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've been to the ER 5 times in the last 15 years and there is a choke hold on these facilities due Illegal Aliens. Is this health care system going to blend in 20 million Ilegal Aliens too? I see that wait going up, not down.
that's a very good question. i don't see how it would leave them out. the la raza groups would be howling and protesting to no end. but it seems to me like they are already making use of the facilities anyway.
Unionized public school teachers are more highly paid than private school teachers. Is there a connection why private school students outscore the public school students? Or is it inversely proportional to funding?
And, no, the USA has not been capitalist since 1935. In fact, the dismal performance is the fault of national socialism, and its emphasis on mediocrity.
"Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who can't do anything, become socialists."
Public school teachers, unfortunatley, at a much larger rate then in socialized countries, are the bottom of the barrel as far as degree holders. The brightest go in to financially lucrative careers.
How do you think that "Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach", statement came from? A majority of the best and brightest are not going in to teaching as a career, because its not financially rewarding, even if one is unionized.
As for private schools outperforming public, I would put the reason for that on the average quality of child in private schools, not the teachers. Its not too hard to teach a class full of kids from 100k a year plus houses, all of which have parents who wont accept less then admission to a top college, and will do whatever it takes, including hiring private tutors.
Put those same teachers in an inner city school, and I bet they fair just as poorly in their students results.
My apologies. But it is important to note that medical costs BEFORE the socialist revolution in 1935 were quite reasonable.
The incremental imposition of more socialism, as a solution to socialism, is counter productive.
And, no, we do not have a hybrid economy - between socialism and capitalism.
...
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
You know that arguing semantics is pretty low down on the scale of what's convincing to people. You remind me of this guy, who thinks that the definition he's come up with for when life begins is somehow a devestating argument that nobody can refute.
The fact is that our society is both capitalistic and socialistic. And you jumping up and down proclaiming that it's not either pure capitalism or pure socialism is really pretty silly.
My point was that the buffoons who are whining about universal health care being a problem because we don't want socialism are about 220 years too late.
You know that arguing semantics is pretty low down on the scale of what's convincing to people.
The fact is that our society is both capitalistic and socialistic. And you jumping up and down proclaiming that it's not either pure capitalism or pure socialism is really pretty silly.
My point was that the buffoons who are whining about universal health care being a problem because we don't want socialism are about 220 years too late.
I agree that arguing terminology is useless when dealing with illiterate people. As long as "bad" means "good", "up" means "down", then no one can figure out how they have been "enriched" / "robbed" by national socialism.
But if we wish to argue politics and law, it is paramount that terms are clearly defined. Colloquial usage is often different, and will mislead you. That's why I posted the dictionary definition. If you wish to disagree with that, and offer facts in rebuttal, that is acceptable. But calling reference material into question IS very silly on your part.
And, no, the fact is that the U.S.A. has been socialist, since 1935. Calling it mixed capitalism and socialism does not rebut the evidence that no one absolutely owns themselves, their labor and the fruits of their labor. Which contradicts the delegation of power, first stated in the Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights and (b) govern those who consent. And private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (5th amendment).
If any American government is violating rights, you had better double check on how you gave consent. And if government is taking property and not paying just compensation, it can't be private property. And if there is no private property, you've just witnessed evidence of COMMUNISM in America.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Is that clear enough for you?
Communism = no private property
Private property is protected by U.S. Constitution.
Government takes property, without just compensation.
No private property = No capitalism.
As for private schools outperforming public, I would put the reason for that on the average quality of child in private schools, not the teachers. Its not too hard to teach a class full of kids from 100k a year plus houses, all of which have parents who wont accept less then admission to a top college, and will do whatever it takes, including hiring private tutors.
Put those same teachers in an inner city school, and I bet they fair just as poorly in their students results.
Folks who sent their kids to private Catholic schools were not from the "upper crust" of the economic pie. Therefore your conclusion is not supported by the evidence... unless you are asserting that Catholic children are superior to non-Catholic children. (Or -shudder- Nuns are superior teachers ...)
In my own experience, after 9 years in a po' Catlik skool, and transferring to a public system, I witnessed how BAD public funded education really was. It was common knowledge that "C" students from a Catholic school became "B" students; "B" students became "A" students; and "A" students went mad....
So, in reflection, socialism rewards incompetence, penalizes productivity, and drives down a society to the lowest common denominator.
The optimal solution is to end all public funded subsidies of education, health care, and all activities not directly securing rights of the people. Scaling back government is superior to giving government everything you have and then begging for your "fair share".
Folks who sent their kids to private Catholic schools were not from the "upper crust" of the economic pie. Therefore your conclusion is not supported by the evidence... unless you are asserting that Catholic children are superior to non-Catholic children. (Or -shudder- Nuns are superior teachers ...)
I beg to differ. Most kids in private school are from families with above average income. While some private schools may be funded with religious funding, or endowments, most are funded through huge tuition payments, which restrict lower income individuals from access.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
In my own experience, after 9 years in a po' Catlik skool, and transferring to a public system, I witnessed how BAD public funded education really was. It was common knowledge that "C" students from a Catholic school became "B" students; "B" students became "A" students; and "A" students went mad....
Thats amazing, because, I went to public schools all my life, was offered to skip two grades, dispite already being a year younger then my class, and was not challenged by school whatsoever. I guess that means my teachers were exceptional.....wait a second, I also went to school with kids who failed and were outright idiots, the very same who would have been kicked out of a private school for pulling down their overall quality. Unfortunatley, they cant be kicked out of public school. However, economic inequality is doing quite well in areas that dont have forced busing and integration. Poor kids are largely kept to terrible, unsafe, schools with the worst teachers, and rich kids go to the best funded, highest quality schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
So, in reflection, socialism rewards incompetence, penalizes productivity, and drives down a society to the lowest common denominator.
Actually, the only system on earth that penalizes productivity is Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system which drives down cost as productivity rises, essentially, lowering the real wage per unit/hour, or whatever production measure you want. Socialistic systems, especially pure Marxism, actually seek to reward a person for exactly what they produce, not what the capitalist feels you should be compensated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The optimal solution is to end all public funded subsidies of education, health care, and all activities not directly securing rights of the people. Scaling back government is superior to giving government everything you have and then begging for your "fair share".
Because restricting basic public services from the poor always works so well. Just a word of advice, you might want to go ahead and revoke that whole right to bear arms amendment from the poor as well in combination with this.
I beg to differ. Most kids in private school are from families with above average income. While some private schools may be funded with religious funding, or endowments, most are funded through huge tuition payments, which restrict lower income individuals from access.
Not really. Parochial schools are nowhere near as expensive as actual college prep schools. An average parochial school probably costs about $3k-$5k per year, whereas most private schools I've ever heard of start at around $10k.
But I do agree with your point that students from more well off backgrounds can focus more on school without having to worry about the things that no student should have to worry about. That is pretty undeniable.
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Folks who sent their kids to private Catholic schools were not from the "upper crust" of the economic pie. Therefore your conclusion is not supported by the evidence... unless you are asserting that Catholic children are superior to non-Catholic children. (Or -shudder- Nuns are superior teachers ...)
I beg to differ. Most kids in private school are from families with above average income. While some private schools may be funded with religious funding, or endowments, most are funded through huge tuition payments, which restrict lower income individuals from access.
Perhaps, in your limited experience. But if you tally the actual number of private schools operated by charitable / religious institutions, you will find that they are not exclusive to the upper income levels, nor would their numbers be so high if enrollment was so limited.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
In my own experience, after 9 years in a po' Catlik skool, and transferring to a public system, I witnessed how BAD public funded education really was. It was common knowledge that "C" students from a Catholic school became "B" students; "B" students became "A" students; and "A" students went mad....
Thats amazing, because, I went to public schools all my life, was offered to skip two grades, dispite already being a year younger then my class, and was not challenged by school whatsoever. I guess that means my teachers were exceptional.....wait a second, I also went to school with kids who failed and were outright idiots, the very same who would have been kicked out of a private school for pulling down their overall quality. Unfortunatley, they cant be kicked out of public school. However, economic inequality is doing quite well in areas that dont have forced busing and integration. Poor kids are largely kept to terrible, unsafe, schools with the worst teachers, and rich kids go to the best funded, highest quality schools.
So you're basically agreeing with me, that you found the public school curriculum aimed at the lowest common denominator. Do you think spending MORE MONEY on public education will RAISE the standards? (Most public school systems spend more per pupil than their private school counterparts)
Jersey City Online* The Real Cost Of Private Schools (http://www.jerseycityonline.com/schools/private_schools.htm - broken link)
Quote:
In fact, Education Department figures show that the average private elementary school tuition in America is less than $2,500. The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116, or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857.
BTW - there were several under performers (insert your favorite politically incorrect term here) in the many classes I attended in "private school". But they weren't tossed out - merely urged to persevere - and often earned honest C's and an occasional D.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
So, in reflection, socialism rewards incompetence, penalizes productivity, and drives down a society to the lowest common denominator.
Actually, the only system on earth that penalizes productivity is Capitalism. Capitalism is the only system which drives down cost as productivity rises, essentially, lowering the real wage per unit/hour, or whatever production measure you want. Socialistic systems, especially pure Marxism, actually seek to reward a person for exactly what they produce, not what the capitalist feels you should be compensated.
Methinks you have been fed heifer dung. The Marxian definition of value is based on volume of work, not the quality of it. Of course, you may be unaware that socialism and communism are thinly disguised piracy by the collective.
From the Communist manifesto: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789 ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
There is nothing in that definition that leads one to assume that wages denominated in money tokens, borrowed at usury, into existence, is part of capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomdude
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The optimal solution is to end all public funded subsidies of education, health care, and all activities not directly securing rights of the people. Scaling back government is superior to giving government everything you have and then begging for your "fair share".
Because restricting basic public services from the poor always works so well. Just a word of advice, you might want to go ahead and revoke that whole right to bear arms amendment from the poor as well in combination with this.
Actually, since all socialist taxes migrate to the final retail price, where the poor suffer the highest taxation, I would disagree with your conclusion.
The underlying cause of much misery is the usurer, and his interest charge (which is NOT PART OF CAPITALISM) and limited liability artificial persons (Which are also NOT PART OF CAPITALISM).
Remember, the definition of capitalism is private ownership. However, most Americans are rarely made aware of the LEGAL DEFINITION for private property.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Anything else is NOT capitalism, including usury (which likes to call its nefarious scheme "capitalizing") and limited liability artificial persons (stock corporations).
In fact, since 1935, the U.S.A. has been a socialist nation. By virtue of "voluntary" enrollment into Socialist Insecurity, Americans no longer absolutely own. That is why the government can routinely "arrest" property, condemn property, and take it for public use without paying just compensation. Socialism (and communism) abolish private property rights.
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
The joke is that due to ignorance of socialism, the problems created by socialism are blamed upon non-existent capitalism. Their solution? Impose MORE SOCIALISM!
Look around, we're in a bureaucratic dominated socialist government system. Capitalism died in 1935.
Perhaps, in your limited experience. But if you tally the actual number of private schools operated by charitable / religious institutions, you will find that they are not exclusive to the upper income levels, nor would their numbers be so high if enrollment was so limited.
Less then 10% of all students are enrolled in private school, hardly a figure to back up your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
So you're basically agreeing with me, that you found the public school curriculum aimed at the lowest common denominator. Do you think spending MORE MONEY on public education will RAISE the standards? (Most public school systems spend more per pupil than their private school counterparts)
Actually, the public school sytem is primarily aimed at the middle of the bell curve, with resources allocated to try to pull along those at the bottom, and stimulate those above.
If your point is that private enterprise probably spends their dollar more effectively then beauracracies, yeah, Ill agree with you there with out argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
BTW - there were several under performers (insert your favorite politically incorrect term here) in the many classes I attended in "private school". But they weren't tossed out - merely urged to persevere - and often earned honest C's and an occasional D.
I am very sure that a majority of private schools, or at least a large number, require certain standards of behavior and academics that are not required by public schools due to their forced acceptance an maintenance of all students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Methinks you have been fed heifer dung. The Marxian definition of value is based on volume of work, not the quality of it. Of course, you may be unaware that socialism and communism are thinly disguised piracy by the collective.
Actually socialism is not a thinly disguised piracy at all. Its flat out intention is to seize the means of production. However, communism abolishes private property altogether, which, means socialism is a means to Communism, and they are not the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Amendment V, US Constitution 1789 ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - Webster's Dictionary
What is your point with all this? Amendments can be created at any point.
Quote:
There is nothing in that definition that leads one to assume that wages denominated in money tokens, borrowed at usury, into existence, is part of capitalism.
Removing "money tokens" and interest from the equation is just taken the stripes off the zebra....its still a zebra. Capitalists steal labor value as personal profit in exchange for the use of their capital.
Quote:
Actually, since all socialist taxes migrate to the final retail price, where the poor suffer the highest taxation, I would disagree with your conclusion.
The poor benefit disproportionatley higher from public service based on their taxes paid. In other words, if public services were only made available to those who pay, as Libertarians would like, the wealthy would enjoy the same conveniences they do now, at a lower effective rate, then the taxes they are paying now. The poor on the other hand, would not be able to pay for a fraction of the services they currently use with the meager tax savings theyd get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
The underlying cause of much misery is the usurer, and his interest charge (which is NOT PART OF CAPITALISM) and limited liability artificial persons (Which are also NOT PART OF CAPITALISM).
Remember, the definition of capitalism is private ownership. However, most Americans are rarely made aware of the LEGAL DEFINITION for private property.
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Anything else is NOT capitalism, including usury (which likes to call its nefarious scheme "capitalizing") and limited liability artificial persons (stock corporations).
Capitalism does not define an individual, nor does it restrict the method of return on investment.
Back to healthcare
Workers' Health Benefits Eyed for Taxation (http://www.ahiphiwire.org/News/Default.aspx?doc_id=260769&utm_source=3/12/2009&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HiWire_Newslett er&uid=TRACK_USER&page=1 - broken link)
They are considering the McCain style plan of taxing employer provided medical benefits. Would be ironic if it goes through. I'm sure many of Obama's supporters would be disappointed, but I guess he was right when he said we will all need to have "skin in the game".
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.
