Yep. Of course, 45.3% is not the average, but the outlier, as 35% is the top rate. Most middle class people are 25-28% federal rate. So let's say 25%, plus (just for the sake of argument) 5% in state, that's 30%, plus 15% in payroll. That's 45% right there. Of course, they don't quite get added that way, and there's deductions, and so on. But on top of that we also have many taxes we pay for without even knowing: for many goods and services, half or more of what we spend is to pay for taxes.
Well, I think it's not so clear cut what "actually belongs to them" considering all the shenanigans and manipulation of the legal system that people in power have been able to get away with over the last few decades. Robber barons may have had the law on their side at the time, but that doesn't necessarily make what they did morally correct.
Most conservatives, and most people yowling the most, are not "robber barons," but middle class workers. So that's kinda irrelevant.
I suspect it's often due to corrupt practices that take government money and hand it out like candy to well connected "whining conservatives".
No, indeed, almost all actual conservatives CONDEMN such corporate handouts and subsidies and corruptions. Pro-business is not the same as conservative. You're arguing a different argument here.
Is there really some vast underbelly of lazy Americans glutting themselves on the hardworking taxpayer, are they the primary cause of our deficits?
Nice straw man. No one is claiming this. No one is saying that Medicare and Social Security and other welfare recipients are lazy. But, they are vast, and they are one of the primary causes of our deficits, not just now, but into the future.
The #1 primary cause is skyrocketing health care costs
No.
... and the fact that young, healthy, individualistic types don't even want to think about, much less pay for, all the expensive health care they will involuntarily require at some point down the road after they are no longer economically viable.
So you are explicitly arguing that the cause of our deficits is people who don't want MORE THAN HALF of their income taxed. Wow.
The difference is that the "whining" that conservatives complained about was people wanting to be given something that was taken by force from someone else
So we are having this discussion in the context of the founding fathers eh? Think hard, wasn't there something valuable they took from American Indians and African slaves by force?
What's sad is that you find this to be relevant. Your argument, as expressed, is that any conception they had of liberty is irrelevant because they kept the slave trade legal. I hope you don't actually believe that; regardless, most Americans certainly do not. Most Americans still believe in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But don't worry. I'm sure Latinos will be strongly against wealth redistribution too - just as soon as they control 90% of it.
Everyone who believes in liberty is against wealth redistribution, since by its nature it denies liberty.
I have to question the probability of success given all the bru-ha-ha over taxes and "tea parties" yesterday. Though, really, those protests mean nothing unless the protesters are united in which govt. services to cut, or who should take up the tax burden, to relieve their supposed "overtaxation."
The average tax burden for Americans is -- just in direct taxes -- about 40 percent of our income. If you had proposed that to a Founding Father, you'd likely have been hanged or shot. Most Americans believe it's obviously true that we are overtaxed.
What I really think we're about to see is conservative whites in America learning what it's like to be a minority in a democracy - what they derided as "whining" by blacks and other minorities for all these years.
The difference is that the "whining" that conservatives complained about was people wanting to be given something that was taken by force from someone else, whereas conservatives are "whining" about not being able to keep what actually belongs to them.
For a long-lived career, does a boot-strapping indie artist with giant niche appeal gain enough from a big-company relationship to offset the loss in agility, equity, and flexibility?
No, but you need to be able to actually do things live. Mashups won't make you any money, unless, of course, you can sell them, which you can't do if they aren't IP-clean.
I forgot to add that if you elect people that believe that government is the problem, you get shitty government - they don't believe it can work so they don't actually try.
That's an idiotic claim, for many reasons. First, on its face, it's false. Take me, for example: I think government is usually the problem, yet I work to improve it.
Second, if we are successful in reducing the amount of government in our lives, then there's no problem: government isn't there, so there's nothing about government to be "shitty" except for the parts we agree should remain.
Look at the difference in FEMA under Clinton and Bush
Almost none. Or have you actually believed the bullshit about Bush running FEMA into the ground? You've been lied to.
I don't believe that government is the answer for every problem
Funny, because that is actually what you are arguing. I made the claim that the federal government is bad for education, and you proceeded to argue against me on principle that government is good; therefore, your actual argument being made is that government is the answer for everything.
I know that's not what you meant; indeed, you simply read your preconceptions into what I wrote and argued against a straw man. But it's the argument you made, whether intended or not.
I might actually agree with you that it shouldn't be involved in education, but providing funding, especially in the current economic environment, seems like it could be helpful.
I don't see how. You do realize that the funding doesn't exist, that it has to be borrowed, and that if this money were absolutely needed, the states could raise it on their own in a similar fashion, through borrowing? Every governor and legislator begging for federal money right now is simply shirking responsiblity by trying to pass it off to the feds.
Nothing useless about it. It's a huge part of the point.
this is a ridiculous statement.
Not remotely.
Someone who believes the federal government can't get anything right isn't serious about good government.
First, you misrepresent my position, and obviously you're doing it intentionally, since I never hinted in any way that I believe that the federal government can't get anything right. I said it cannot get local public education right. And I explained why in previous posts: what makes a good education in one community is not what makes good education in another school. This country has a huge amount of diversity, and good education of children does not lend itself well to central control.
I won't respond to the rest of your post, as it has nothing to do with anything I said.
The crux of my original argument (or question, really) is...
How to you ensure every child has a fair go at things regardless of where they live in our country?
Local control, of course. I hope you don't mean "equal" go at things. Fair != equal. Two very different things. And I've only rarely seen examples where a child did not have a fair chance at education in this country, and that's usually in the inner cities, where the states are responsible for providing greater resources or regulation etc.
My chip at the solution is simply that the federal government ensures a level financial playing field
... which you admitted is not possible! Why do you keep saying your solution is one that you admit is not possible? It's maddening.
But I believe it is fair to say that it the fact that schools funded by communities with "rich parents" and a big tax base are at an advantage over those with a small tax-base and "poor parents".
So? Again, fairness does not require equality. Fairness implies a MINIMUM standard, that some can go beyond. Equality implies the SAME standard that no one may go above or below.
I also believe that the federal government is probably the best, most efficient way to level the financial aspect of education.
Again: you admit level funding is impossible.
States can't do it because even their tax-base varies per-capita.
You have given no reason for anyone to believe that funding is tied to fairness, in the general case. (Of course, the most economically depressed areas cannot solve some of their problems without increased funding, but that is the exception, not the rule, and can be treated as such; and this discussion is about the general case, as I understand it.)
doesn't negate the fact there *is* a problem
You have not demonstrated there IS a problem that is in any way tied to funding.
As far as constitutionality, that is somewhat of a separate debate.
Yes, which is why I didn't detail it, but it is worthy of note.
I don't believe the solution is say "the feds can't do anything, see also: the constitution".
No, but it's part of the solution to remind people not only of what the Constitution says, but WHY it says it. The answer is, of course, local control. As Madison said, for government to take over everything, including the schools, would be to subvert the very foundations of the limited federal government established by the people of the United States.
It's about liberty. It's no less appropriate for me to say federal control of education is unconstitutional as it is for me to say warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. Both are unconstitutioal for the same basic reason: liberty.
And besides, anything you cook up against me I'll label "but this is for the general welfare" and from there we go back and forth without ever trying to solve the damn problem:-)
Nope. Madison's argument that I referenced above was explicitly stating that "general welfare" is NOT a license to do anything that you think is in the general welfare. And as he WROTE the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment, he should know. You cannot justify anything by "general welfare," you have to justify it by the enumerated powers that follow in Article I, Section 8.
Note that by your interpretation of "general welfare," the Tenth Amendment has no meaning whatsoever, which obviously isn't logical.
How do "local communities" know better than "scientists who study how the world really works"?
I find that to be a bizarre question. How could a scientist possibly know better than the local community about how to educate their own children?
Education is far more than what is right and wrong. We still teach Newtonian physics even though we know it's wrong. And further, there is no scientific evidence that Intelligent Design IS wrong, while there's plenty that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Is it really not anyone else's problem that these local communities would be churning out future workers and citizens that have no understanding of science and critical thinking?
If you think a belief in Intelligent Design represents a lack of understanding of science and critical thinking, then you do not understand at least one of those three things.
NOW I do, yes. At the time, I thought you meant what you wrote. Now I know you meant something that is politically impossible. If you think I read your mind at any point, that I knew you didn't really mean level funding when you said level funding, you're wrong. I work with government: level means level. I took you to mean the normal sense of the words you were using.
I have no problem with you saying you meant something else. Fine. You're the only one who keeps dwelling on it. I do have a problem with you attacking me for your error, and even worse, for continuing to push this view of funding that you admit can't work.
Keep in mind you are wasting your time because we are talking abstract stuff here...
No, we are talking about how much funding schools get. That is not abstract at all.
Seriously. Semantic wars are boring, useless and really just a way to show off.
Oh please. You're incredibly transparent. You have admitted what you propose cannot work. You have invented constitutional obligations that don't exist. What you are doing is attacking me because you cannot defend your arguments.
Why don't we try solving problems instead of partisan bickering. We all want the same damn thing--a good education for our kids, right?
Oh yes, no "partisan bickering." This is the Obama Way: let's not bicker. Just agree with me!
You're dishonestly trying to frame the debate: I want a good education for my kids, which REQUIRES that the federal government is not involved. But you demand the federal government be involved. This is a fundamental disagreement. Your way, to me, would exacerbate problems, and not solve a damned thing.
My main argument was (at least I hoped), that the federal government can ensure that everybody gets the same funding
How can this still be your argument when you've admitted it can't work?
I'd argue very strongly that a child born in po-dunk USA with a tiny tax base gets the ability to access the same learning materials and brainpower (i.e. teachers) as somebody living in some rich suburb full of software engineers.
Fine, then argue it. Just try to argue it. You've not yet done so. Tell me why this is a good thing. Tell me why the federal government has an interest in determining this. Tell me how it is feasible, since you've already admitted it is not.
As to how that funding is actually managed, that is up to the neighborhood or city.
That contradicts your claim that the kids get the same ability to access the same learning materials and brainpower. If the funding is managed by the community, then that necessarily means the kids MIGHT NOT get the same access.
Of course, you have already admitted that this equal access is impossible anyway.
Hah, you picked apart a single word tacked on the front of funding
You're lying. I simply responded to what you wrote. You say now you didn't mean what you wrote; fine. But blaming me for your error is being an ass.
... even though that really has *nothing* to do with the broad concept being discussed.
Please stop lying. Your argument CULMINATED in a particular practical application: level funding. And now you're saying that had nothing to do with the discussion, even though that was the single proposed solution you provided?
Dont take what you read so literally, ass
Please stop lying. It is not a matter of literalism. There are only two ways to take what you wrote: literal level funding, or some sort of proportional level funding. And you have now admitted the former will not provide the equality you said it would, and that the latter is politically impossible.
In other words, you have admitted you HAVE no argument.
And yet you still blame me for pointing out these facts.
You think teaching intelligent design is something a taxpayer funded school should be doing?
I think local communities should make their own educational decisions, yes. They know better than you do.
Good sir, I beg to differ.
Unless it's your community, what you think doesn't matter.
Ain't that a violation of another one of those pesky lines in the constitution--you know, the one about separation of church and state?
No, I don't know the one, because it doesn't exist. If you want to point to a line in the Constitution, pick one that's actually there.
That said, if the courts rule that Intelligent Design is a violation of the Constitution (the actual Constitution, not your imaginary one), even though I disagree, then I support it being excluded for that reason.
What if the community doesn't have a large enough tax base to pay for it? What if they barely have any tax base to pay for a quality eduation?
You are conflating CONTROL with FUNDING. Two very different things. And funding is not "federal" vs. "community." Most states actually control the funding, in my experience (Massachusetts, California, Washington), and I support this.
we [Americans] value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status
You agree with this, yet you cannot see how letting communities or even states be entirely responsible for school funding can lead to huge disparity in education between geographic regions?
Now you are conflating FAIR with EQUAL. Again, two very different things. I do not care about "disparity" because it is absolutely inevitable. It is NOT POSSIBLE to not have significant disparity in a country 3000 miles wide with 300 million people in it, and even if it were possible to do, we wouldn't like the result, because it would be treating everyone the same, even when they live in very different circumstances and SHOULD NOT be treated the same.
There's another word for disparity: diversirty. And it is a good thing. It's not something to be avoided. (Again, as long as no one's rights are being violated.)
Level per-student funding for every school district in the nation will ENSURE INEQUITY, because different school districts are in different areas where costs are different! This is a no-brainer.
This is a cop-out to avoid solving problems.
You're lying about me. Please do not lie about me. Thanks.
Obviously different areas cost less. You either adjust the payout based on geography or do something.
OK, so you admit you were wrong about level funding. Thanks.
You dont bury your head in the sand over silly semantics.
You said we should have level funding. I pointed out how that's stupid. And then you agree, and you still blame me for it. You're being an ass. Please don't be an ass.
That said, there is no way in hell you could give different dollar amounts based on cost-of-living.
Then you will necessarily have funding that significantly helps one area more than another, which is exactly what you said we shouldn't have.
Sucks, but that is life...
Yes, but you're only arguing against yourself here.
You dont seem understand why these systems exist and why they might have evolved into what they are now.
You're lying about me again. Please stop lying about me.
Or if the state wants all their public schools to teach intelligent design...
It absolutely should be allowed.
Want to improve education? Operate at the neighborhood level. The community can figure out the best way to educate their kids.
Absolutely right.
But the devil is in the details
Right, which is why we don't want the federal government to violate the Constitution by micromanaging the schools. Indeed, this is WHY it is unconstitutional.
we value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status
Yep.
That means the federal government has an obligation to make sure a child in one state has as good of an education as in another.
Absolutely false. There's no logic in your claim whatsoever. The Constitution gives no authority to the government to have anything to do with education, so therefore controlling it is unconstitutional via the 10th Amendment.
And even if it were not unconstitutional, there is still no obligation for created equality in education, just like there is no created obligation for equality in government in ANYTHING except for equal recognition of RIGHTS and equal TREATMENT under the law. That's it.
And even if you could show how this obligation exists, which you cannot, it IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO. A good education for a kid in Watts is not necessarily the same as a good education for a kid in Buffalo or Coeur d'Alene or Nashville or Red Bluff. The only way to determine what IS a good education is for the COMMUNITY to determine it.
That means that regardless of what crazy sounding idea the neighborhood comes up with...
... no one else has any business telling them they are wrong, unless it violates someone's rights.
... a student there should graduate with the same knowledge as from some other place.
Utter nonsense and impossible for you to back up.
One of the easiest roles the federal government can play in ensuring equity is leveling the playing field so all school districts get the same funding.
Um. You are contradicting yourself. Level per-student funding for every school district in the nation will ENSURE INEQUITY, because different school districts are in different areas where costs are different! This is a no-brainer.
You really don't understand the law, the concept of rights, or the education system.
The headline is completely false and misrepresents the article, too: the report did NOT conclude the Internet is not dangerous. It only concluded the danger is "overblown."
Of course the Internet is dangerous for kids. That's a no-brainer. Only by shutting your eyes to the facts can you possibly come to another conclusion. There's plenty of examples of it.
Is it an epidemic? Not according to most definitions of the word. Will most kids be solicited? No. Is there a real danger out there? Of course.
Is the danger "overblown"? Ask the parents of the victims.
Those of you claiming the danger doesn't exist are just as bad as the people saying there's a predator around every corner. There's a middle ground: realize the danger IS there, but take precautions and don't let it control your life.
I was speaking generally, not just about this specific thread.
So was I.
You claim that all your accusations of lying stem from intentional misuse of the truth.
Yes. And I claim that it is possible that I am wrong about the intent.
That is simply not true.
Yes, it absolutely is.
Unless you are psychic, you can't possibly be as infallible at detecting intention as you can to be.
"can to be"?
Regardless, unless you are lying, you can't possibly believe that I believe I am infallible, since as I've told you three times now, I recognize the fact that I could be wrong, which is an explicit DISclaim of infallibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Of course, 45.3% is not the average, but the outlier, as 35% is the top rate. Most middle class people are 25-28% federal rate. So let's say 25%, plus (just for the sake of argument) 5% in state, that's 30%, plus 15% in payroll. That's 45% right there. Of course, they don't quite get added that way, and there's deductions, and so on. But on top of that we also have many taxes we pay for without even knowing: for many goods and services, half or more of what we spend is to pay for taxes.
Well, I think it's not so clear cut what "actually belongs to them" considering all the shenanigans and manipulation of the legal system that people in power have been able to get away with over the last few decades. Robber barons may have had the law on their side at the time, but that doesn't necessarily make what they did morally correct.
Most conservatives, and most people yowling the most, are not "robber barons," but middle class workers. So that's kinda irrelevant.
I suspect it's often due to corrupt practices that take government money and hand it out like candy to well connected "whining conservatives".
No, indeed, almost all actual conservatives CONDEMN such corporate handouts and subsidies and corruptions. Pro-business is not the same as conservative. You're arguing a different argument here.
Is there really some vast underbelly of lazy Americans glutting themselves on the hardworking taxpayer, are they the primary cause of our deficits?
Nice straw man. No one is claiming this. No one is saying that Medicare and Social Security and other welfare recipients are lazy. But, they are vast, and they are one of the primary causes of our deficits, not just now, but into the future.
The #1 primary cause is skyrocketing health care costs
No.
... and the fact that young, healthy, individualistic types don't even want to think about, much less pay for, all the expensive health care they will involuntarily require at some point down the road after they are no longer economically viable.
So you are explicitly arguing that the cause of our deficits is people who don't want MORE THAN HALF of their income taxed. Wow.
"Well, how would you like to pay 50% in taxes?" The thing is, for those of us who get their money from income (most people), we already do.
Yeah, it's terrible. And if we had universal health care it would skyrocket beyond that!
The difference is that the "whining" that conservatives complained about was people wanting to be given something that was taken by force from someone else
So we are having this discussion in the context of the founding fathers eh? Think hard, wasn't there something valuable they took from American Indians and African slaves by force?
What's sad is that you find this to be relevant. Your argument, as expressed, is that any conception they had of liberty is irrelevant because they kept the slave trade legal. I hope you don't actually believe that; regardless, most Americans certainly do not. Most Americans still believe in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But don't worry. I'm sure Latinos will be strongly against wealth redistribution too - just as soon as they control 90% of it.
Everyone who believes in liberty is against wealth redistribution, since by its nature it denies liberty.
I have to question the probability of success given all the bru-ha-ha over taxes and "tea parties" yesterday. Though, really, those protests mean nothing unless the protesters are united in which govt. services to cut, or who should take up the tax burden, to relieve their supposed "overtaxation."
The average tax burden for Americans is -- just in direct taxes -- about 40 percent of our income. If you had proposed that to a Founding Father, you'd likely have been hanged or shot. Most Americans believe it's obviously true that we are overtaxed.
What I really think we're about to see is conservative whites in America learning what it's like to be a minority in a democracy - what they derided as "whining" by blacks and other minorities for all these years.
The difference is that the "whining" that conservatives complained about was people wanting to be given something that was taken by force from someone else, whereas conservatives are "whining" about not being able to keep what actually belongs to them.
/we whistle innocently
PS3 Trophies FTW. I am level 6!
The artist who did thru-you, *is* a multiinstrumentalist. He does play live.
Then he fits the broad profile I described for someone who could make a living at this.
How is it three people responded "Girl Talk," who does live shows, when I explicitly excepted people who do live shows? :-)
Um, he is successful because does live performances. A lot of them. Which is what I said.
No, but you need to be able to actually do things live. Mashups won't make you any money, unless, of course, you can sell them, which you can't do if they aren't IP-clean.
I forgot to add that if you elect people that believe that government is the problem, you get shitty government - they don't believe it can work so they don't actually try.
That's an idiotic claim, for many reasons. First, on its face, it's false. Take me, for example: I think government is usually the problem, yet I work to improve it.
Second, if we are successful in reducing the amount of government in our lives, then there's no problem: government isn't there, so there's nothing about government to be "shitty" except for the parts we agree should remain.
Look at the difference in FEMA under Clinton and Bush
Almost none. Or have you actually believed the bullshit about Bush running FEMA into the ground? You've been lied to.
I don't believe that government is the answer for every problem
Funny, because that is actually what you are arguing. I made the claim that the federal government is bad for education, and you proceeded to argue against me on principle that government is good; therefore, your actual argument being made is that government is the answer for everything.
I know that's not what you meant; indeed, you simply read your preconceptions into what I wrote and argued against a straw man. But it's the argument you made, whether intended or not.
I might actually agree with you that it shouldn't be involved in education, but providing funding, especially in the current economic environment, seems like it could be helpful.
I don't see how. You do realize that the funding doesn't exist, that it has to be borrowed, and that if this money were absolutely needed, the states could raise it on their own in a similar fashion, through borrowing? Every governor and legislator begging for federal money right now is simply shirking responsiblity by trying to pass it off to the feds.
Aside from the useless snipe at Obama
Nothing useless about it. It's a huge part of the point.
this is a ridiculous statement.
Not remotely.
Someone who believes the federal government can't get anything right isn't serious about good government.
First, you misrepresent my position, and obviously you're doing it intentionally, since I never hinted in any way that I believe that the federal government can't get anything right. I said it cannot get local public education right. And I explained why in previous posts: what makes a good education in one community is not what makes good education in another school. This country has a huge amount of diversity, and good education of children does not lend itself well to central control.
I won't respond to the rest of your post, as it has nothing to do with anything I said.
The crux of my original argument (or question, really) is...
How to you ensure every child has a fair go at things regardless of where they live in our country?
Local control, of course. I hope you don't mean "equal" go at things. Fair != equal. Two very different things. And I've only rarely seen examples where a child did not have a fair chance at education in this country, and that's usually in the inner cities, where the states are responsible for providing greater resources or regulation etc.
My chip at the solution is simply that the federal government ensures a level financial playing field
... which you admitted is not possible! Why do you keep saying your solution is one that you admit is not possible? It's maddening.
But I believe it is fair to say that it the fact that schools funded by communities with "rich parents" and a big tax base are at an advantage over those with a small tax-base and "poor parents".
So? Again, fairness does not require equality. Fairness implies a MINIMUM standard, that some can go beyond. Equality implies the SAME standard that no one may go above or below.
I also believe that the federal government is probably the best, most efficient way to level the financial aspect of education.
Again: you admit level funding is impossible.
States can't do it because even their tax-base varies per-capita.
You have given no reason for anyone to believe that funding is tied to fairness, in the general case. (Of course, the most economically depressed areas cannot solve some of their problems without increased funding, but that is the exception, not the rule, and can be treated as such; and this discussion is about the general case, as I understand it.)
doesn't negate the fact there *is* a problem
You have not demonstrated there IS a problem that is in any way tied to funding.
As far as constitutionality, that is somewhat of a separate debate.
Yes, which is why I didn't detail it, but it is worthy of note.
I don't believe the solution is say "the feds can't do anything, see also: the constitution".
No, but it's part of the solution to remind people not only of what the Constitution says, but WHY it says it. The answer is, of course, local control. As Madison said, for government to take over everything, including the schools, would be to subvert the very foundations of the limited federal government established by the people of the United States.
It's about liberty. It's no less appropriate for me to say federal control of education is unconstitutional as it is for me to say warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional. Both are unconstitutioal for the same basic reason: liberty.
And besides, anything you cook up against me I'll label "but this is for the general welfare" and from there we go back and forth without ever trying to solve the damn problem :-)
Nope. Madison's argument that I referenced above was explicitly stating that "general welfare" is NOT a license to do anything that you think is in the general welfare. And as he WROTE the Bill of Rights, including the Tenth Amendment, he should know. You cannot justify anything by "general welfare," you have to justify it by the enumerated powers that follow in Article I, Section 8.
Note that by your interpretation of "general welfare," the Tenth Amendment has no meaning whatsoever, which obviously isn't logical.
How do "local communities" know better than "scientists who study how the world really works"?
I find that to be a bizarre question. How could a scientist possibly know better than the local community about how to educate their own children?
Education is far more than what is right and wrong. We still teach Newtonian physics even though we know it's wrong. And further, there is no scientific evidence that Intelligent Design IS wrong, while there's plenty that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Is it really not anyone else's problem that these local communities would be churning out future workers and citizens that have no understanding of science and critical thinking?
If you think a belief in Intelligent Design represents a lack of understanding of science and critical thinking, then you do not understand at least one of those three things.
You know what I meant by level funding ...
NOW I do, yes. At the time, I thought you meant what you wrote. Now I know you meant something that is politically impossible. If you think I read your mind at any point, that I knew you didn't really mean level funding when you said level funding, you're wrong. I work with government: level means level. I took you to mean the normal sense of the words you were using.
I have no problem with you saying you meant something else. Fine. You're the only one who keeps dwelling on it. I do have a problem with you attacking me for your error, and even worse, for continuing to push this view of funding that you admit can't work.
Keep in mind you are wasting your time because we are talking abstract stuff here ...
No, we are talking about how much funding schools get. That is not abstract at all.
Seriously. Semantic wars are boring, useless and really just a way to show off.
Oh please. You're incredibly transparent. You have admitted what you propose cannot work. You have invented constitutional obligations that don't exist. What you are doing is attacking me because you cannot defend your arguments.
Why don't we try solving problems instead of partisan bickering. We all want the same damn thing--a good education for our kids, right?
Oh yes, no "partisan bickering." This is the Obama Way: let's not bicker. Just agree with me!
You're dishonestly trying to frame the debate: I want a good education for my kids, which REQUIRES that the federal government is not involved. But you demand the federal government be involved. This is a fundamental disagreement. Your way, to me, would exacerbate problems, and not solve a damned thing.
My main argument was (at least I hoped), that the federal government can ensure that everybody gets the same funding
How can this still be your argument when you've admitted it can't work?
I'd argue very strongly that a child born in po-dunk USA with a tiny tax base gets the ability to access the same learning materials and brainpower (i.e. teachers) as somebody living in some rich suburb full of software engineers.
Fine, then argue it. Just try to argue it. You've not yet done so. Tell me why this is a good thing. Tell me why the federal government has an interest in determining this. Tell me how it is feasible, since you've already admitted it is not.
As to how that funding is actually managed, that is up to the neighborhood or city.
That contradicts your claim that the kids get the same ability to access the same learning materials and brainpower. If the funding is managed by the community, then that necessarily means the kids MIGHT NOT get the same access.
Of course, you have already admitted that this equal access is impossible anyway.
Hah, you picked apart a single word tacked on the front of funding
You're lying. I simply responded to what you wrote. You say now you didn't mean what you wrote; fine. But blaming me for your error is being an ass.
... even though that really has *nothing* to do with the broad concept being discussed.
Please stop lying. Your argument CULMINATED in a particular practical application: level funding. And now you're saying that had nothing to do with the discussion, even though that was the single proposed solution you provided?
Dont take what you read so literally, ass
Please stop lying. It is not a matter of literalism. There are only two ways to take what you wrote: literal level funding, or some sort of proportional level funding. And you have now admitted the former will not provide the equality you said it would, and that the latter is politically impossible.
In other words, you have admitted you HAVE no argument.
And yet you still blame me for pointing out these facts.
So yes, you're being an ass.
You think teaching intelligent design is something a taxpayer funded school should be doing?
I think local communities should make their own educational decisions, yes. They know better than you do.
Good sir, I beg to differ.
Unless it's your community, what you think doesn't matter.
Ain't that a violation of another one of those pesky lines in the constitution--you know, the one about separation of church and state?
No, I don't know the one, because it doesn't exist. If you want to point to a line in the Constitution, pick one that's actually there.
That said, if the courts rule that Intelligent Design is a violation of the Constitution (the actual Constitution, not your imaginary one), even though I disagree, then I support it being excluded for that reason.
What if the community doesn't have a large enough tax base to pay for it? What if they barely have any tax base to pay for a quality eduation?
You are conflating CONTROL with FUNDING. Two very different things. And funding is not "federal" vs. "community." Most states actually control the funding, in my experience (Massachusetts, California, Washington), and I support this.
we [Americans] value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status
You agree with this, yet you cannot see how letting communities or even states be entirely responsible for school funding can lead to huge disparity in education between geographic regions?
Now you are conflating FAIR with EQUAL. Again, two very different things. I do not care about "disparity" because it is absolutely inevitable. It is NOT POSSIBLE to not have significant disparity in a country 3000 miles wide with 300 million people in it, and even if it were possible to do, we wouldn't like the result, because it would be treating everyone the same, even when they live in very different circumstances and SHOULD NOT be treated the same.
There's another word for disparity: diversirty. And it is a good thing. It's not something to be avoided. (Again, as long as no one's rights are being violated.)
Level per-student funding for every school district in the nation will ENSURE INEQUITY, because different school districts are in different areas where costs are different! This is a no-brainer.
This is a cop-out to avoid solving problems.
You're lying about me. Please do not lie about me. Thanks.
Obviously different areas cost less. You either adjust the payout based on geography or do something.
OK, so you admit you were wrong about level funding. Thanks.
You dont bury your head in the sand over silly semantics.
You said we should have level funding. I pointed out how that's stupid. And then you agree, and you still blame me for it. You're being an ass. Please don't be an ass.
That said, there is no way in hell you could give different dollar amounts based on cost-of-living.
Then you will necessarily have funding that significantly helps one area more than another, which is exactly what you said we shouldn't have.
Sucks, but that is life...
Yes, but you're only arguing against yourself here.
You dont seem understand why these systems exist and why they might have evolved into what they are now.
You're lying about me again. Please stop lying about me.
And while we are at it, lets dump Brown vs. Board of Education too while we are at it, eh?
Equal rights is a different issue.
Or if the state wants all their public schools to teach intelligent design ...
It absolutely should be allowed.
Want to improve education? Operate at the neighborhood level. The community can figure out the best way to educate their kids.
Absolutely right.
But the devil is in the details
Right, which is why we don't want the federal government to violate the Constitution by micromanaging the schools. Indeed, this is WHY it is unconstitutional.
we value providing a fair chance to anybody regardless of socio-economic status
Yep.
That means the federal government has an obligation to make sure a child in one state has as good of an education as in another.
Absolutely false. There's no logic in your claim whatsoever. The Constitution gives no authority to the government to have anything to do with education, so therefore controlling it is unconstitutional via the 10th Amendment.
And even if it were not unconstitutional, there is still no obligation for created equality in education, just like there is no created obligation for equality in government in ANYTHING except for equal recognition of RIGHTS and equal TREATMENT under the law. That's it.
And even if you could show how this obligation exists, which you cannot, it IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO. A good education for a kid in Watts is not necessarily the same as a good education for a kid in Buffalo or Coeur d'Alene or Nashville or Red Bluff. The only way to determine what IS a good education is for the COMMUNITY to determine it.
That means that regardless of what crazy sounding idea the neighborhood comes up with ...
... no one else has any business telling them they are wrong, unless it violates someone's rights.
... a student there should graduate with the same knowledge as from some other place.
Utter nonsense and impossible for you to back up.
One of the easiest roles the federal government can play in ensuring equity is leveling the playing field so all school districts get the same funding.
Um. You are contradicting yourself. Level per-student funding for every school district in the nation will ENSURE INEQUITY, because different school districts are in different areas where costs are different! This is a no-brainer.
You really don't understand the law, the concept of rights, or the education system.
The headline is completely false and misrepresents the article, too: the report did NOT conclude the Internet is not dangerous. It only concluded the danger is "overblown."
Of course the Internet is dangerous for kids. That's a no-brainer. Only by shutting your eyes to the facts can you possibly come to another conclusion. There's plenty of examples of it.
Is it an epidemic? Not according to most definitions of the word. Will most kids be solicited? No. Is there a real danger out there? Of course.
Is the danger "overblown"? Ask the parents of the victims.
Those of you claiming the danger doesn't exist are just as bad as the people saying there's a predator around every corner. There's a middle ground: realize the danger IS there, but take precautions and don't let it control your life.
What is a lie? That I never said that you said that I am infallible?
Then perhaps you would quote me saying this, thus proving I am lying?
I never said you were infallible.
I never said you did. Read my words again and feel silly.
I was speaking generally, not just about this specific thread.
So was I.
You claim that all your accusations of lying stem from intentional misuse of the truth.
Yes. And I claim that it is possible that I am wrong about the intent.
That is simply not true.
Yes, it absolutely is.
Unless you are psychic, you can't possibly be as infallible at detecting intention as you can to be.
"can to be"?
Regardless, unless you are lying, you can't possibly believe that I believe I am infallible, since as I've told you three times now, I recognize the fact that I could be wrong, which is an explicit DISclaim of infallibility.