The Next President is...

[Lawman]

I’m not describing taxation.  I’m saying “free college” isn’t free and the idea that a commodity someone must pay for is “free” sits at the heart of our philosophical disagreement. 
Yes words have meaning.  “Free” that you pay for and I receive isn’t “free” at all.

It’s also not for everybody like it’s being sold over here.

By 13 you know if you’re going to college or trade school in places like Germany. If you’re family has the money you can opt out and buy an education but the vast majority are told where and what they will be doing. This “you can go to college and the government will pay for it just like in Europe” is nothing more than fancy dressing for an impossibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

42 minutes ago, Lawman said:

 

It’s also not for everybody like it’s being sold over here.

By 13 you know if you’re going to college or trade school in places like Germany. If you’re family has the money you can opt out and buy an education but the vast majority are told where and what they will be doing. This “you can go to college and the government will pay for it just like in Europe” is nothing more than fancy dressing for an impossibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What?!  Someone other than the individual decides how resources are to be used/allocated?  And if you disagree with that state decision, you are SOL unless you up stakes and move to, say, the US where you can decide for yourself?

Shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

 

[admdelta]

17 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

You have a reference for where #3 happened? I’m not sure how other states work, but in Texas the school districts set their local property tax rates. They had a law for a while where rich districts were actually required to give money to the poorer districts.

Standardized testing is a joke but I think this grand plan is a bit much. People already are picky about where they live in order to be in the “best” districts. This is one reason bad schools get worse, people up and move somewhere with better schools and the students left behind are those without the means to do so or whose parents really don’t care about their education. How would being able to choose a school not based on your address be a bad thing? As I mentioned earlier, it already happens with charter schools that are government funded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I couldn’t tell you to what degree they do this on a state level, because every state is different. There was a similar trait in No Child Left Behind, which withheld education grants if states didn’t implement standardized tests, and rewarded districts that performed exceptionally. The idea behind it sounded noble - setting high standards and rewarding high performance sounds great, but in practice it just led to higher funding disparities. 

Some places also use it to determine teacher pay, which leads to the same outcome. Underperforming schools then can’t afford to hire more good teachers, and hence that keeps the performance down. Meanwhile, private schools CAN afford to pay teachers well, especially if you’re having the government pay to let kids go to them...

https://classroom.synonym.com/standardized-test-scores-factor-much-money-school-receive-25534.html

Anyway, kids getting stuck in crappy schools is absolutely a problem. I just don’t think gutting the public education system and diverting all that money to private businesses is the way to go. There are all kinds of countries out there with kids getting way better educations than ours that didn’t have to resort to subsidizing private interests. We can probably start to emulate that by actually prioritizing education and spending money on our public schools like we used to do. 

[Prozac]

4 hours ago, brickhistory said:

What?!  Someone other than the individual decides how resources are to be used/allocated?  And if you disagree with that state decision, you are SOL unless you up stakes and move to, say, the US where you can decide for yourself?

Shocked, I tell you.  Shocked.

 

Well whadya know? I agree! Self determination os one of the many things that have always made this country great. I think it’s important, and entirely possible to preserve that trait while moving ahead with progressive ideas such as universal healthcare. Before you criticize those two things as being wholly incompatible, remember that there was a time in this country when having a standing army was considered radically progressive and even dangerous. Yet it was eventually determined that we could not exist in a modern world without one. We even lived with a draft, the antithesis of self determination  for much of our history.  I argue we were better for it. As time and the world move on, so should we. We should be constantly looking at ways to make this country better, rather than constantly retreating towards the past. If we are diligent, we can do so without undermining the principles that have always made us great. 

[Vertigo]

18 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

 

How would being able to choose a school not based on your address be a bad thing? 

 

Just because you pick a school, it doesn't mean the school picks you.  Private schools can absolutely pick and choose who they let in, and if they're for profit why would they let anyone in that's going to cost them more to educate (i.e. anyone with a learning disability, etc)? It would just cut into their profits. 

School vouchers = privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

[Lord Ratner]

Just because you pick a school, it doesn't mean the school picks you.  Private schools can absolutely pick and choose who they let in, and if they're for profit why would they let anyone in that's going to cost them more to educate (i.e. anyone with a learning disability, etc)? It would just cut into their profits. 

School vouchers = privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

School choice and private school are not the same thing.

[MooseAg03]

I couldn’t tell you to what degree they do this on a state level, because every state is different. There was a similar trait in No Child Left Behind, which withheld education grants if states didn’t implement standardized tests, and rewarded districts that performed exceptionally. The idea behind it sounded noble - setting high standards and rewarding high performance sounds great, but in practice it just led to higher funding disparities. 
Some places also use it to determine teacher pay, which leads to the same outcome. Underperforming schools then can’t afford to hire more good teachers, and hence that keeps the performance down. Meanwhile, private schools CAN afford to pay teachers well, especially if you’re having the government pay to let kids go to them...
https://classroom.synonym.com/standardized-test-scores-factor-much-money-school-receive-25534.html
Anyway, kids getting stuck in crappy schools is absolutely a problem. I just don’t think gutting the public education system and diverting all that money to private businesses is the way to go. There are all kinds of countries out there with kids getting way better educations than ours that didn’t have to resort to subsidizing private interests. We can probably start to emulate that by actually prioritizing education and spending money on our public schools like we used to do. 

Having a spouse that has been a private school teacher for 3 years, I can assure you they do not pay more than public schools- at least in the two states we’ve lived in recently. Private schools that approach public school pay cost about $12k - $14k per year in tuition. Even a voucher program wouldn’t cover that, but if a parent wants to fork over the extra $6k to $8k to cover the difference, more power to them. And again, it would ease over crowding in public schools. Guess what happens when class sizes drop? Better education for everybody.

Vertigo, you are correct that private schools can be selective and for good reason. From experience, they do not have the resources that public schools do, so kids with special needs that require an IEP and documented intervention can not get the services they require. Many private schools also expect their kids to perform on or above grade level, and it isn’t fair to put an underperforming student in that environment where they will fall further behind. Unfortunately that happens in public schools now too because of an innovation called the “inclusive classroom.” When I was in elementary, kids were separated based on aptitude. This allows higher performers to excel with harder material and allows struggling students to receive the attention they need. Public schools feel that is ‘unfair’ so now the teacher has to modify lessons to fit various aptitude levels in the same classroom. Equality and fairness results in mediocrity for all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooseAg03]

Caveat to the above statement - I’m talking about private schools for the masses. Not the ridiculous schools that the kids of Senators and Presidents attend. Those can afford to pay their teachers well, I’m sure. But someone utilizing school choice would not be sending their kid there, those are for the ruling class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

If public schools are worth attending then why do so many wealthy progressives send their children to private schools?

[nsplayr]

14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m not describing taxation.  I’m saying “free college” isn’t free and the idea that a commodity someone must pay for is “free” sits at the heart of our philosophical disagreement. 

Yes words have meaning.  “Free” that you pay for and I receive isn’t “free” at all.

Yea man, I'm not an idiot. Obviously things have cost. When you stay at a hotel that offers "free breakfast," it's not like you've found this oasis where the food has no cost, it's baked in to the price you pay for the room. There's no philosophical disagreement here.

The argument for "free public college tuition" is that we as a society should value education enough to provide it at no or little out-of-pocket cost to students for up to 16 years. We currently do this for 12 years and in fact mandate that students attend school for much of that time. It's not some radical Stalinist jump to go from the government paying for 12 years from tax revenues to paying for 16 years from tax revenues.

If you are against this, or other ways of using tax dollars, that's totally fine; it's also totally fine to be for those things. The arguments about how to allocate tax dollars, how many dollars should be available to allocate, and where those dollars come from, are the root-cause debates behind a huge amount of public policy.

Back to higher education for a minute...Tennessee, where I live, is actually a leader in the effort to help more people afford college and currently provides two years of tuition-free community college or technical schooling to all graduating seniors in the state. There are also programs for adults who decided to work first but later want to earn degrees, as well as specific programs for Tennessee National Guard folks to earn four-year degrees, tuition-free. All of these programs were passed by a heavily republican state legislature and signed by our popular Republican governor in the last few years. They can tell you why this concept is not socialism.

My reason for quoting you in my previous response was that you took an overly broad view of what is "socialism" and basically ended up saying that taxation never works and can't work due to fundamental human nature.

The words you used, quoted below, very literally described taxation, not socialism. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a tax is, "A charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes," which is exactly what you described.

On 9/4/2018 at 7:02 PM, nsplayr said:

...the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another.  One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter.

Pilot-proof summary: Taking money from people and using it for public purposes, with the government deciding on how much to take and how it's spent, is called taxation. You may be against both taxation and socialism, but let's allow words to have their correct meaning and not conflate the two concepts.

Edited September 7, 2018 by nsplayr

[matmacwc]

I like the AZ model for schools, get a couple thousand dollars in donations and your kids go to any private school for free.  Those people then file it as such and then get their money back thto next year.  It’s real school choice but a bit difficult to navigate around.

[matmacwc]

And this

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Pilot-proof summary: Taking money from people and using it for public purposes, with the government deciding on how much to take and how it's spent, is called taxation.

Didn't a revolution start over this very issue?  

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Didn't a revolution start over this very issue?  

It did! And thankfully so. Representative government is key. Taxation without representation is unjust. When I say “the government decides,” that really means we decide because we the people are the government.

Many of those railing against “socialism” aren’t making the distinction between representative and authoritarian governments.

I am 100% against authoritarian socialism just as vehemently as I am against authoritarian fascism or any other flavor of dictatorial government. As a service member sworn to protect & defend the constitution, that should go without saying for all of us.

[Sim]

16 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

“socialism” aren’t making the distinction between representative and authoritarian governments.

Can you name one functional socialist country with representative government? Where people have actual rights? 

[matmacwc]

Nobody cares about “rights” when they can’t eat.

[nsplayr]

38 minutes ago, Sim said:

Can you name one functional socialist country with representative government? Where people have actual rights? 

There is no purely socialist (or capitalist) government in the world. Ideology is a complex mix with no black and white. 

That being said the Nordic model of government has been very successful by many measures and that’s the model that most democratic socialists advocate. So that’s like 4-5 right there, plus most other advanced countries have parts and pieces like universal healthcare, guaranteed family medical and sick leave, etc.

Room for debate on whether all that scales or what aspects of that model could be applicable here, of if it’s even desirable or not.

But no body wants to live under Stalin, Chávez or Mao or whatever; it’s not some revelation to say those situations didn’t work out well.

Edited September 7, 2018 by nsplayr

[brickhistory]

Say, how much for a beer in Oslo?

[dream big]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

There is no purely socialist (or capitalist) government in the world. Ideology is a complex mix with no black and white. 

That being said the Nordic model of government has been very successful by many measures and that’s the model that most democratic socialists advocate. So that’s like 4-5 right there, plus most other advanced countries have parts and pieces like universal healthcare, guaranteed family medical and sick leave, etc.

Room for debate on whether all that scales or what aspects of that model could be applicable here, of if it’s even desirable or not.

But no body wants to live under Stalin, Chávez or Mao or whatever; it’s not some revelation to say those situations didn’t work out well.

People always bring up the Nordic countries as an example of socialist success.

 First, those countries are sparcely populated and highly homogeneous that share similar ideology..stark difference from here in America.

Second, their economies are actually starting to suffer because wealth creation and free enterprise is suppressed.  There is a lot of displeasure with their government and that is starting to take a toll. 

Finally, who would want to pay a 50%+ tax rate!? 

I will agree with you that no country is truly capitalist or socialist but rather a mix of ideologies on a scale.  

 

[matmacwc]

At least NS says it may not be desireable, give him credit for that.  If you go to far with socialism you get the results even he listed.  I say, why risk it?  Things aren’t that great in the great white European north, look at their suicide rate, must be Utopia.

[matmacwc]

And things are changing.

https://m.france24.com/en/20180907-far-right-seen-surging-swedish-election-outcome-uncertain

[di1630]

People always bring up the Nordic countries as an example of socialist success.
 

Liberals always say “look at Europe.” but Europe is a mess that gets unpublicized.

I’m shocked daily at the low wages and standards of commerce/living I see in the welfare stars where I reside.

I recently visited a buddy from pilot training who is now out of the Luftwaffe in the civilian world. Same age, family size etc, I felt like staying with him a few nights was what semi-poverty in the U.S. would feel like as he told me of 50% taxes an inability to find suitable affordable housing for his family.

Plus Europe gets 69% of its defense from the American taxpayer.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[matmacwc]

Don’t confuse their feelings with facts.  They start wearing vagina hats and demand to be taken seriously.  Or give speeches that prove we made the correct decision in ‘16, thanks Pres O for reminding us.

[Lawman]

People always bring up the Nordic countries as an example of socialist success.
 First, those countries are sparcely populated and highly homogeneous that share similar ideology..stark difference from here in America.
Second, their economies are actually starting to suffer because wealth creation and free enterprise is suppressed.  There is a lot of displeasure with their government and that is starting to take a toll. 
Finally, who would want to pay a 50%+ tax rate!? 
I will agree with you that no country is truly capitalist or socialist but rather a mix of ideologies on a scale.  
 

Great so which Super Power is going to take care of our national defense while we redirect all our money.

Seriously how people in our military with more than a 1st person view of how pitiful some of our allies are at their own defense can say “yeah let’s do that” astounds me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homestar]

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Back to higher education for a minute...

I dunno, man.  At some point it's like spotting the contestant R-S-T-L-N-E.  They just make the puzzle harder so you have to chose three more consonants and another vowel.  If everyone has a degree then the differentiator for the good jobs will be "advanced education" or something.  Before you know it everyone will be in the school system till their thirties and not contributing to the economy.

Two years of technical school (electrician, diesel mechanic, plumber, etc) I can get behind.  Dirty jobs.  I see you.

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

You may be against both taxation and socialism, but let's allow words to have their correct meaning and not conflate the two concepts.

Word.