up...

Perhaps we should post Ann Coulter's perspective on the tax cuts while we're at it?