Equality?

[Thorne]

I choose to stand at attention! And am frustrated by the people that can not stand still for three and one half minutes!

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

[steelish]

The specific quote I was responding to is this one

But the loadest complaints about wealth spreading comes from the middle and upper middle classes. Yes they work for their money but they moan about how they "work hard" as if other workers dont. I don't know about you but I would rather have hard work in the air conditioned office with executive lunches than the easy life working down the mines or at MacDonalds.

My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[steelish]

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

It's sad that it's gotten to this point. I understand your view completely of how bad some of the National Anthem singers are. I too cringe as they muddle their way through the song. BUT, it's not how well it's sung that makes me want to stand at attention or place my hand over my heart...it's the words and what they mean. It's the history.

One of my duties every evening is to lower the flag at the Post Office and fold it. I do so with the utmost respect. I've had military personnel stop on the sidewalk outside and watch me take it down. I know they're just waiting to see if I let it touch the ground. I take pride in this simple task and am always grinning when they watch. I know how important it is to them. It's important to me also. That tight triangle with the field of blue showing on both sides is an honor to place in storage for a co-worker to raise the following day.

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country. Remember how we all felt on 9/11? Call me crazy or "much ado about nothing" when I get irritated over a President who cannot show respect in front of American citizens at a public ceremony. I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing. But, having said that, I would rather he do it only if he truly feels that respect. If he does not, then it's just an empty gesture. At least, in my eyes, he is showing me how he really feels about America.

[Thorne]

You said the rulers "gave" the rights to the ruled. I replied not so the ruled fought for those rights. Yes the baron was not the common man but they were ruled by the king.

But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners.

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war.

The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves. Slavery happened to be one of those rights. Lincoln did not free the slaves out of the goodness of his heart. The Emancipation Proclamation was a desperate attempt to encourage the slaves to revolt, forcing the Confederacy to pull troops from the fronts. Their freedom was handed to them by the government.

Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights.

This one I have to give to you.

If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either.

The principle of using tax moneys to benefit all of the people is a good one. Certain things need to be done for the nation as a whole which individual states or communities cannot be relied upon to handle. Forcing donations to charity isn't, in my opinion, one of those things. And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

[Thorne]

You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country.

I don't think it's crazy at all. My point is that a love of country doesn't require overt displays of patriotism. And conversely, displays of patriotism don't necessarily guarantee a love of country.

Remember how we all felt on 9/11?

I remember. And I showed no more overt patriotism then than now. I remember seeing all the people with flag bumper stickers, and flags flying from antennas and flags hanging from their windows. And I can remember thinking that the hidden enemies of the country would have been among the first to join in those displays. It makes for good camouflage.

I think it's a gesture that the President SHOULD be doing.

I agree, and unless I'm mistaken, as Commander-in-Chief he's required to salute the flag, as part of the military code of conduct. But look again at that video. He was not yet president then. And the flag was behind him, not in front of him.

[DuncanONeil]

I do remember you presenting this idea earlier. I confess that the details of that message must have become lost in time.

As for the essential services argument. I must say that all levels of government can not be lumped together into a single entity. Each level of government operates on different sets of rules.
The Federal Government, that we all must care about has a very specific set of rules that are, largely, designed to limit their ability to "stick it to us". Too many of the people in Washington are what can kindly be called "bleeding hearts" and believe that being a parent to the people of the nation qualifies as "promote the general welfare". But in doing so they tend to ignore the very next section; "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Washington is promoting the first at the expense of the second!

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

[DuncanONeil]

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[SadisticNature]

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[DuncanONeil]

Did America give the slaves freedom or was there a war. Did American Congress one day end segregation or did the common black man have to fight for the rights. Maybe you can cite one of the noble ruler freeely giving rights but for every example you find I will find 10 where rights had to be fought for.

Little bit off in facts here. The "war" was not fought to end slavery. In fact the last "northern" state ended slavery in 1804. So of 33 states 20 had ended slavery without a war.

You are nitpicking. Taking money from rich and giving to poor is not saying you want equalty. I said people want to raise the standard of the poor and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Narrowing a gap is not the same as closing a gap. Nobody is suggesting we should all be paid and taxed the same irrespective of job. Please dont nitpick.

Raise the standard of the poor? Could you explain just what you mean by that? As for narrowing the gap. How do you propose to do that without confiscating from the "rich".
Without all making the same there will always be "poor". That brings us back to a description of that standard and what would be a sufficient raising.

Yes I totally agree but is it the principle of taxation that is the problem or the fact that government is wasteful and the brunt of taxation falls on the middle class. I say the principle is fair its just the governemt is inept and inefficient and the middle class bears the brunt of their mistakes.

There is no way you can support that the brunt of taxation falls upon the shoulders of the middle class. Again we are discussing a category of people without definition. Would you accept that the top 25% of earners are not in the middle class?
The minimum income to be included in that top 25% is about $64,700 with an AGI floor of about $32,000. These people pay $833 billion in tax. They take in 68% of the nations income and PAY 86% of the nations taxes. Now explain to me how the "middle class" bears the brunt of taxes! Heck half of the "middle class" pays little to no taxes!

But you do not comment on whether the principle of taxation wrong or is it simply those managing it are incompetent. If a bad pilot crashes a plane you dont say the principles of aerodynamics are wrong do you !

Taxation is one of those things that can easily be qualified as a necessary evil. However, income tax is the worst of those evils. It is less of a means to support the Government and more of a means of control. As such it is WRONG! That is one of the reasons I used to favor a flat tax. That is until I found about about the FairTax. Now our (ahem) representatives in Washington are raising the specter of a VAT tax on top of our onerous income tax. If there is anything that hurts the poor it is a VAT. Vat is easy to say. Then they point to all the "old countries" that have a VAT. But what is it? A tax that added to the price of an item EACH AND EVERY TIME (V)alue is (A)dded to some raw (or previously produced) material it has (T)ax added to the new price. Simple example;

• Seed is turned into wheat
• Wheat is turned into flour
• Flour is turned into bread
• Bread is sliced

At a 7% VAT this adds some 32% to the price of that loaf of bread.

[DuncanONeil]

No comment on your singing! But it is a very difficult song to actually sing.
Your standing and my attention probably look a lot alike. Outside of the fact that my thumbs are along the seam of my trousers.
Just my service background asserting itself!

That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

[DuncanONeil]

In 2006 the bottom 50% of earners had an AGI of over $1 trillion, yet only paid $30 million in taxes. Less that 4%!

The specific quote I was responding to is this one



My comprehension is thus:

Middle and upper middle class complain the most (I am middle...possibly considered "upper" middle)
Then you go on to describe "hard work" in an air conditioned office, yet don't mention which "class" you are referring to. Upper Middle and some upper class do this. The uber rich rarely have this type of lifestyle. You made it seem as if you view the upper middle class as those executive lunch crowd who works so hard in a/c at a desk. I caught the sarcasm in the post when you referred to the "easy" life in the coal mines or at MacDonalds (which I'm assuming is what you would consider lower and some middle class). I realize (as do most others) that all economic class levels work hard. (That's not to say that all workers work hard. Some work harder than others at the exact same job)

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

[DuncanONeil]

And yes, using tax dollars to try to keep the poor people happy in their poverty is forced charity. Using it to improve schools and other infrastructure benefits everyone, not only the poor. But ultimately the poor would gain the most benefit, as the biggest gap between the haves and the have-nots is education.

Assuming you can get any real improvement into the schools and not the teachers and their union bosses!!

[DuncanONeil]

Then why is there so much fraud? And promises, ad naseum, to end the fraud? You are talking admin costs aren't you?
All the third party insurance programs are one of the major causes of cost increases in health care.
Yes that is an opinion!

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

Flimsy argument!?!?!
Sorry SN, the language is right there in the bill.
In fact nothing in your reply refutes the statements I actually made.

Medicare is actually doing a great job of controlling costs, the primary reason for the increase in costs is demographics, as the population ages the costs go up. There is a boom of elderly occurring. The costs in the private insurance industry are rising far faster (and largely for increased shareholder gains).

[DuncanONeil]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

[TantricSoul]

Oh come on folks... is it really a news flash that our president is a human being and as such will make a mistake or two here and there?

Was BushII, or Clinton, or BushI, or Reagan or any sitting president soooo perfect as to never make a human mistake?

No they all have, and they all have in common that their detractors will use those human displays to attack.

I have to agree that the rendition was not pleasing to my ears ... but Obama must have enjoyed it as he appears to be the only one there singing along.

Can we move onto something more substantial please? like the topic?

~Tantric

[denuseri]

Getting back to the main part of the topic:

The only way we will ever have any kind of society that approaches any kind of real equality is if we abandon capitalism all together on a world wide basis in favor of an entirely different system that isnt dependent upon greed to function and takes stringent means to curtail greed based coruption.

[Canyon]

Origionally posted by Thorne.
That is your choice, and you're certainly free to do as you see fit. I stand quietly and wait for the usually badly sung anthem to be finished. I have no need to publicly display my love of country by standing at attention, or saluting, or holding my hand over my heart. I certainly don't sing, out of respect for other people's ears.

With one exception where the singer may (I'll give her the benifit of the doubt, she may just be a truely horrible singer) have disrespected the song , then mocked the audience by spitting (at least thats what it looked like) when they showed her their displeasure, I can honestly say I've never heard the song sung badly, no matter how poor the singer. You should hear me try to hit that high note. Still love the song.

Origionally posted by steelish.
One of my duties every evening is to lower the flag at the Post Office and fold it. I do so with the utmost respect. I've had military personnel stop on the sidewalk outside and watch me take it down. I know they're just waiting to see if I let it touch the ground. I take pride in this simple task and am always grinning when they watch. I know how important it is to them. It's important to me also. That tight triangle with the field of blue showing on both sides is an honor to place in storage for a co-worker to raise the following day.

Thank you so much.

Origionally posted by steelish
You all may think I'm crazy for my patriotic feelings. You may think me strange to gaze at the flag, hand over heart when someone sings the National Anthem off key or tunelessly. Call me crazy. I don't care. I've never lost my love of my country.

Your not crazy. I hope you never lose that love for your country

[Kendal]

The biggest problem that faces everyone is misconception. Unless you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you will not understand their point of view.

That the middle classes bear the brunt of taxation I agree. That they are taxed too much I agree, But they all too often talk about how they "work hard:" as if others do not. I was pointing out they are not the only people who work hard and life down the mines is (as the recent accident shows) hard work also, Yes I was being sarcastic when I said easy life down the mines. Was it not obvious?

Part of the miscommunciation here is our difference of understnding what the classes are. In UK manual (blue collar) workers were/are lower class. The term is consider demeaning today so now they are called lower middle class. The middle class is the foreman, junior manager, shopkeeper. The upper middle is the professionals - senior managers, doctors, lawyers etc. The upper class would be the directors and (large)company owners. Clearly UK is different from USA because the person pushing cages would be lower(middle) and the saying where to push those cages (supervisor/manager) would be middle. To translate my gripe into your company it would be like the Logistics Manager saying he works hard as if the cage pusher does not. I would have thought you would agreeing with me.

But still they were rulers in their own rights, and the king relied upon their support for his own rule. Without the barons' money and troops the king could not rule. All the barons did was to improve their own lots in life, without much direct benefit to the commoners

In terms of rights (eg Magna Carta) the ruler (king) ruled over the barons (ruled) and did not freely give those rights and much as we have loved could could not take back the rights he had given. The fact that the barons ruled the serfs is another situtation and the baron did not freely give the serfs rights, they fought for them be it through rebellion or petioning the king. The fact remains rights are rarely given freely they are won through battle.

The American Civil War was never about freeing the slaves. It was about the rights of the states to rule themselves.

Yes I know. I did not want to turn my post into a history class and said that for simplicity. The fact still remains the rights were not given, they were fought for. In this case they lost and with that defeat lost the rights.

No, the principles aren't necessarily wrong, but don't automatically blame the pilot, either.

Correct. And the principles or calculations may be wrong. The question is then when it comes to heavy taxation is the problem the principle of taxing higher earners more one we disagree with or is it simply that because of government overspending and inefficiency the tax burder is too high. I do not see the middle classes complaining when America spends zillions to invade other countries but they do complain when money goes to the have nots. I maintain that it is possible to help the less well off and lower taxes on the middle class simply by by efficient, not wasteful and not looking soley to taxation for revenue. There are other ways governments can earn money not just income tax.

The government screwed up the banks by deregulating and not monitoring them. How much taxpayer money went to bail outs and how many companies went broke. How much has iraq and Afghanistan cost - and you still haven't caught Bin Ladin or stopped terrorism.. That mispent money could have been saved, put into health and your taxes would probably still be the same.

I agree the middle class is over taxed. My gripe is how they point the finger at poor man saying "why should I pay for him" rather than pointing the finger at the rich politician and asking why are you making such a balls up of everything. To my mind money for heal sick americans is more noble than money for into the pockets of the userers or to drop bombs on people in a far off land.

[steelish]

That the middle classes bear the brunt of taxation I agree. That they are taxed too much I agree, But they all too often talk about how they "work hard:" as if others do not. I was pointing out they are not the only people who work hard and life down the mines is (as the recent accident shows) hard work also, Yes I was being sarcastic when I said easy life down the mines. Was it not obvious?

Oh, it was obvious, but you're analogy was not. Coal miners typically make almost $22.00 per hour, which is middle class wages.

Lower class are those who make minimum wage, or just barely over it. (Adults who are workers at McDonalds, or baggers at the grocery store, etc.) But no one thinks they don't work hard. The ones who don't work hard are the people who are capable of working yet have been on welfare for years. Those are the ones we complain about.

[Kendal]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.

[SadisticNature]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[SadisticNature]

Oh, it was obvious, but you're analogy was not. Coal miners typically make almost $22.00 per hour, which is middle class wages.

Lower class are those who make minimum wage, or just barely over it. (Adults who are workers at McDonalds, or baggers at the grocery store, etc.) But no one thinks they don't work hard. The ones who don't work hard are the people who are capable of working yet have been on welfare for years. Those are the ones we complain about.

Yet welfare is a program that is minimally abused, over 95% of welfare recipients are on the program for only a short period of time, only 5% are the chronic abusers you "complain" about. 95% of the people who use it need support while they look for a new job. I don't think the coal miner is lazy, and I don't begrudge him a few months on welfare after they close the coal mine.

If you want to scrap welfare how about we get rid of every program that has less than 95% efficiency first. Starting with all military technology spending, which just about never comes in on budget.

[DuncanONeil]

What would you like to suggest?

Getting back to the main part of the topic:

The only way we will ever have any kind of society that approaches any kind of real equality is if we abandon capitalism all together on a world wide basis in favor of an entirely different system that isnt dependent upon greed to function and takes stringent means to curtail greed based coruption.

[DuncanONeil]

steelish - UK is somewhat different than america. You define class in terms of money whereas in UK it is much more. The man who wins the lottery in America becomes upper class overnight but in UK his education and behavior would be a barrier. My point is everybody who is working works hard - so the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers.

I appreciate there may be a group who are the perpetual unemployed - the scroungers - but they should not be confused with the decent man who lost his job through no fault of his own but rather because the inept politicians and greedy bankers screwed up the economy and made his company bankrupt.

Interesting comment; "the gripe I work hard is redundant since it applies to all taxpayers." Makes your distinctions harder. Here in the US some 47% are not taxpayers!

[DuncanONeil]

You said; “Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world.”, and later; “The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.”

Now you may want to say that you were speaking of University, but that you did not say. That little point aside grades below university still have a cost that averages approximately $10,000 per year. Our total expenditures in education are 3.6 times greater than the nearest country. Apparently no one spends more than we do, however, I do agree smarter is better than what is being done.

So as I said money is not the solution!

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

First of all I referred to speed reading a specific message. This is not skimming! You were not skimmed!

Can we say personal attack?

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

The Pattern of Dependence: Length of Time on Welfare

The public is often told that the current welfare system does not promote long-term dependence. According to this picture, AFDC generally provides temporary aid, and very few recipients receive welfare for extended periods. This picture is inaccurate.

Of the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, most will be dependent on welfare for very long periods of time. As Chart 1 shows, families receiving AFDC at the present time have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years enrolled in AFDC.1 When past receipt and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC among those families currently receiving AFDC benefits is an astounding 13 years.2 Moreover, these figures actually underestimate the length of welfare dependence, since such families are very likely to receive other welfare benefits (such as food stamps, SSI, Medicaid, and housing) even after they leave the AFDC caseload.
* The 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years on welfare.

* When past and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is an astonishing 13 years.

* Among the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, over 90 percent will spend over two years on the AFDC caseload. More than three quarters will spend over five years on AFDC. The Heritage Foundation

Yet welfare is a program that is minimally abused, over 95% of welfare recipients are on the program for only a short period of time, only 5% are the chronic abusers you "complain" about. 95% of the people who use it need support while they look for a new job. I don't think the coal miner is lazy, and I don't begrudge him a few months on welfare after they close the coal mine.

If you want to scrap welfare how about we get rid of every program that has less than 95% efficiency first. Starting with all military technology spending, which just about never comes in on budget.

[Canyon]

The Pattern of Dependence: Length of Time on Welfare

* The 4.7 million families currently receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have already spent, on average, six-and-a-half years on welfare.

* When past and estimated future receipt of AFDC are combined, the estimated average length of stay on AFDC, among those families currently receiving benefits, is an astonishing 13 years.

* Among the 4.7 million families currently receiving AFDC, over 90 percent will spend over two years on the AFDC caseload. More than three quarters will spend over five years on AFDC. The Heritage Foundation

Is it any wonder we're losing a work ethic in so many homes. Children don't grow up to understand work because they don't see work. Sad. But, in a down ecomomy people cannot afford the taxation to carry others, yet often there is no job for the others to carry themselves with. Don't like either choice. I cannot see improvement unless we go back, create energy indepencence, become competative in the market, and get Government out of both the market place, and chairity business.

Yet there needs to be something. The years of happieness I shared with my wife were possible because of a transplant surgury we could never have afforded. SSI disability paid for it. I cannot want to completely remove a social safety net.

Maybe having the net, but making it uncomfortable would be a solution. For instance, instead of money to use in stores, a card, and limiting purchases to a very few (minimal) items. Instead of new apaartments with air conditioning, new fridges and washers, have simple barracks, wash racks and swamp coolers. Improvement of ones life is a powerful motivator to strive. However, possession of X-Box's, 60" TV's and the ever lengthing line of new cars and pickups, with dealer plates, at the unemployment and welfare offices seems to indicate to me there is no real incentive to try.