|
Post by long on Nov 15, 2007 2:57:18 GMT -5
you beat me to the punch
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Nov 15, 2007 3:23:26 GMT -5
^^ What exactly are you saying? Seems like you're just asking questions.. Yeah, I kinda am. I say something that'll get a response then people will either agree or disagree and say why and den I learn stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Altan on Nov 15, 2007 4:58:15 GMT -5
Go with a EU system those in Oz. Don't want to be like your older brother with problems I wouldn't want to elaborate. Trust your people...they are your best resource.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 15, 2007 14:28:58 GMT -5
What are the top nations where immigrants from poor nations want to go? The US and Europe. Why? Because in these nations, everybody is given the opportunity to succeed. Freedom of opportunity and equality does imply that. It implies that we are in an equal playing field for the opportunities to get ahead. That's why schools give scholarships to poorer students, so they can eliminate birth status privilege. Nothing that you said here suggests that poor people don't have to work harder to get to the same level as the rich in the US or Europe, or anywhere for that matter. You can have equal opportunity without welfare of any sort, at least that's how the debate is generally framed. Life isn't fair, have you heard that one before? Yeah, it's sad Life isn't fair. But if you have the resources to make it fair then do it. If rich people don't want to make it fair, then they deserve to be killed in terrorist attacks like they are in 3rd world countries. Equal opportunity means you have the same chances of reaching success as your counterparts. A kid having to work 3 jobs while in college doesn't have equal opportunity as a rich kid who gets to hire tutors.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 15, 2007 14:34:51 GMT -5
And half-breed.. am I mistaken in remembering you as the person who had the statements about making the world a better place and activism in your little profile? I had an image of you as super liberal, but you don't seem that way in this thread. Of course I know there's many ways to be activist and liberal... just curious if my memory serves me. That be me. Don't worry, I'm hardly fixed in my opinions. I'm waiting for someone to tell me that what I'm saying's wrong. I think I know it is, just not why. There is a reason of what you are saying is wrong. There is a movement going on in Western countries of selfish individualism. Value of individual over the society. The best individuals deserve to be on top and the worst individuals deserve to be on bottom. Economic and social Darwinism. A movement bred by capitalists and evolutionist eugenicists. Religion and societal values in the world are degrading. The new religion is materialism. This religion states that whomever collects the most materials wins. Whoever cannot collect the most materials loses so tough luck. In a society with morals, there is no problem with sacrificing a few dollars to help the welfare of a brother or sister. In society of capitalism, hog every dollar for yourself. That's why people have the "Tough luck" attitude towards poor people on this board, because many are eugenecists (as proven by the fact that half the board thinks Blacks are naturally dumber) and capitalists (which is proved by the excessive vanity and obsession over clothing, cars and other material good). I can't say I am completely innocent of those things.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 15, 2007 15:55:03 GMT -5
CJF says, I reply : Life isn't fair. But if you have the resources to make it fair then do it. I can definitely sympathize with this, not everyone would agree but I basically do. Love your fellow man, yup. If rich people don't want to make it fair, then they deserve to be killed in terrorist attacks like they are in 3rd world countries. Whoa What happened to loving your fellow man. You're not going to get much support here.
Equal opportunity means you have the same chances of reaching success as your counterparts. I'm afraid this just isn't what most people mean by equal opportunity. They generally just mean: no unequal barriers to success rather than equal potential for success. Really there's no way to make potential equal for everyone. Intelligence, attractiveness, health, a million other variables aren't equal between individuals and these factors can play a huge role in success potential. What should we do about it?.....A kid having to work 3 jobs while in college doesn't have equal opportunity as a rich kid who gets to hire tutors.Yes, while I don't agree that we can really say this is unequal opportunity, it'd be a nice thing for society to make schools cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Nov 15, 2007 17:28:39 GMT -5
A bunch of generalized, mostly angry statements, esp. the one about "rich f*cks". Clearly you have class/social status issues. That's fine, I did too. It's a type of inferiority complex. You'll recover from this when you get a good job and move next door to these "f*cks" and have to borrow a cup of sugar someday or borrow the phone when you lock yourself out of the house. Anyway, I stand by my statements, and no amount of swearing from you will change my mind. I will agree that some level of free/mostly free public education should be available to everyone. But at SOME point, no matter how smart the person is, they SHOULD PAY for their education. Whether they are rich and can pay for it up front, or poor, as I was, and have to pay for it later. Personal Responsibility A lost concept in this world of pass the buck excuse making panty waist griping. No, they shouldn't have to pay for education especially if they earned it academically. The point of education is it is a competition of who is the smartest and who is the brightest. Money should not determine who gets placed in the best academic programs. If it does, than the nation suffers. The universities suffer. The pursuit of knowledge suffers. Poor people shouldn't have to have distractions of working 3 jobs while some rich f**k gets money from his parents who buy him/her a condo, and a Mercedes to school. Maybe rich people should take the personal responsibility of having to study harder when a poorer student is put in an equal playing field <gasp> I agree, the poor person should have to pay for it eventually. When they move up to higher brackets of the tax system and pay their taxes. If you think the US's partially socialized economy is so bad, move to Mexico. There you can laugh at poor kids who can't afford to get a high school education and tell them they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps...even if they couldn't afford bootstraps and lack the strength because of mal-nutrition. I'm not sure where you got that I don't like our partially socialized economy. Anybody with an ounce of common sense or a semester of Econ 101 understands that a completely and toatally free market economy will fail from corruption. HOWEVER, your utopia where everyone sings koombayah, passes the pipe, and lives in socialist squalor will also fail, also from corruption. Common sense tells us that a mix of the systems is best. History teaches this lesson too. Pinko commies like to conveniently forget the massive FAIL that was the USSR, Cuba, AND China UNTIL she experienced some free market reform. So I guess my point is.....the arguement once we establish that a mix of the sytems is indeed best then centers around WHAT mix. You favor the mix leaning more heavily towards socialism. I favor it leaning more towards capitalism. Fine. It really is a matter of whether you'd like to be gouged by the government or gouged by corporations. My experience has been you can fight corporations. You can't fight government. Nor has government proved to me that it can run ANYTHING efficiently. See DMV, post office, VA hospital, etc etc. Now we arrive back at the schooling issue. It's a sticky wicket. You simply can't afford to fund EVERYONE'S pet project. Even one as important as education. That is why I favor limiting the freebies up to a point. With a 9 trillion dollar deficit (thanks to our friends on BOTH sides of the aisle), a rapidly declining dollar, an entitlement society, and a policy of empire making/hegemony (thank you GWB, the dumbest prez in a long time).....we have A LOT to pay for in the upcoming years. I don't know when, but SOMEDAY we have to say "enough is enough". Sadly, tough choices on curbing spending and allowing people to invest/spend rather than get taxed eternally MUST be made. I WISH education would be the last thing on the chopping block. We simply must make hard choices, and I believe one of the choices needs to be making people pay for their own higher education. Whether that is NOW in the case of the rich, or later in the case of the poor.
|
|
|
Post by Emily on Nov 15, 2007 23:03:08 GMT -5
Why should we let people rot because they were dealt the wrong cards? But what does it have to do with us..? Like, yeah, you should want to help people.. but it should be a personal thing. One shouldn't HAVE to spend their income on other people if they don't want. It's my belief that society needs a push every once in a while. Realistically, how many underpriviledged students would get to go to school if it weren't for tax dollars going to education? Personally, I've got no qualms with some rich guy not getting to buy his yacht because the government taxed him a bit more so smart kids could go to school, when otherwise they wouldn't have that chance. Sure, you can say it's not respecting one's freedom, but I think you have to allow some breaches of freedom if the outcome far outweighs the consequences. I happen to think that an educated society is worth more. Education makes people richer. If you give the tools for underpriviledged people to be educated, they WILL give back to society/you in the form of higher taxes. Yeah, but then we ALL have to pay higher taxes.. Maybe... but then you reap more. Someone might pay more taxes for society to be more educated, but then that person doesn't need to shell out 30-40k a year to send their kid to school. I'm not calling for a full-fledged socialization of the system. I DO think you have to meet half-way. Otherwise, you get a widening of class divide. Do you reckon the rich should only get richer as the poor get poorer?
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 16, 2007 2:18:12 GMT -5
No, they shouldn't have to pay for education especially if they earned it academically. The point of education is it is a competition of who is the smartest and who is the brightest. Money should not determine who gets placed in the best academic programs. If it does, than the nation suffers. The universities suffer. The pursuit of knowledge suffers. Poor people shouldn't have to have distractions of working 3 jobs while some rich f**k gets money from his parents who buy him/her a condo, and a Mercedes to school. Maybe rich people should take the personal responsibility of having to study harder when a poorer student is put in an equal playing field <gasp> I agree, the poor person should have to pay for it eventually. When they move up to higher brackets of the tax system and pay their taxes. If you think the US's partially socialized economy is so bad, move to Mexico. There you can laugh at poor kids who can't afford to get a high school education and tell them they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps...even if they couldn't afford bootstraps and lack the strength because of mal-nutrition. I'm not sure where you got that I don't like our partially socialized economy. Anybody with an ounce of common sense or a semester of Econ 101 understands that a completely and toatally free market economy will fail from corruption. HOWEVER, your utopia where everyone sings koombayah, passes the pipe, and lives in socialist squalor will also fail, also from corruption. Common sense tells us that a mix of the systems is best. History teaches this lesson too. Pinko commies like to conveniently forget the massive FAIL that was the USSR, Cuba, AND China UNTIL she experienced some free market reform. So I guess my point is.....the arguement once we establish that a mix of the sytems is indeed best then centers around WHAT mix. You favor the mix leaning more heavily towards socialism. I favor it leaning more towards capitalism. Fine. It really is a matter of whether you'd like to be gouged by the government or gouged by corporations. My experience has been you can fight corporations. You can't fight government. Nor has government proved to me that it can run ANYTHING efficiently. See DMV, post office, VA hospital, etc etc. Now we arrive back at the schooling issue. It's a sticky wicket. You simply can't afford to fund EVERYONE'S pet project. Even one as important as education. That is why I favor limiting the freebies up to a point. With a 9 trillion dollar deficit (thanks to our friends on BOTH sides of the aisle), a rapidly declining dollar, an entitlement society, and a policy of empire making/hegemony (thank you GWB, the dumbest prez in a long time).....we have A LOT to pay for in the upcoming years. I don't know when, but SOMEDAY we have to say "enough is enough". Sadly, tough choices on curbing spending and allowing people to invest/spend rather than get taxed eternally MUST be made. I WISH education would be the last thing on the chopping block. We simply must make hard choices, and I believe one of the choices needs to be making people pay for their own higher education. Whether that is NOW in the case of the rich, or later in the case of the poor. I don't know if you've heard, but the US barely spends crap on education. Only 5% of US tax dollars goes towards education (http://education-portal.com/articles/Iraq_War_Spending_vs._Education_Spending.html) The main problem with US debt is a. War b. health care c. corporations in war and health care that receive fat government contracts from them. To cut the spending a. stop the war b. stop rewarding companies lucrative governmental contracts...many of which go unbidded for c. limit payouts for malpractice suits d. projects to build more medical schools and nursing schools to meet demand e. raise taxes Like I've said before, people complain about people on welfare buying shampoo with foodstamps, but they will never complain when the government funds an engineering farm a few billion dollars to build a useless dam that only benefits a few alfalfa farmers. Quit looking to blame the poor. The real cause is the government entanglement with corporations.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 16, 2007 2:19:59 GMT -5
While I like the idea that we should help people to maximise their potential, I can also understand some people's reluctance in being forced to pay a lot of money to educate a lot of people, above and beyond their requirements or true abilities. If we are talking about benefiting society as a whole then we should make the system as efficient as possible, spending the money where it will give the most return. I'm in no way for putting retards in college. i'm not for funding useless majors like art history. But if you are majoring or training in a field and industry in demand, the government has every interest to pay full cost of the education.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Nov 16, 2007 21:29:53 GMT -5
er, hate to state the obvious as usual - but educational achievement is generally a reflection of parental income.... e.g. the richer the parents, the higher the kids' grades, and the higher the possibility of richer kids getting into an institution of higher learning.....
in other words, the system is skewered against the poor....
what society should do about it is a question of personal political philosophy....
i *think* more should be spent on poorer kids at an earlier age....to level the playing field as much as possible....and i think the argument over funding the college education of the "deserving" poor is...irrelevant, in so far as the majority of the poor will fail to achieve the grades required to go onto higher education, subsidized or not - go google it: you'll find poor kids are at a disadvantage before they're even born because their mothers receive poorer quality pre-natal care...and the gap keeps on widening with time thereafter....
basically, how to fund college education is just tinkering with the symptoms of deeply ingrained inequalities of the rich, capitalist countries....essentially, the debate over college funding methods is about subsidizing the middle class, not the poor...
social mobility is a myth to make the poor feel guilty about not working hard enough, imo.... there's something to be said for socialized systems, tho they too have their own problems....at least the opportunities are more equal....mind, it's all relative...
tho i'm not immune to the argument that liberal arts courses are pretty useless and students should be guided towards more vocational training....but that's another problem that starts earlier - the poor quality of science education in schools, not colleges....kids just aren't prepared...and who's fault is that?
peace
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 16, 2007 23:23:33 GMT -5
er, hate to state the obvious as usual - but educational achievement is generally a reflection of parental income.... e.g. the richer the parents, the higher the kids' grades, and the higher the possibility of richer kids getting into an institution of higher learning..... in other words, the system is skewered against the poor.... what society should do about it is a question of personal political philosophy.... i *think* more should be spent on poorer kids at an earlier age....to level the playing field as much as possible....and i think the argument over funding the college education of the "deserving" poor is...irrelevant, in so far as the majority of the poor will fail to achieve the grades required to go onto higher education, subsidized or not - go google it: you'll find poor kids are at a disadvantage before they're even born because their mothers receive poorer quality pre-natal care...and the gap keeps on widening with time thereafter.... basically, how to fund college education is just tinkering with the symptoms of deeply ingrained inequalities of the rich, capitalist countries....essentially, the debate over college funding methods is about subsidizing the middle class, not the poor... social mobility is a myth to make the poor feel guilty about not working hard enough, imo.... there's something to be said for socialized systems, tho they too have their own problems....at least the opportunities are more equal....mind, it's all relative... tho i'm not immune to the argument that liberal arts courses are pretty useless and students should be guided towards more vocational training....but that's another problem that starts earlier - the poor quality of science education in schools, not colleges....kids just aren't prepared...and who's fault is that? peace It all starts with health care for everybody and good education for everybody. Unfortunately in the US, teachers get paid garbage in crappy school districts...and thus have no incentive going there. In Modesto School District, teachers salary starts at 48 K a year compared to a more mexican and black city in Stockton where it starts at 37K a year. Therefore the whiter city is getting better teachers etc. Also, there should be more pay for science teachers. Science majors have much better economic options and job options than English and history majors...so schools are foolish to make the pay equal. Pay science and math teachers what they are worth.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 16, 2007 23:30:26 GMT -5
CJF:" I don't know if you've heard, but the US barely spends crap on education. Only 5% of US tax dollars goes towards education" "Although many people have claimed that U.S. public schools are underfunded, the evidence shows that that claim is not true. According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency)." link to study" Also, there should be more pay for science teachers. Science majors have much better economic options and job options than English and history majors...so schools are foolish to make the pay equal. Pay science and math teachers what they are worth. " - Let us not dream of the day when all value in life is measured in dollars and cents.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 17, 2007 2:22:22 GMT -5
CJF:" I don't know if you've heard, but the US barely spends crap on education. Only 5% of US tax dollars goes towards education" "Although many people have claimed that U.S. public schools are underfunded, the evidence shows that that claim is not true. According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with Switzerland when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000 (in U.S. currency)." link to study" Also, there should be more pay for science teachers. Science majors have much better economic options and job options than English and history majors...so schools are foolish to make the pay equal. Pay science and math teachers what they are worth. " - Let us not dream of the day when all value in life is measured in dollars and cents. Did you just ignore the whole argument? It's gone to the point of National spending. Education is only 5%. Cutting education doesn't solve national deficit. Your last quote makes no sense. Are you trying to be sarcastic? You need to pay teachers to attract them. That has nothing to do with my argument that people are greedy with their money, but it supports it. If we want math and science teachers, you have to raise the pay to attract them. You appeal to human's value for money to hire teachers.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 17, 2007 3:08:24 GMT -5
You said: it spends crap on education; my point: it spends more than any other country. Me ignoring your whole argument? Hmmm, I don't think he was saying we needed to cut spending on education; he said make people pay for their own higher education, I think it's understood that most people do that at the moment in the US.
You said: it's foolish to pay liberal arts teachers the same as science teachers because science has more monetary value in the economy. I said: money is not the only thing of value in this world, maybe it's worthwhile in a way that doesn't have a dollar sign for our children to be learning the things taught in history and english. That is all.
|
|