But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
So you'd throw people in prison for speaking, if you don't like their opinion? Wow, that's lots of freedom you propose there.
That, and I don't think they can't make it, and wouldn't tell them that. You are just lying to make your argument sound better. It isn't working.
What are you talking about? The question was about a rescue. There was no rescue for Columbus. There is no rescue for many on Everest. When you go somewhere difficult, you waive your rights to rescue. That was the point, not an existential waxing on mortality.
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
I know some that don't. And some that do have preferences for feeder schools, family, location and other things, so that, in practice, there aren't too many spots left for the lotteries, which are mainly for show. And, as others pointed out, they can expel at any time for almost anything. And I've seen more than one indicate "pull your kid, or he'll be expelled, and that'll end up on his permanent record". They don't even need to expel to get rid of children. There are children in public schools with violent felonies that can't be expelled.
Nope. Cherry picking from an applicant pool is cherry picking. Oh, and public colleges to reach out and help encourage some specific people to apply. That is cherry picking.
And public schools don't have unlimited seats, you can be bused if your local school is full.
That's the theory. But I've never seen it happen in practice. One school will get some temporary buildings set up, while the next nearest school will shut down an unused wing. Before they "closed" Dealy Elementary in Dallas (and re-opened it as a non-neighborhood school), it was mostly empty, while John J Persing, not too far away had the temporary buildings taking up space on the field, packing in more children.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility? And you see no problem with that? It's bad for the father to be listed, and no gain to the mother to have him listed. It's bad for the mother to have him listed, and no gain to the father. The system set up multiple advantages to not listing a father, and few disincentives. And the real person that loses is the child. And you see harming the children as a good thing, so long as you can blame your harm on a parent. That's stupid and hurts society in general.
With the my sister analogy: she chose to break the rules of our agreement so she would be responsible for the consequences it has on her children.
You are punishing her for her actions, and that harms her children. I understand you seem to hate using the word "punish". That doesn't change what it is and what it does.
You aren't punishing people by refusing to help them regardless of how they've gotten themselves into the mess or whether or not they have made reasonable efforts to improve their situation.
They do cherry pick the students, from the applicants. Public schools can't turn anyone away, but charters can. And you don't see that as an inequality?
So merchants should get together and form a payment coop that is as attractive to consumers as Visa. Isn't that the free market? Anyone harmed in the market can fix it. That's how Discover Card came about.
Then it's not a hand out, it's a job. "do this, and you'll be paid for your time, but your actions will be observed and if sub-standard, you'll be fired" That's not a hand out, that's a job. I think the problem is that we are in agreement that welfare is a bit poor right now. It's essentially a full-time job to sit at home unproductively for 1/10th minimum wage.
But you didn't address the point. The "conditions" harm the child if the parent doesn't perform. For your sister's situation, if she needs the money to stay where she is, but moves to a nicer place, so you cut her off, wouldn't that hurt her children? How do you punish the parent without performing worse punishment on the children?
Because child support orders can be higher than the income by the parent. Does that make any sense? If you loved someone, why would you sentence them to payments they couldn't afford?
Also, a single mother who names a father loses rights.
So if they intend to be with them forever, naming them harms them. And if they don't, the mother harms herself.
The system is designed to punish unmarried parents. Seems that's the cause of the problem you are complaining about.
Confirmation bias of what? That my anecdote is a counterpoint to the GP's anecdote? I didn't "claim" anything. The other guy indicated a claim, and an anecdote to support it. I was just offering another anecdote.
In Texas (Dallas ISD), many schools had breakfast and lunch. Especially in the poorer areas. I know others who grew up in poorer areas, and they had subsidized lunch cards, but no lunches. That makes it hard to get good nutrition to children.
What do you do with children the parents don't want? The same people trying their best to block contraception education and availability are also trying to cut support for children and prevent abortions. So what is to be done?
I hadn't really thought about it, until just now. It's sad every fall, when the PFDs come out (Alaskan payment for every resident). The families with 2 parents and 3 kids get one for every kid, paid to the parents.. $20,000 per kid over the years until the kid can collect for themselves. When it comes, there are sales on boats and snowmobiles and 4x4s. Clothes, books, toys? Nah, we'll get that next year. Sometimes those with kids make the worst parents. Saving for college? nah, we'll do that never, debt is good for you.
What's the tragedy of the commons? Taking advantage of programs and opportunities to better oneself? I should go back and give back all the merit-based scholarships I used to help me get out of college debt-free. Funny how Bush Jr., who was let in college based on who his daddy is, is against programs which help people based on who their daddy is.
USA is the biggest spender of money that it doesn't have because the world subsidises it with all the goods for the fake dollars, fake, because you can't actually buy anything with those dollars if you bring them back to the US.
Why don't the re-imported US dollars work in the US? I've sent money back from abroad to the US, and used it to buy real things (like real estate).
The coming collapse will set many things in place, of-course many, like you, will not understand its nature, just like you didn't understand the nature of the last one.
I moved to another country because I agree with you about the collapse. Collectivism wasn't the problem, but partisanship. If the elections were changed tomorrow to Mixed Member Proportional, the "fringe" parties would massively gain power, forcing the Republicrats (or Demoblicans, if you prefer) to separate into two parties and allow much more diverse options. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (both) were democrats, and Clinton was a Republican. The real reason the Republicans hate Bill Clinton is that he was a better Republican than the Republicans that came before or after him.
Get some choice and options in there, and the people will have better options, and might actually get interested in politics.
Collectivism isn't the problem, it's working elsewhere, better than the US.
I'd propose something that benefited the children more directly. Pay "welfare" to the children directly in clothes and food (food given as breakfast, lunch, and pre-dinner at schools). Cut the parent's payments appropriately, and you'll have a cheaper and better system.
Travel. Spend time in the "socialist" countries. Those with strong welfare programs often have less of an entitlement society than we do. They have much greater payments, designed for a shorter time. Unemployed with no education? Get paid to get an education - then go work. Here, they pay so little that you can't afford to better yourself while on welfare. The lower the support, the more the entitlement society exists.
And your idea is fascism, not democracy. When the people make a choice you don't like, that's not anti-freedom. It's democracy. You must live under the rules of your society. If you hate democracy so much, move. North Korea has much less Democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said anyone was "entitled" to anything. When you start lying, I know you are done. Thanks for playing, is was almost interesting.
But I would gladly spend money on prisons for people like you that would rather tell them they can't make it and keep them dependent on your bureaucracy and state-run ghetto housing.
So you'd throw people in prison for speaking, if you don't like their opinion? Wow, that's lots of freedom you propose there.
That, and I don't think they can't make it, and wouldn't tell them that. You are just lying to make your argument sound better. It isn't working.
What are you talking about? The question was about a rescue. There was no rescue for Columbus. There is no rescue for many on Everest. When you go somewhere difficult, you waive your rights to rescue. That was the point, not an existential waxing on mortality.
You are responsible for them, even if you don't want to. The options are, help them when they are children, or house them in prisions when they are older. Why do you prefer prisions to education?
I know some that don't. And some that do have preferences for feeder schools, family, location and other things, so that, in practice, there aren't too many spots left for the lotteries, which are mainly for show. And, as others pointed out, they can expel at any time for almost anything. And I've seen more than one indicate "pull your kid, or he'll be expelled, and that'll end up on his permanent record". They don't even need to expel to get rid of children. There are children in public schools with violent felonies that can't be expelled.
See the difference?
Nope. Cherry picking from an applicant pool is cherry picking. Oh, and public colleges to reach out and help encourage some specific people to apply. That is cherry picking.
And public schools don't have unlimited seats, you can be bused if your local school is full.
That's the theory. But I've never seen it happen in practice. One school will get some temporary buildings set up, while the next nearest school will shut down an unused wing. Before they "closed" Dealy Elementary in Dallas (and re-opened it as a non-neighborhood school), it was mostly empty, while John J Persing, not too far away had the temporary buildings taking up space on the field, packing in more children.
So, you propose to increase responsibility by punishing those who claim responsibility? And you see no problem with that? It's bad for the father to be listed, and no gain to the mother to have him listed. It's bad for the mother to have him listed, and no gain to the father. The system set up multiple advantages to not listing a father, and few disincentives. And the real person that loses is the child. And you see harming the children as a good thing, so long as you can blame your harm on a parent. That's stupid and hurts society in general.
With the my sister analogy: she chose to break the rules of our agreement so she would be responsible for the consequences it has on her children.
You are punishing her for her actions, and that harms her children. I understand you seem to hate using the word "punish". That doesn't change what it is and what it does.
You aren't punishing people by refusing to help them regardless of how they've gotten themselves into the mess or whether or not they have made reasonable efforts to improve their situation.
Yes. Yes you are.
They do cherry pick the students, from the applicants. Public schools can't turn anyone away, but charters can. And you don't see that as an inequality?
So merchants should get together and form a payment coop that is as attractive to consumers as Visa. Isn't that the free market? Anyone harmed in the market can fix it. That's how Discover Card came about.
Then it's not a hand out, it's a job. "do this, and you'll be paid for your time, but your actions will be observed and if sub-standard, you'll be fired" That's not a hand out, that's a job. I think the problem is that we are in agreement that welfare is a bit poor right now. It's essentially a full-time job to sit at home unproductively for 1/10th minimum wage.
But you didn't address the point. The "conditions" harm the child if the parent doesn't perform. For your sister's situation, if she needs the money to stay where she is, but moves to a nicer place, so you cut her off, wouldn't that hurt her children? How do you punish the parent without performing worse punishment on the children?
Because child support orders can be higher than the income by the parent. Does that make any sense? If you loved someone, why would you sentence them to payments they couldn't afford?
Also, a single mother who names a father loses rights.
So if they intend to be with them forever, naming them harms them. And if they don't, the mother harms herself.
The system is designed to punish unmarried parents. Seems that's the cause of the problem you are complaining about.
I am. Why aren't you?
However, your assertion that banks were not forced by the CRA to issue sub-prime loans is simply false.
Prior to the meltdown did CRA loans fail more or less than similar loans not under CRA?
Confirmation bias of what? That my anecdote is a counterpoint to the GP's anecdote? I didn't "claim" anything. The other guy indicated a claim, and an anecdote to support it. I was just offering another anecdote.
In Texas (Dallas ISD), many schools had breakfast and lunch. Especially in the poorer areas. I know others who grew up in poorer areas, and they had subsidized lunch cards, but no lunches. That makes it hard to get good nutrition to children.
What do you do with children the parents don't want? The same people trying their best to block contraception education and availability are also trying to cut support for children and prevent abortions. So what is to be done?
I hadn't really thought about it, until just now. It's sad every fall, when the PFDs come out (Alaskan payment for every resident). The families with 2 parents and 3 kids get one for every kid, paid to the parents.. $20,000 per kid over the years until the kid can collect for themselves. When it comes, there are sales on boats and snowmobiles and 4x4s. Clothes, books, toys? Nah, we'll get that next year. Sometimes those with kids make the worst parents. Saving for college? nah, we'll do that never, debt is good for you.
When they do, it's easy to find out and prosecute, and the whistleblower loses their job.
What's the tragedy of the commons? Taking advantage of programs and opportunities to better oneself? I should go back and give back all the merit-based scholarships I used to help me get out of college debt-free. Funny how Bush Jr., who was let in college based on who his daddy is, is against programs which help people based on who their daddy is.
Yes, you don't believe in democracy, collectivism, or capitalism. What do you believe in?
USA is the biggest spender of money that it doesn't have because the world subsidises it with all the goods for the fake dollars, fake, because you can't actually buy anything with those dollars if you bring them back to the US.
Why don't the re-imported US dollars work in the US? I've sent money back from abroad to the US, and used it to buy real things (like real estate).
The coming collapse will set many things in place, of-course many, like you, will not understand its nature, just like you didn't understand the nature of the last one.
I moved to another country because I agree with you about the collapse. Collectivism wasn't the problem, but partisanship. If the elections were changed tomorrow to Mixed Member Proportional, the "fringe" parties would massively gain power, forcing the Republicrats (or Demoblicans, if you prefer) to separate into two parties and allow much more diverse options. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (both) were democrats, and Clinton was a Republican. The real reason the Republicans hate Bill Clinton is that he was a better Republican than the Republicans that came before or after him.
Get some choice and options in there, and the people will have better options, and might actually get interested in politics.
Collectivism isn't the problem, it's working elsewhere, better than the US.
I'd propose something that benefited the children more directly. Pay "welfare" to the children directly in clothes and food (food given as breakfast, lunch, and pre-dinner at schools). Cut the parent's payments appropriately, and you'll have a cheaper and better system.
She's not taking the risk. The child is hurt more than she is by your desire to punish the poor.
Sounds like WIC, not food stamps.
Travel. Spend time in the "socialist" countries. Those with strong welfare programs often have less of an entitlement society than we do. They have much greater payments, designed for a shorter time. Unemployed with no education? Get paid to get an education - then go work. Here, they pay so little that you can't afford to better yourself while on welfare. The lower the support, the more the entitlement society exists.
And your idea is fascism, not democracy. When the people make a choice you don't like, that's not anti-freedom. It's democracy. You must live under the rules of your society. If you hate democracy so much, move. North Korea has much less Democracy.