Understanding the Issues: Education

Schneed10 · 06-11-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

How comforting to those who have been killed and their families. But hey, your family is safe thanks to those missiles.

Please feel free to dismiss this post too.

I already have.

Schneed10 · 06-11-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Whose talking about the opposing party? "Bomb bomb bomb" is a direct McCain quote, a joke he made that was not funny. He's the one that say he won't sit down unless all our demands are met. It's not funny and it's not diplomacy. Same goes for Bush.

I will have you know I know fully well what the opposing party's platform is and I disagree pretty much with their oppressive platform. Hell, they don't even honor their platform. Dismiss all you want but hey man, you're entitled to your opinion and generalizations too (poor are poor because they want to be poor).

I never said those words. Go back and read my posts.

I've said I'm all for helping people out who are down on their luck, such as someone who has lost a job or a single mom who lost her husband to an auto accident. But I don't like the idea of helping people who simply make poor decisions.

Schneed10 · 06-11-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mredskins

Ok I nominate you the person who goes down and tells the single parent and their hungary child they can't have food becuse they made a poor decision.

As far as missilies go it takes two to fight. America sticks their noses in far too much shit that is none of our business.

Please show me in my post history where I've ever said that the poor shouldn't be provided with food by the government.

This discussion is about after-care, programs for keeping kids busy and safe after school.

firstdown · 06-11-2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just to briefly expand on that.

It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't know that history can truly show a war between two democratic nations (unless you count the Civil War I suppose). Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes.

The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared
about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed.

So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history before then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves.

Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone knows that. But dad does need to set the tone for how everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department.

But, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers (I believe) and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well have cozied up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it have been simple certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is.

But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot on trial in a docket in the Hague (the now deceased Milosevic). And it bothers now to run to the desert.

In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and not a drop of blood was shed.

In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song.

As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it.

There’s some “Education” for you bitches!

I agree with most of what you said but most of all I which I could but words down on paper (or internet) the way you and some others here can do. When I read my post after one like yours I realize how I did not take advantage of school and my post read like I'm in 10th grade. I did make it out of high school but that was about it as I did not apply myself as I should have. I have over come that by becomming very good at what I do and do own a very good business with several employees. So for the ones still in school take advantage of what you have for other like me find what you want to do and just become the best you can at that job.

saden1 · 06-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I never said those words. Go back and read my posts.

I've said I'm all for helping people out who are down on their luck, such as someone who has lost a job or a single mom who lost her husband to an auto accident. But I don't like the idea of helping people who simply make poor decisions.

Apologies. I hear that train of thought so often I assumed that's what you were implying.

Mattyk · 06-11-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

saden1 · 06-11-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan) then later pulling back on talking to iran. his foreign policy outside of a massively oversped pull out (another bad idea) seems very haphazard, and he's had to re-state and change his opinion on an awful lot of ideas.

I only brought up his inexperience (and only in the context of foreign policy) because it's very obvious and it's made him look stupid a number of times.

as far as tax rates, it's not just the top 2% and it's not just a minor deal. he wants f'ing socialized medicine - do you have any idea what that costs? either its insanely expensive or it's worthlessly bad (ask the swedes or brits about it). the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back - so if you try to defraud them, you can get yourself royally screwed and it limits exposure to the million dollar a day cases) but it'll never be cheap or paid for solely by minor tax hikes on the top 2%.

it seems like you like obama a whole lot, but he has flaws, and using strawman to try and cover them up is pretty weak.

Iran isn't our allies and Pakistan is a dictatorship we're prepping-up.

Yes I like Obama but I have some misgivings as well. Him getting up there in front of AIPAC and pandering bothered me. One part of me thinks it's just politics, another see this as a sign of things to come. I'll admit that he is not perfect but when I look at McCain and Hillary he is certainly the "lesser of the three evils."

I'd also like to add that McCain has all the experience in the world but when you look at his overall policy I really wonder how he is any difference from Bush. If people are happy with Bush that's fine but don't tell me policy wise McCain is going to be better for America than Bush or has new ideas.

As for Japan's health care system, I couldn't find any information to support your claim. I did however find this and this. Sounds like a good universal health care system to me (control prices, allow flexibility and works for everyone).

Quote:

Who provides health care in Japan?
Japan has a system of universal health coverage, although individuals may receive coverage quite differently. It can be divided into two broad categories: National Health Insurance and Employees’ Health Insurance. Membership in either program is compulsory. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, private health insurance is rarely utilized in Japan.

Employee Health Insurance covers people who are working for medium to large companies; national or local government; or private schools. There is also a government-managed program within this plan for employees of small businesses. Premiums are based on monthly salary (excluding bonuses) and half is paid by the employer, half by the employee. The average contribution is around 4% of the person’s salary. Those covered under Employee Health Insurance pay 20% of their medical costs when hospitalized and 30% of the costs for out-patient care. Co-payments may also be required for prescription drugs. Costs are shared by the patients up to a certain ceiling, after which they receive full coverage. In case of long-term illness, the patients or the patients’ spouse receive an allowance based on their salary; in case of death, an allowance for the funeral is also paid.

National Health Insurance covers workers in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, those that are self-employed, and those not employed (including expectant mothers, students, retirees, etc). “A working mother, for example, would withdraw from her company’s insurance and join the National scheme in her local ward or city. The local office provides a lump sum towards childbirth costs (on average around 300,000 yen) and a small monthly allowance afterwards.” Under this plan the insured pay 30% of in- or out-patient costs, as well as co-payments for prescription drugs. Similarly to the Employee Health Insurance program, patients share costs up to a certain ceiling, after which point they receive full coverage. Premiums are based on salary, property, and dependents; on average, the premiums are about 4% of salary. Coverage includes sickness, injury, necessary dental work, childbirth, and death of the insured or their dependents. Conditions and treatments not covered by this insurance plan include orthodontic work, cosmetic surgery, vaccinations, abortions, injuries incurred while drunk or fighting, and treatment outside of Japan.

There is also a national health program for the Elderly. People over 70 qualify for this program, which is funded by contributions from the two main plans.

That Guy · 06-11-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

While I agree a contractor makes more money up front than a person in the service the difference is in the benifits. So we pay a contractor 125 k for two years and we are done paying them but a person in the service will receive benifits for a life time making their cost much, much more. I'm not getting into which way is the best but it is much cheaper to use contractors for alot of jobs.

wha?? you mean the life time benefits after TWENTY+ YEARS of making craptacular pay? or are you forgetting the overhead paid to hal etc on top of that 120k salary (admin costs, his employer insurance and benefits, his food and housing over there, and 20% on top of that as the profit portion of the cost + contracts).

it's not cheaper, and it's not even close.

That Guy · 06-11-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Iran isn't our allies

no shit sherlock. those are the enemies he rather talk to while bombing pakistan, and then later reneged on.

Quote:

and Pakistan is a dictatorship we're prepping-up.

that's not a gross over generalization at all. musharaf is giving up his power, it's actually not a dictatorship, but i guess that meshes better with your simple me right you wrong view of the world.

Quote:

Yes I like Obama but I have some misgivings as well. Him getting up there in front of AIPAC and pandering bothered me. One part of me thinks it's just politics, another see this as a sign of things to come. I'll admit that he is not perfect but when I look at McCain and Hillary he is certainly the "lesser of the three evils."

I'd also like to add that McCain has all the experience in the world but when you look at his overall policy I really wonder how he is any difference from Bush. If people are happy with Bush that's fine but don't tell me policy wise McCain is going to be better for America than Bush or has new ideas.

are you even paying any attention at all to politics? stuff like that really has me wondering. emissions cap and trade and health insurance are both shared issues with obama and a break from bush. nuclear, anti-pork, anti-farm subsidies, finance reform - all different than bush. admission that global warming exists - different than bush. better luck next time.

Quote:

As for Japan's health care system, I couldn't find any information to support your claim. I did however find this and this. Sounds like a good universal health care system to me (control prices, allow flexibility and works for everyone).

you couldn't find anything to support my claim, and then you post an article re-stating the same thing i just said. amazing. and yeah, i said as far as socialized health care, japan's is the best, i'm glad you agreed while trying so hard to disagree.

jeez.

firstdown · 06-11-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

Most of those people grew up in a household where they learned how to work the system and get every penny they can from the goverment. So it gos both ways. here is a whole culture of people in the system having children that get in the system who have children in the system etc..... and until we break those cycles the system will remain broken so adding on to the system is really not helping at all. The federal goverment has spent how many billions of dollars fighting poverty and it has done nothing. So my conclusion is not to keep throwing money into a broken system.

Schneed10 · 06-11-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

That sounds an awful lot like saying:

Because kids grew up in a broken home, they should continue to be treated as children once they are 18 years old, because they never learned to be a responsible adult.

I don't buy it. By the time you hit 18, your free pass expires. You're expected to be responsible and make wise choices.

saden1 · 06-11-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

no shit sherlock. those are the enemies he rather talk to while bombing pakistan, and then later reneged on.

Perhaps you should re-read your post Mrs Popping? I'm not the one that posted the following and I will have you know I really did try to understand WTF you're trying to say.

Quote:

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan) then later pulling back on talking to iran

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

that's not a gross over generalization at all. musharaf is giving up his power, it's actually not a dictatorship, but i guess that meshes better with your simple me right you wrong view of the world.

He's going to do it any day now, you just wait and see and we'll do everything it's power to bring democracy to Pakistan. Fair and free elections in Pakistan is just around the corner and Benazir Bhutto's son will lead Pakistan to the promise land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

are you even paying any attention at all to politics? stuff like that really has me wondering. emissions cap and trade and health insurance are both shared issues with obama and a break from bush. nuclear, anti-pork, anti-farm subsidies, finance reform - all different than bush. admission that global warming exists - different than bush. better luck next time.

Bush is anti-farm bill (only because we don't have the money to pay for it), for nuclear energy and McCain talks tough about the environment but policy wise it's without substance. His rhetoric certainly doesn't match his voting record or lack thereof. He did a pretty good job with respect to finance reform and he is different from Bush in that respect but lets not forget that this is the same guy that uses his wife's corporate jet to his advantage and exploits a legal loophole in the reform bill he co-sponsored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

you couldn't find anything to support my claim, and then you post an article re-stating the same thing i just said. amazing. and yeah, i said as far as socialized health care, japan's is the best, i'm glad you agreed while trying so hard to disagree.

jeez.

Jeez indeed...WTF are you talking about? Didn't you state the following? How exactly is your out-of-thin-air claim supported but the facts? As they say, you're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.

Quote:

the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back - so if you try to defraud them, you can get yourself royally screwed and it limits exposure to the million dollar a day cases)

firstdown · 06-11-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

wha?? you mean the life time benefits after TWENTY+ YEARS of making craptacular pay? or are you forgetting the overhead paid to hal etc on top of that 120k salary (admin costs, his employer insurance and benefits, his food and housing over there, and 20% on top of that as the profit portion of the cost + contracts).

it's not cheaper, and it's not even close.

In no way do I have any problems with our servicemans benefits and agree they are way under paid. I was responding to what you where saying about cost and the use of contractors. About a year ago I read a report about the use of contractors and cost v/s having a larger service and its cost. The numbers I read showed in most cases it was cheaper to use contractors because after the contract is up the cost stops. Then it showed the cost to train, house , benefits, (which we agree are not that great) and other cost such as moving them from place to place etc... add up to allot of money. It was not nor am I sugesting doing away with any of our forces and agree we should keep a strong military I was just responding to the cost part.

That Guy · 06-12-2008, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps you should re-read your post Mrs Popping? I'm not the one that posted the following and I will have you know I really did try to understand WTF you're trying to say.

then you should learn to read, iran was the former, pakistan was the latter, it's really not that hard.

Quote:

He's going to do it any day now, you just wait and see and we'll do everything it's power to bring democracy to Pakistan. Fair and free elections in Pakistan is just around the corner and Benazir Bhutto's son will lead Pakistan to the promise land.

you can be as childish as you like, but your speculation isn't any better than mine, and in light of that it'd probably be better to stick with the facts, but you seem opposed to that.

Quote:

Bush is anti-farm bill (only because we don't have the money to pay for it), for nuclear energy and McCain talks tough about the environment but policy wise it's without substance. His rhetoric certainly doesn't match his voting record or lack thereof. He did a pretty good job with respect to finance reform and he is different from Bush in that respect but lets not forget that this is the same guy that uses his wife's corporate jet to his advantage and exploits a legal loophole in the reform bill he co-sponsored.

again, any proof against your opinions is written off. bush may be for nuclear, but is he going to get 30 reactors under construction before leaving office? mccain admits to global warming is far more than bush as done, and there are plenty of other instances (his voting record is only 85% with the GOP, obama votes on party lines 97% of the time, so much for change right?) but it's worthless wasting my time since you seem content on the "i'm right and your stupid routine," or else you might do a little research before making such blanket statements like you don't see how he's different without even bothering to look. emissions caps are different, health insurance credits are different (And again, obama is happy with both of those), yet you decide not to mention them at all.

Quote:

Jeez indeed...WTF are you talking about? Didn't you state the following? How exactly is your out-of-thin-air claim supported but the facts? As they say, you're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.

you posted a f'ing article saying only 20% is consumer cost after i just said if you want socialized medicine japan is probably the closest and they pay 80% back, CAUSE I HAVE FRIENDS IN JAPAN, and they told me how it works there. i mean, do actually read the posts you're responding to?

if you can't be reasonable... i mean, you can ask for clarification without being an a-hole, and you can try using facts instead of opinions. i don't know why i'm even bothering to respond honestly, cause its obvious you're looking for excuses to say mccain is evil and can't seem to follow what's actually been said anyways.

That Guy · 06-12-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

In no way do I have any problems with our servicemans benefits and agree they are way under paid. I was responding to what you where saying about cost and the use of contractors. About a year ago I read a report about the use of contractors and cost v/s having a larger service and its cost. The numbers I read showed in most cases it was cheaper to use contractors because after the contract is up the cost stops. Then it showed the cost to train, house , benefits, (which we agree are not that great) and other cost such as moving them from place to place etc... add up to allot of money. It was not nor am I sugesting doing away with any of our forces and agree we should keep a strong military I was just responding to the cost part.

but how long was the cost analysis, cause 1 year with contractors vs 10 years of a bigger service is different than the 6+ years of deployed contractors with huge overheads.

when i looked at the numbers, with the amount of time in and the length of time a full contracting force will be over there on our dollar, the numbers for contracting over that span really didn't look very good.

and you've also got a lot of air force members doing army jobs (in lieu of) like sentry, towers, gates, convoys, bomb squad, patrols (cop cars), etc, and the army's not taking them back any time soon, since the army doesn't have enough manpower of its own right now.

View Poll Results: Do You Agree with Obama's Stance on Education?
Yes (Agree with more than 75%)	15	75.00%
No (Agree with less than 25%)	1	5.00%
Not Sure	4	20.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Understanding the Issues: Education

Parking Lot