The Tea Party does not control any branches of Congress. They can't "have votes". Every single Republican is united in voting against Obamacare, including the fraction of Republicans that are Tea Party people. The Republicans can "have votes" on Obamacare because they all agree.
How many times did the Libertarian Party have votes against the TSA? None? I guess the Libertarian Party doesn't care about freedom either. Right?
Back then, I bet some people used the "excuse" that they wouldn't support a government that enabled slavery.
And the government-power supporters of the time probably claimed it was a "justification". Because they didn't want to talk about how they were supporting slavery, just like the government apologists of today don't want to talk about how they're supporting government corruption.
Scandinavia and Canada don't have the government corruption problems we have in the US. Big government is a hard sell when people know it will just be used against them to enrich lobbyists and cronies and union bosses and lawyers and already-rich farmers and rent-seeking corporations. Law and order is a hard sell when people know the laws only apply to the little people, never to the ruling class.
what is "teabagger event"? There are events now? Tea Party is 10-20% of voters. You don't need to go to an "event" to find them.
And if he talked to Tea Party people about wanting to change the schools, they would realize that they need to break the union stranglehold to make any real changes that either of them wants. They could agree to be allies against a common opponent. Lots of Tea Party people want better schools for poor kids -- which is similar to "equal" schools.
The Tea Party people would probably say that once the union is no longer involved, funding at current levels will be more than adequate to help poor kids. They might disagree on that. But it doesn't matter at all until the union stranglehold is broken.
Policy wonks will applaud. Everyone else will quit reading after 2 lines.
I'm telling people to stop hiring the government to steal from their neighbors. Because it's wrong to steal from people, and it's especially wrong to steal from people when you have other options. To be "less abrasive" is to fail to communicate the point.
Ok. Thanks for explaining the distinction. I'm sure it's an interesting distinction for a statistician.
Still not sure why it matters to anyone else though. I guess maybe we would find out that Tea Party people got more government education, but learned less. And that led them to be less grateful for what the government provided them in exchange for their time and expense.
The reason the story is interesting to non-statisticians is because anti-Tea Party stereotypes are proven wrong. We're less interested in precisely what way they're wrong or by precisely how much.
If Tea Party people are more knowledgeable than the average voter on science matters, maybe we should listen to them a little more. And if the people who stereotyped Tea Party people are demonstrably wrong about things like this, maybe we shouldn't listen to them quite as much.
It's not 1950 any more. Rural electrification is complete. Rural telephone service is complete. Mission accomplished. Time to stop taking money from innocent people to pay for a program that accomplished 100% of it's original mission a long, long time ago.
The absolute smallest amount possible, after everything else has been tried.
When government is actually helping people, it's often not necessary to threaten people to get their money. Roads can be built with money from the road users' fuel taxes. Air traffic control can be paid for by taxing fliers' airline tickets. Food inspections can be paid by taxing food -- and if it's too expensive to pay the tax, let people buy un-inspected food or food certified by non-government inspectors, like the guys who certify food is kosher. Courts can be funded by a surcharge on unsuccessful plaintiffs. Local businesses will probably be glad to pay a reasonable tax to fund an effective police force. Fire departments can be funded by a local tax on the property that the fire department protects from fire -- or by direct membership fees charged for fire protection. Sewers can be funded by charging home owners and businesses for service. The same goes for water. Trash pickup is often wholly privatized.
Stealing money from person A to give to person B requires the threat of force.
What does this have to do with whether Tea Party sympathizers understand science or not? What is the precise benefit of controlling for years of education? Do we care whether Tea Party people have more or less science knowledge than non-Tea Party people with the same number of years of formal education? Why?
Do you want to condemn the Tea Party as being above average, but less above average than some other group of people? Who? And why?
Does this article explain why science knowledge might not result from education? I looked at the article. Notwithstanding Simpson's Paradox, I'm still pretty sure science knowledge mostly comes from education.
So what? The unions own the schools, the kids, and the politicians. There's nothing you can do about it.
If you want a true "socialist" education, you're going to have to vote for people who want to get rid of the current system, not people who want to defend it. Talk to your local Tea Partier about that. Maybe you'll find out you have an opponent in common.
Or just whine about how it's not fair and keep voting for the same people.
In the US, we don't have the system you've described in your story. Government education is extremely expensive and the children who learn useful things mostly live in wealthy areas. Children who live in poor areas get a much worse education at a roughly similar cost. Almost all of the money goes to pay union staff who get paid regardless of whether the children learn. And no substantive reforms are possible because the unions own the politicians.
Meritocracy is a good theme for a story. But government is about money, power, and control. People with merit are generally seen as a threat to that power or a resource to be exploited. Anyone who achieves anything is subject to taxation, audits, suspicion, and coercion by government -- unless they have powerful government cronies.
If we could have a socialist government that works, like some European countries, that would be a lot better than what we have now. We could actually have smaller, more honest government then. But we can't. Government in the US is corrupt. It's not like in your stories.
Not paying for phones is cheaper than paying for phones. That's my analysis: $0 is less than $2 Billion. The government should not pay for any kind of free phones for anyone. And they shouldn't bully anyone else into paying for them either.
People who want phones should do something useful, get paid for it, and then buy phones. Or they should ask for charity, demonstrate a genuine need, and then charities will help them get a cheap phone.
Hiring a politician to steal a phone for you shouldn't be one of the choices. But you keep saying: we could either have them take $20 from innocent people or take $10. See how efficient we are for only taking $10? No. Stop looting your neighbors for free stuff.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
Well, if you don't provide those services by phone, then you need to have lots more employees in regional offices to provide those services for them to be accessible in person.
Slashdot Mirror
The Tea Party does not control any branches of Congress. They can't "have votes". Every single Republican is united in voting against Obamacare, including the fraction of Republicans that are Tea Party people. The Republicans can "have votes" on Obamacare because they all agree.
How many times did the Libertarian Party have votes against the TSA? None? I guess the Libertarian Party doesn't care about freedom either. Right?
What did Thailand do to piss them off? What are Boko Harem's victims in Nigeria guilty of?
Nigerians are paying a higher price. I guess you think Nigeria's politicians also meddle in the Middle East?
Also Thailand. They had 173 terrorist incidents in 2011. Their government must meddle in the Middle East a lot.
That must be it.
Back then, I bet some people used the "excuse" that they wouldn't support a government that enabled slavery.
And the government-power supporters of the time probably claimed it was a "justification". Because they didn't want to talk about how they were supporting slavery, just like the government apologists of today don't want to talk about how they're supporting government corruption.
If you want to keep the money you earn in your paycheck, you are scary.
Scandinavia and Canada don't have the government corruption problems we have in the US. Big government is a hard sell when people know it will just be used against them to enrich lobbyists and cronies and union bosses and lawyers and already-rich farmers and rent-seeking corporations. Law and order is a hard sell when people know the laws only apply to the little people, never to the ruling class.
It's not "anarchy" to oppose funding corruption.
what is "teabagger event"? There are events now? Tea Party is 10-20% of voters. You don't need to go to an "event" to find them.
And if he talked to Tea Party people about wanting to change the schools, they would realize that they need to break the union stranglehold to make any real changes that either of them wants. They could agree to be allies against a common opponent. Lots of Tea Party people want better schools for poor kids -- which is similar to "equal" schools.
The Tea Party people would probably say that once the union is no longer involved, funding at current levels will be more than adequate to help poor kids. They might disagree on that. But it doesn't matter at all until the union stranglehold is broken.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Policy wonks will applaud. Everyone else will quit reading after 2 lines.
I'm telling people to stop hiring the government to steal from their neighbors. Because it's wrong to steal from people, and it's especially wrong to steal from people when you have other options. To be "less abrasive" is to fail to communicate the point.
Ok. Thanks for explaining the distinction. I'm sure it's an interesting distinction for a statistician.
Still not sure why it matters to anyone else though. I guess maybe we would find out that Tea Party people got more government education, but learned less. And that led them to be less grateful for what the government provided them in exchange for their time and expense.
The reason the story is interesting to non-statisticians is because anti-Tea Party stereotypes are proven wrong. We're less interested in precisely what way they're wrong or by precisely how much.
If Tea Party people are more knowledgeable than the average voter on science matters, maybe we should listen to them a little more. And if the people who stereotyped Tea Party people are demonstrably wrong about things like this, maybe we shouldn't listen to them quite as much.
It's not 1950 any more. Rural electrification is complete. Rural telephone service is complete. Mission accomplished. Time to stop taking money from innocent people to pay for a program that accomplished 100% of it's original mission a long, long time ago.
The absolute smallest amount possible, after everything else has been tried.
When government is actually helping people, it's often not necessary to threaten people to get their money. Roads can be built with money from the road users' fuel taxes. Air traffic control can be paid for by taxing fliers' airline tickets. Food inspections can be paid by taxing food -- and if it's too expensive to pay the tax, let people buy un-inspected food or food certified by non-government inspectors, like the guys who certify food is kosher. Courts can be funded by a surcharge on unsuccessful plaintiffs. Local businesses will probably be glad to pay a reasonable tax to fund an effective police force. Fire departments can be funded by a local tax on the property that the fire department protects from fire -- or by direct membership fees charged for fire protection. Sewers can be funded by charging home owners and businesses for service. The same goes for water. Trash pickup is often wholly privatized.
Stealing money from person A to give to person B requires the threat of force.
Good. Other people reading this should follow your example.
How about we outlaw murder? Then there will be no more murders.
What does this have to do with whether Tea Party sympathizers understand science or not? What is the precise benefit of controlling for years of education? Do we care whether Tea Party people have more or less science knowledge than non-Tea Party people with the same number of years of formal education? Why?
Do you want to condemn the Tea Party as being above average, but less above average than some other group of people? Who? And why?
Does this article explain why science knowledge might not result from education? I looked at the article. Notwithstanding Simpson's Paradox, I'm still pretty sure science knowledge mostly comes from education.
I guess it's OK to steal from people if you make fun of them first.
So what? The unions own the schools, the kids, and the politicians. There's nothing you can do about it.
If you want a true "socialist" education, you're going to have to vote for people who want to get rid of the current system, not people who want to defend it. Talk to your local Tea Partier about that. Maybe you'll find out you have an opponent in common.
Or just whine about how it's not fair and keep voting for the same people.
In the US, we don't have the system you've described in your story. Government education is extremely expensive and the children who learn useful things mostly live in wealthy areas. Children who live in poor areas get a much worse education at a roughly similar cost. Almost all of the money goes to pay union staff who get paid regardless of whether the children learn. And no substantive reforms are possible because the unions own the politicians.
Meritocracy is a good theme for a story. But government is about money, power, and control. People with merit are generally seen as a threat to that power or a resource to be exploited. Anyone who achieves anything is subject to taxation, audits, suspicion, and coercion by government -- unless they have powerful government cronies.
If we could have a socialist government that works, like some European countries, that would be a lot better than what we have now. We could actually have smaller, more honest government then. But we can't. Government in the US is corrupt. It's not like in your stories.
Let's name it the Slashdot phone program. And then eliminate it and other similar giveaways and save $2 Billion per year.
Not paying for phones is cheaper than paying for phones. That's my analysis: $0 is less than $2 Billion. The government should not pay for any kind of free phones for anyone. And they shouldn't bully anyone else into paying for them either.
People who want phones should do something useful, get paid for it, and then buy phones. Or they should ask for charity, demonstrate a genuine need, and then charities will help them get a cheap phone.
Hiring a politician to steal a phone for you shouldn't be one of the choices. But you keep saying: we could either have them take $20 from innocent people or take $10. See how efficient we are for only taking $10? No. Stop looting your neighbors for free stuff.
Factcheck is just as biased as any other news or advocacy organization.
Obama didn't create the program, but he did expand it. And people who actually pay for their phones instead of free-riding are paying the tax.
It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.
tldr
Well, if you don't provide those services by phone, then you need to have lots more employees in regional offices to provide those services for them to be accessible in person.
Or just don't.