Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, it is. Stop trying to evade the substantive repudiation for what you support with evasions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Wow so much anger.
Not anger: Righteous indignation and the willingness to highlight the indefensible perspectives that others support and advocate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
First, I never lied about what you wrote either in my earlier post nor in the last one.
I disagree. I know what I wrote. I know what you implied in your reply. Your denial is meaningless in that context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Secondly, if you had actually read what I wrote, you would realize that my argument is that the current system actually reinforces achievement gaps instead of eliminating them. ... I do not believe that the poor, on average, would be any worse off if you abolished public-education.
You write a lot of words to try to hide the bottom-line of abolishing public education. You're entitled to hold self-serving beliefs, such as that poor people would be better off uneducated. Don't be surprised when folks call out the offensiveness of such comments.
If there is more to your claptrap than you've included then post it. Prove that you have some magical means by which poor people will suddenly have better opportunities if there wasn't public education. Provide proof, not innuendo, not supposition. Or accept condemnation of the back-handed manner your comments advocate callous disregard for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In my opinion, you hold offensively self-fixated perspectives and embrace extreme patterns of hate and callous disregard for others.
It seems that you're just making up things to say now that have no attachment to truth or reality, just to have some distracting mud to throw up on the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The level of hatred which spews out of your mouth every time you speak is appalling. The utter contempt you have for anyone who doesn't agree with you is disgusting.
Yet my comments are substantially directed at perspectives, policies and ideas, while you presume to attack me personally. You're clearly projecting. Hold up the mirror - you're writing about yourself.
I have no kids. If I have kids, I intend on homeschooling them. I was homeschooled. School boards can't handle cash correctly. I shouldn't have to pay for my neighbors kids. Yet I am forced to pay? What is this? It feels like I am in some horrible socialist-communist state.
Also, if I buy property, why should I pay the rest of the things associated with property tax on a yearly basis and not just pay it in full when purchasing, or have it included with a mortgage? Why am I constantly obligated to pay property tax every year? What would I do if I wanted to retire?
There are some legitimate concerns about funding so many basic services through property taxes. For example, it creates vast disparities in the quality of public services in different areas. However, your objection, which seems to be that you should only pay for what you directly use, is just unworkable in the real world.
I live in Chicago. About 1/3 of the people who live here don't own cars (including me). Does that mean we shouldn't have to pay for street cleaning and maintenance? If you answer "yes," then where is the money going to come from instead? If you only want the people with cars to have to pay, you would have to raise their tax burden to ruinous levels. Either that, or cut services to the point where Chicago streets looked like streets in Kabul, Afghanistan.
I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as public goods. As a practical matter, we need to support public goods if society is going to be able to function.
A tip my hat to those of you with the patience to "debate" people who argue the poor would be no worse off or maybe even better without public education.
A tip my hat to those of you with the patience to "debate" people who argue the poor would be no worse off or maybe even better without public education.
The mind truly boggles. It really does.
That's the new "right" - they support perspectives so abusively exploitative and callous in a petulant hope that by expressing such offensiveness that people in general would become more accepting of lesser offenses.
If I am poor, how are sales taxes fair? Do I really "choose" to buy things I need?
Food should not be taxed, since it is required, same as services, but just cause your poor does that mean you should not pay a sales tax ? What about gas taxes ?
One of my biggest problems with taxes are how many there are:
Property Taxes,
Sales Taxes,
Income Taxes
capitol gains taxes,
utility taxes,
gas taxes,
and on and on and on
I pay income taxes on what I make, then I get to pay all the other taxes out of what I have left from paying the first taxes.
A tip my hat to those of you with the patience to "debate" people who argue the poor would be no worse off or maybe even better without public education.
The mind truly boggles. It really does.
Keep in mind that a certain political party (cough... Democrats) absolutely DEPENDS on undereducated and low-income workers to keep getting elected and to maintain political power. The highest percentage of Democrat voters comes from the lower-income earners and those who don't even have a high school diploma.
Facts:
(Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.)
Actually educating those low-income and undereducated voters could actually spell doom for the Democrat party.
Food should not be taxed, since it is required, same as services, but just cause your poor does that mean you should not pay a sales tax ? What about gas taxes ?
Talking about sales taxes, after implying a whole bunch of progressive adaptions to sales taxes, is missing the point. You're addressing folks who oppose the right-wing's inane ranting that property taxes should be eliminated and replaced by sales taxes. I assure you, if the sales taxes you're talking about were just luxury taxes, those folks would be generally in favor of it. What folks find offensive is, rather, the corrupt, right-wing insinuation that poor people should be abused both by a generation's worth of right-wing promulgation of policies that have doubled economic inequality and by having, specifically, necessities of life taxed, further precluding their ability to pay their own way. The right-wing keeps on saying that they want less government assistance, yet practically everything they do seems to be custom-crafted to make it more and more impossible for poor people to live without government assistance. This two-faced nonsense right-wingers engage in clearly shows the morally offensive nature of what the right-wing supports.
Keep in mind that a certain political party (cough... Democrats) absolutely DEPENDS on undereducated and low-income workers to keep getting elected and to maintain political power. The highest percentage of Democrat voters comes from the lower-income earners and those who don't even have a high school diploma.
Facts:
(Note to moderators: all images appearing in this post have been linked via HTML text command in a legally permissible manner per the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Perfect 10 v. Amazon ruling, and as such do not constitute copyright violation.)
Actually educating those low-income and undereducated voters could actually spell doom for the Democrat party.
Wouldn't that be WAY flatter by controlling for race and especially considering only whites?
Oh, and wouldn't it also be flatter by controlling for gender?
And what about the numbers for college grads and post-grads?
And why would low-income people vote for Romney when they can expect a tax increase under Romney?
Educating those low income and undereducated voters likely would generate an effort to create a third party, or a 'pox on both your houses' attitude.
Wouldn't that be WAY flatter by controlling for race and especially considering only whites?
If you can find such a stat, post it. But consider the fact that it's in the Democrats' best interest to keep as many people as uneducated and as poor as possible to ensure election victories for Democrats, and to maintain Democrat political power. Then ask yourself that if there is a discrepancy between White and Black voters, why are Democrats exploiting Blacks for their own political advantage.
Quote:
Oh, and wouldn't it also be flatter by controlling for gender?
Possibly. Post the stats.
We already know that Romney won the votes of higher income women. It looks like Obama and the Dems only exploited the uneducated and the poor. How's that working out for them? Are they better off now that Obama is president?
If you can find such a stat, post it. But consider the fact that it's in the Democrats' best interest to keep as many people as uneducated and as poor as possible to ensure election victories for Democrats, and to maintain Democrat political power. Then ask yourself that if there is a discrepancy between White and Black voters, why are Democrats exploiting Blacks for their own political advantage.
Possibly. Post the stats.
We already know that Romney won the votes of higher income women. It looks like Obama and the Dems only exploited the uneducated and the poor. How's that working out for them? Are they better off now that Obama is president?
Education is positively correlated with Democratic support. Similarly, income is positively correlated with Republican support outside of wealthy states. It's in the best interest of Democrats to keep the population very well educated, but on the lower end of the pay scale for that group.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
