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.
I think we have way too many colleges and way too many people going to college that shouldn't. Other countries-who are also seeing their education spending costs at the higher education levels-don't have this "everyone can get to college" motto in the same way we do.
We need to start enforcing better involvement from parents, and cut the non-essential administration and
add-ons at the K-12 level.
I completely agree with you on the first point, Wolf. I'm somewhat in agreement with you on the second, though I think non-essential administration is a far bigger issue in higher education. However, I also don't want to see jobs being eliminated in public schools in order to be filled by volunteer parents. This is what has happened with some positions at my kids' high school, and we live in a wealthy county.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpacker
No, just a lot of countries going bankrupt or feeling serious financial strains trying to fund their health system (and their government liabilities/spending in general), from France to Britain to Australia. Universal health isn't going to stop aging, diabetes, and poor lifestyle choices. Frankly, for one, I like to see the U.S. stop subsidizing lower drug and technology prices-which we primarily fund through massive government programs like the NIH-and have the rest of the world share in the costs. Also, it's a lot easier to manage countries that are smaller than a massively populated and geographic one like the U.S.
You're right about lifestyle choices. But, as for financial strains, you could apply the same argument to private health insurance companies, no? Are our insurance rates, copays and deductibles going to continue to increase? How much can the average middle-class or lower-middle-class family afford for health care costs? Private health insurance isn't going to stop aging, diabetes, and poor lifestyle choices, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpacker
A lot of people would like to see this. And, a lot of non-liberals never supported the war. You know that, right?
Whatever happened to the $500 billion infrastructure bill that was passed?
Yes, I know there are non-liberals who didn't support the war. I've spoken to quite a few of them. But when I hear people who have never bothered to go to war themselves calling for more war (that will result in thousands MORE Americans being killed) that gets me a little upset. What can I say?
I'm also patiently waiting to see the outcome of this infrastructure bill. Right there with ya!
Well, the only thing ridiculous to me is your apparent lack of awareness. Your post also entirely undermines your original post. I mean, these would make great placards in a March On Washington for whatever the Cause Du Jour is, but they are just totally detached from the facts.
Let's look at the top 5 ways the Federal Government will spend its money (Sorry, I meant to say 'our money.' In a liberal universe, it's 'the government's money') in FY 2015, as a percentage of total budget:
Pensions -- 25%
Health Care -- 27%
Defense -- 22%
Welfare -- 10%
Interest -- 6%
In other words, 60% of the Federal budget gets spent on entitlements, social programs, and health care, which pretty much destroys your statement that war gets priority over people. And given the dangers in the world today, 22% for defense seems to represent a very reasonable expenditure.
As far as policing the streets is concerned, that is a state and local matter in both operations and funding, not a Federal matter. You do know that, don't you? But in the larger scheme of things, you really can't have functioning society with criminals running amok on the street.
Now, let's take the highlighted phrase as the Fallacy Numero Uno of those mindlessly parroting the left. In 1964, the poverty rate was 17%. Now, the poverty rate is somewhere around 14-15%. So we have made enormous expenditures to barely make a dent in the poverty rate over the course of a half century. Meanwhile, the tax burden of the average American has mushroomed. So are you really putting people over profits, or are you putting the needs of the bureaucracy over the individual and business to enjoy prosperity. Big difference between the two. Smoke on that for awhile.
I would argue that when you increase the tax burden of the average American to fund programs that are not working as advertised, that's just indefensible. It is certainly not a sign of higher intelligence or better morality if you ask me.
I didn't say they spend more on war than on medicaid, I said that they spend more on things that help the rich than on things that help the poor. War undoubtedly benefits the rich. That health care money benefits the drug companies and doctors (the rich) far more than the people who need treatment. Welfare is mostly a band-aid preventing widespread revolt while ignoring the deep social problems that lead to the conditions that cause this dependency on state funds.
But regardless of how the US government spends the money, you can't take a crony capitalist government and hold it up as an example of why left-wingers are wrong. I don't know any liberals who think that the tax money should be spent the way it is being spent, and identifying as left or liberal or whatever doesn't mean you want the current government to keep taking from the middle class, giving to the rich and largely ignoring the poor. A left-wing government would prioritize education, health care and social services over subsidizing for-profit enterprises to bolster an economy that probably should have collapsed in the 80s. The size of the government wouldn't matter, the point would be ensuring that everyone has the same standard of education, the same access to health care, and that their gender, social group or race is afforded the same respect and same access to opportunities that everyone else enjoys.
If the democrats don't actually redistribute wealth to the poor, prioritize correcting the wealth imbalance or make more than a half-hearted attempt to improve the quality of life of its citizens through social programs, then they don't have anything to do with what liberals or leftists believe.
Of course, Americans are trained to think of politics only in terms of Democrat/Republican and maybe Libertarian, so like you, they delve deeply into facts and statistics and propaganda without actually asking themselves if all of these facts and statistics accurately reflect what the left is demanding from government and society. Some leftists do this as well, but it doesn't mean they're right either.
Once again, I'm not going to defend a government that doesn't reflect my beliefs, or argue in favor of things I don't believe just because you're too small-minded to see past the GOP/Democrat false dichotomy.
Once again, I'm not going to defend a government that doesn't reflect my beliefs, or argue in favor of things I don't believe just because you're too small-minded to see past the GOP/Democrat false dichotomy.
While most people in America self describe as a member of one of the two major American political parties (or even one of the fringe groups like Libertarians), the reality is that very few people are truly represented in Washington.
I live in Nevada -- so I 100% disagree with everything one of the two clownshoes Senators does. And I 90% disagree with everything the other clownshoes Senator does. The representative from my district is one of the worst legislators in America. I would gladly see him replaced with Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Satan for that matter. If I could, I would pick a name at random out of a telephone directory and replace my Congressman in that way.
My representative in Carson City is the lone exception -- he's a pragmatic realist who cares more about what works than political ideology. So out of all the people who supposedly represent me -- from the President on down, we have to get all the way down to the Nevada Assembly before I have someone who aligns with my worldview. That's awfully slim pickings.
The big difference between conservatives and liberals, is liberals are not willing to really willing to put up their own money to help the poor, they just want to leave it to the government to do it. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap.
The state with the highest poverty rate by far in the United States is California, which has a vast majority of the people in the state liberals, with an extremely liberal government.
The big difference between conservatives and liberals, is liberals are not willing to really willing to put up their own money to help the poor, they just want to leave it to the government to do it. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap.
The state with the highest poverty rate by far in the United States is California, which has a vast majority of the people in the state liberals, with an extremely liberal government.
As a somewhat social liberal, I’m very happy to help my conservative brothers and my conservative state maintain the elusion that conservatives are more charitable. Of course, you may be able to show me that dollars given by liberals in red states are counted separately. You understand just because a state is considered conservative does not indicated all the people are of the same persuasion.
The problem with personal observations is that it calls into question whether or not your personal beliefs influence how you perceive things. And from your ridiculously shallow understanding of politics, it also seems really obvious that they do.
I just call it as I see it my friend and in my 71 years I've seen a lot on both sides. I like to think for myself. That's why I'm mostly conservative. Otherwise, I'd be a flaming liberal.
There are a lot of smart people on both sides. The smart conservatives tend to be more libertarian and business minded. They are smart in the sense that they don't care about who marries who, what a woman does with her body, what the color of someone's skin is, and doesn't like war. They just care about the pursuit of wealth and money and don't like business regulations because it doesn't help them. I don't agree with a lot of Libertarian economics, but they are the "good" Republicans that I would be willing to vote for. More people would vote for Republicans if more of them were like that.
The problem I have with many Libertarian types is that they tend to come from wealthy backgrounds. Their parents were well off when they were growing up so they never had to deal with financial struggles the way poor and lower middle class people do. This leads them to buy into the whole "poor people are lazy" mindset. This is just my theory on how they think based on the Libertarians I know. It really depends on the environment people grow up in. If someone grows up in a well off family and is told poor people are just lazy, welfare is bad etc then they will grow up that way. If someone grows up in a family where money hasn't always been there then they would grow up to be someone that understands where poorer people are coming from. Of course there are poor conservatives and rich liberals.
The not so intelligent conservatives are the ones that have taken over the Republican Party as it is now. They are the Sarah Palin praising, gun toting, super religious, xenophobic, Tea Party, Fox News watching crowd. They don't like college because they think that it brainwashes people to be liberal. They really should get educated though because they make the country look terrible and come off as very ignorant about pretty much everything. More people would vote for Republicans if these types weren't a large part of the party.
I don't like some of the Liberal fiscal policies either. I don't agree that all corporations are evil, but I also don't agree with Conservatives that poor people are lazy. There is a middle ground.
I personally am an Independent. I tend to agree with Democrats a little more, but the good Republicans have some great ideas too so I don't like to stick with one party.
This weekend I was at a friends home. He lives in a modest 3,800 square foot home that includes a 45 foot boat dock in the back yard area. He has two Bentley's in the garage. He brings in close to $500,000 a year. He has three young kids and a beautiful wife. He went to school and has a couple degrees. Like me this guy is a conservative.
This same weekend my wife asked me to take in the bottles and cans to the recycling center in the Supermarket parking lot. I loaded our van up with close to 20 thirteen gallon trash bags full of water bottles and soda cans. As I am unloading a girl is sitting on a wagon while her boyfriend is in line with their recycling. She watches me unload and then she asked me where did I get all these bottles and cans from. I mentioned that I got them out of my garage. She told me that they found all their bottles and cans surfing. I looked at her and thought she did not even look like a surfer but who am I to judge. After a while I realized that she was talking dumpster diving and using the term Surfing as a definition for dumpster diving.
I listened to her boyfriend and found that he is in support of a giving society that the government needs to give him more. Not that he wants to work for it. He could not believe that he was going to have to pay a deducible to get his teeth fixed. He wanted to know why the government does not offer to do that for him. He had liberal all over him. Yup we have a little of everything in my area.
If I had a nickel for every absurd generalization in this thread, I'd be rich. And I've made it only to page four of the thread...
Nope. The liberals would take it away, since you "won life's lottery."
And the conservatives would help them spend it profligately pursuing weed smokers and LGBT folk.
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.
I'm somewhat in agreement with you on the second, though I think non-essential administration is a far bigger issue in higher education. However, I also don't want to see jobs being eliminated in public schools in order to be filled by volunteer parents. This is what has happened with some positions at my kids' high school, and we live in a wealthy county. 
