Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>Unless you require one balance sheet where you can line up what is being spent this year to how much we have to spend, we will just get more of the same.
I'll simply keep repeating this. The time for this is the budget vote itself. You decide what to spend when you're deciding future spending. Not when you're deciding whether or not to pay for current spending. This debate would have just as much, if not more, force if it took place in the context of more-typical partial government shutdown. That can happen without destroying our credit rating, yet it's unpleasant enough that both sides have strong incentives to avoid. And if we did have a partial shutdown, we can continue debating without the markets and economy falling out from under us.
Whereas now, we'll almost certainly be forced to pass a very watered down version, just to avoid a total collapse.
- Greminty
>Yes, and they should be doing more. But yes, reform is also needed. And yes, the private sector is always more efficient in what it does, but the private sector cannot possibly accommodate everything that a government needs to do. And the fact is that we, as a country, will be better off if we educate our middle-to-lower class who can't (or won't) pay whatever private schools cost. If you took away all public education, you'd end up with far more class stratification, which will cut out our economy from beneath us.
Each of those students is already paying 11,000 bucks for their public schooling. The costs to the middle to low income family may be hidden, but they pay it all the same. If you charge a company owner another 100,000 USD in taxes, he has to raise the price of goods to cover that. If he cannot raise prices that much, he fires all the middle-low income people he employed and farms the work out to china.
Heck, some of the most influential intellectuals in our nation's history were educated at home on a farm. Even today you can get as good an education with a score of kids with an Internet connection and a minder as in the most expensive schools. You can take your pick of examples (home schoolers with nothing more than learning DVDs) or scientific research (Sugata Mitra is a good place to start). His TED talk included in the link.
Most money spent by the government is going to be spent less efficiently than by an individual. Earning a dollar and then deciding where to spend it is going to require a different decision making tree than confiscating dollars and deciding where to throw them. This is true of any organization that does not have to fight for the source of income (governments or private sector monopolies). Competition for consumers is going to produce a better product cheaper.
Don't get me wrong, I am no pure anarchist. Government has some roll is much of these systems. But that roll as been increasing exponentially for about 80 years and all we have to show for it is more debts and less advantage. Try it again only harder this time is not working. Perhaps we have overshot the ideal range of influence sometime around when the Department of Education has a SWAT team?
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
Each of those students is already paying 11,000 bucks for their public schooling. The costs to the middle to low income family may be hidden, but they pay it all the same. If you charge a company owner another 100,000 USD in taxes, he has to raise the price of goods to cover that. If he cannot raise prices that much, he fires all the middle-low income people he employed and farms the work out to china.
Heck, some of the most influential intellectuals in our nation's history were educated at home on a farm. Even today you can get as good an education with a score of kids with an Internet connection and a minder as in the most expensive schools. You can take your pick of examples (home schoolers with nothing more than learning DVDs) or scientific research (Sugata Mitra is a good place to start). His TED talk included in the link.
Most money spent by the government is going to be spent less efficiently than by an individual. Earning a dollar and then deciding where to spend it is going to require a different decision making tree than confiscating dollars and deciding where to throw them. This is true of any organization that does not have to fight for the source of income (governments or private sector monopolies). Competition for consumers is going to produce a better product cheaper.
Don't get me wrong, I am no pure anarchist. Government has some roll is much of these systems. But that roll as been increasing exponentially for about 80 years and all we have to show for it is more debts and less advantage. Try it again only harder this time is not working. Perhaps we have overshot the ideal range of influence sometime around when the Department of Education has a SWAT team?
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
>If you charge a company owner another 100,000 USD in taxes, he has to raise the price of goods to cover that.
Again though, it's not that simple. Yes, taxes cause prices to rise in general. But, unless the good itself is extremely inelastic (meaning everyone will buy it no matter the price), the tax burden is shared by the company. Furthermore, salaries and various personal taxes (income, dividend, cap gains) have a much more complicated relationship. For one, a lot of people at the high end (and I know this from experience with them) don't really care what dollar-amount they take home (since they make way more than they can spend anyway). For them, it's all amount the nominal pre-tax amount, and having that be more than the other guy (or more than it was last year). So no, those taxes don't get paid indirectly by those in lower incomes.
>Heck, some of the most influential intellectuals in our nation's history were educated at home on a farm. Even today you can get as good an education with a score of kids with an Internet connection and a minder as in the most expensive schools.
You can, but that doesn't mean most do. A public education at least ensures some sort of baseline for those parents who cannot or will not provide education for their children (and just because their parents choose not to, doesn't mean we should take the opportunity from those kids).
>Most money spent by the government is going to be spent less efficiently than by an individual.
Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.
- Greminty
Again though, it's not that simple. Yes, taxes cause prices to rise in general. But, unless the good itself is extremely inelastic (meaning everyone will buy it no matter the price), the tax burden is shared by the company. Furthermore, salaries and various personal taxes (income, dividend, cap gains) have a much more complicated relationship. For one, a lot of people at the high end (and I know this from experience with them) don't really care what dollar-amount they take home (since they make way more than they can spend anyway). For them, it's all amount the nominal pre-tax amount, and having that be more than the other guy (or more than it was last year). So no, those taxes don't get paid indirectly by those in lower incomes.
>Heck, some of the most influential intellectuals in our nation's history were educated at home on a farm. Even today you can get as good an education with a score of kids with an Internet connection and a minder as in the most expensive schools.
You can, but that doesn't mean most do. A public education at least ensures some sort of baseline for those parents who cannot or will not provide education for their children (and just because their parents choose not to, doesn't mean we should take the opportunity from those kids).
>Most money spent by the government is going to be spent less efficiently than by an individual.
Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.
- Greminty
>>>>Most money spent by the government is going to be spent less efficiently than by an individual.~me
>Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.
This nation managed to educate it's children before we had a national department of education. Now- with the nearly free distribution of information and widely available resources- it is easier than it has ever been to do so. Yet at every turn the public system fails to even produce literate students, let alone well educated individuals. People who get a good education in those schools are people who want one. What matters is the students willingness to learn and the parental involvement (that leads to that willingness). You can pay as many schoolboard bureaucrats as you want with federally taxed dollars and will never change that fact. All you will do is take more money from those people who would otherwise give that money to charities that are better at doing the same jobs.
The private sector is full of far thinking individuals who want to educate the future workforce as well as giving individuals willing to pay for it. Stop draining 40% of the GDP in various government bodies and even more will be available.
The public sector's goal is continuing the state, not producing a better service for those students. The entire DC charter school debacle is clear evidence of that. What we need is more competition, not more freely available money for the school districts.
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
>Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.
This nation managed to educate it's children before we had a national department of education. Now- with the nearly free distribution of information and widely available resources- it is easier than it has ever been to do so. Yet at every turn the public system fails to even produce literate students, let alone well educated individuals. People who get a good education in those schools are people who want one. What matters is the students willingness to learn and the parental involvement (that leads to that willingness). You can pay as many schoolboard bureaucrats as you want with federally taxed dollars and will never change that fact. All you will do is take more money from those people who would otherwise give that money to charities that are better at doing the same jobs.
The private sector is full of far thinking individuals who want to educate the future workforce as well as giving individuals willing to pay for it. Stop draining 40% of the GDP in various government bodies and even more will be available.
The public sector's goal is continuing the state, not producing a better service for those students. The entire DC charter school debacle is clear evidence of that. What we need is more competition, not more freely available money for the school districts.
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
By the way, here's what's coming due on August 4th:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=9127953B5
And here's the week after that (Aug 11th):
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=9127953D1
To read these, you can look at a couple things. There are 3 different terms in this search, 4-week, 13-week, and 26-week (treasury bills). For each one, you can look at the maturity date, and the "Total Accepted" amount, which is how much was actually sold (borrowed). You can see there's roughly 30B + 29B + 31B = 90B of debt that will need to be rolled over on Aug 4th. Another 93B on the 11th. 87B on the 18th. And 82B on the 25th.
And this is just short-term (less than 1yr) debt, which constitutes about 1T of our total debt. You can also use that page to search for Treasury Notes, which constitute the largest portion of our debt, but mature less regularly, so are a little harder to track (for example, 43B 2yrs on 8/15: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=912828LV0).
Hope that helps.
- Greminty
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=9127953B5
And here's the week after that (Aug 11th):
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=9127953D1
To read these, you can look at a couple things. There are 3 different terms in this search, 4-week, 13-week, and 26-week (treasury bills). For each one, you can look at the maturity date, and the "Total Accepted" amount, which is how much was actually sold (borrowed). You can see there's roughly 30B + 29B + 31B = 90B of debt that will need to be rolled over on Aug 4th. Another 93B on the 11th. 87B on the 18th. And 82B on the 25th.
And this is just short-term (less than 1yr) debt, which constitutes about 1T of our total debt. You can also use that page to search for Treasury Notes, which constitute the largest portion of our debt, but mature less regularly, so are a little harder to track (for example, 43B 2yrs on 8/15: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/RI/OFAuctions?form=extended&cusip=912828LV0).
Hope that helps.
- Greminty
>This nation managed to educate it's children before we had a national department of education.
Sure. It had more localized public funding. Is there really such a massive difference between the two? Government is government. And sure, we managed a lot of stuff in the past; We also managed with unregulated child labor 80 years ago. Should we go back to that?
>All you will do is take more money from those people who would otherwise give that money to charities that are better at doing the same jobs.
Um. If government's problem is getting free money, how exactly is charity going to do vastly better?
>The private sector is full of far thinking individuals who want to educate the future workforce as well as giving individuals willing to pay for it. Stop draining 40% of the GDP in various government bodies and even more will be available.
Amazingly optimistic of the private sector, but there's really no evidence for this. Poor kids would, by and large, not be educated if there was no public schooling. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, and eventually it collapses. Not a way to run a modern society.
- Greminty
Sure. It had more localized public funding. Is there really such a massive difference between the two? Government is government. And sure, we managed a lot of stuff in the past; We also managed with unregulated child labor 80 years ago. Should we go back to that?
>All you will do is take more money from those people who would otherwise give that money to charities that are better at doing the same jobs.
Um. If government's problem is getting free money, how exactly is charity going to do vastly better?
>The private sector is full of far thinking individuals who want to educate the future workforce as well as giving individuals willing to pay for it. Stop draining 40% of the GDP in various government bodies and even more will be available.
Amazingly optimistic of the private sector, but there's really no evidence for this. Poor kids would, by and large, not be educated if there was no public schooling. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, and eventually it collapses. Not a way to run a modern society.
- Greminty
>Sure. It had more localized public funding. Is there really such a massive difference between the two? Government is government. And sure, we managed a lot of stuff in the past; We also managed with unregulated child labor 80 years ago. Should we go back to that?
We can do without the non sequiturs. Just because one thing was bad 80 years ago and better today does not mean that anything from 1930 is bad. Besides, Department of Ed is only is only 31 years old.
>Um. If government's problem is getting free money, how exactly is charity going to do vastly better?
If one charity is doing a bad job spending my money to help the poor, I can pick another one. If you try to pick a new government system, they charge you with treason.
>Amazingly optimistic of the private sector, but there's really no evidence for this. Poor kids would, by and large, not be educated if there was no public schooling.
No evidence? Lets look at those evil private sector moguls (via wikipedia a known anti-government hotbed of rightwing nutters)
Andrew Carnegie ( /kɑrˈneɪɡi/ kar-nay-gee, but commonly /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ kar-nə-gee or /kɑrˈnɛɡi/ kar-neg-ee)[1] (November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist, businessman, and entrepreneur who led the enormous expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century. He was also one of the most important philanthropists of his era.
....With the fortune he made from business among others he built Carnegie Hall, later he turned to philanthropy and interests in education, founding the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh.
Carnegie donated most of his money to establish many libraries, schools, and universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries, as well as a pension fund for former employees. He is often regarded as the second-richest man in history after John D. Rockefeller. Carnegie started as a telegrapher and by the 1860s had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, bridges and oil derricks. He built further wealth as a bond salesman raising money for American enterprise in Europe.
John Davison Rockefeller (July 8, 1839 – May 23, 1937) was an German-American[1] oil magnate and philanthropist, founder of the Standard Oil Company, which dominated the oil industry and was the first great U.S. business trust. Adjusting for inflation, he is often regarded as the richest person in history.[4][5][6][7]
Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy with foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research.[8]
His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He is also the founder of both the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University. He was a devoted Northern Baptist and supported many church-based institutions throughout his life. Rockefeller adhered to total abstinence from alcohol and tobacco throughout his life.[9]
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated[4] private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. The foundation is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[5] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.
Warren Edward Buffett (pronounced /ˈbʌfɨt/; born August 30, 1930) is an American investor, industrialist and philanthropist.
On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffett (then the world's richest person, estimated worth of US$62 billion as of April 16, 2008) pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares spread over multiple years through annual contributions, worth approximately US$30 billion in 2006.[12]
The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the United States to make a commitment to give most of their money to philanthropic causes. The campaign specifically targets billionaires and was made public in 2010 by the two wealthiest people in the United States, billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
The following are signatories to the Giving Pledge as of April 2010:
Paul Allen
John D. Arnold and wife Laura
Nicolas Berggruen
Michael Bloomberg
Eli Broad and wife Edythe
Warren Buffett
Steve Case and wife Jean
Leon G. Cooperman and wife Toby
Joyce and Bill Cummings
Ray Dalio and wife Barbara
John Paul DeJoria
John Doerr and wife Ann Doerr
Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg
Larry Ellison
Chuck Feeney
Ted Forstmann
Philip Frost and wife Patricia
Bill and Melinda Gates
David Green and wife Barbara
Jeff Greene
Harold Hamm and wife Sue Ann
Lyda Hill
Barron Hilton
Jon Huntsman, Sr. and wife Karen
Carl Icahn
Irwin M. Jacobs and wife Joan
George Kaiser
Vinod Khosla and wife Neeru
Sidney Kimmel
Richard Kinder and wife Nancy
Kenneth Langone and wife Elaine
H.F. Lenfest and wife Marguerite
Lorry I. Lokey
George Lucas
Duncan MacMillan[disambiguation needed] and wife Nancy
Alfred E. Mann
Joe Mansueto and wife Rika
Bernie Marcus and wife Billi
Michael Milken and wife Lori
George P. Mitchell
Tom Monaghan
John Morgridge and wife Tashia
Dustin Moskovitz
Pierre Omidyar and wife Pam
Bernard Osher and wife Barbro
Ronald Perelman
Peter George Peterson
T. Boone Pickens
Julian Robertson
David Rockefeller
Edward W. and Deedie Potter Rose
David M. Rubenstein
Herb and Marion Sandler
Denny Sanford
Roger W. Sant and wife Vicki
Lynn Schusterman
Walter Scott, Jr.
Thomas Secunda and wife Cindy
Jim and Marilyn Simons
Harold Simmons and wife Annette
Jeff Skoll
Patrick Soon-Shiong and wife Michele Chan
Tom Steyer and wife Kat Taylor
James E. Stowers and wife Virginia
Ted Turner
Sanford Weill and wife Joan
Shelby White, widow of non-signatory Leon Levy
Charles Zegar and wife Merryl Snow Zegar
Mark Zuckerberg
You know. It sure seems like folks have an interest in giving money to help people be educated. Maybe it could work without the threat of confiscation of property by a governmentally owned gun?
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
We can do without the non sequiturs. Just because one thing was bad 80 years ago and better today does not mean that anything from 1930 is bad. Besides, Department of Ed is only is only 31 years old.
>Um. If government's problem is getting free money, how exactly is charity going to do vastly better?
If one charity is doing a bad job spending my money to help the poor, I can pick another one. If you try to pick a new government system, they charge you with treason.
>Amazingly optimistic of the private sector, but there's really no evidence for this. Poor kids would, by and large, not be educated if there was no public schooling.
No evidence? Lets look at those evil private sector moguls (via wikipedia a known anti-government hotbed of rightwing nutters)
Andrew Carnegie ( /kɑrˈneɪɡi/ kar-nay-gee, but commonly /ˈkɑrnɨɡi/ kar-nə-gee or /kɑrˈnɛɡi/ kar-neg-ee)[1] (November 25, 1835 – August 11, 1919) was a Scottish-American industrialist, businessman, and entrepreneur who led the enormous expansion of the American steel industry in the late 19th century. He was also one of the most important philanthropists of his era.
....With the fortune he made from business among others he built Carnegie Hall, later he turned to philanthropy and interests in education, founding the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh.
Carnegie donated most of his money to establish many libraries, schools, and universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries, as well as a pension fund for former employees. He is often regarded as the second-richest man in history after John D. Rockefeller. Carnegie started as a telegrapher and by the 1860s had investments in railroads, railroad sleeping cars, bridges and oil derricks. He built further wealth as a bond salesman raising money for American enterprise in Europe.
John Davison Rockefeller (July 8, 1839 – May 23, 1937) was an German-American[1] oil magnate and philanthropist, founder of the Standard Oil Company, which dominated the oil industry and was the first great U.S. business trust. Adjusting for inflation, he is often regarded as the richest person in history.[4][5][6][7]
Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy with foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research.[8]
His foundations pioneered the development of medical research, and were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. He is also the founder of both the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University. He was a devoted Northern Baptist and supported many church-based institutions throughout his life. Rockefeller adhered to total abstinence from alcohol and tobacco throughout his life.[9]
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated[4] private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. The foundation is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[5] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.
Warren Edward Buffett (pronounced /ˈbʌfɨt/; born August 30, 1930) is an American investor, industrialist and philanthropist.
On June 25, 2006, Warren Buffett (then the world's richest person, estimated worth of US$62 billion as of April 16, 2008) pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares spread over multiple years through annual contributions, worth approximately US$30 billion in 2006.[12]
The Giving Pledge is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the United States to make a commitment to give most of their money to philanthropic causes. The campaign specifically targets billionaires and was made public in 2010 by the two wealthiest people in the United States, billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
The following are signatories to the Giving Pledge as of April 2010:
Paul Allen
John D. Arnold and wife Laura
Nicolas Berggruen
Michael Bloomberg
Eli Broad and wife Edythe
Warren Buffett
Steve Case and wife Jean
Leon G. Cooperman and wife Toby
Joyce and Bill Cummings
Ray Dalio and wife Barbara
John Paul DeJoria
John Doerr and wife Ann Doerr
Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg
Larry Ellison
Chuck Feeney
Ted Forstmann
Philip Frost and wife Patricia
Bill and Melinda Gates
David Green and wife Barbara
Jeff Greene
Harold Hamm and wife Sue Ann
Lyda Hill
Barron Hilton
Jon Huntsman, Sr. and wife Karen
Carl Icahn
Irwin M. Jacobs and wife Joan
George Kaiser
Vinod Khosla and wife Neeru
Sidney Kimmel
Richard Kinder and wife Nancy
Kenneth Langone and wife Elaine
H.F. Lenfest and wife Marguerite
Lorry I. Lokey
George Lucas
Duncan MacMillan[disambiguation needed] and wife Nancy
Alfred E. Mann
Joe Mansueto and wife Rika
Bernie Marcus and wife Billi
Michael Milken and wife Lori
George P. Mitchell
Tom Monaghan
John Morgridge and wife Tashia
Dustin Moskovitz
Pierre Omidyar and wife Pam
Bernard Osher and wife Barbro
Ronald Perelman
Peter George Peterson
T. Boone Pickens
Julian Robertson
David Rockefeller
Edward W. and Deedie Potter Rose
David M. Rubenstein
Herb and Marion Sandler
Denny Sanford
Roger W. Sant and wife Vicki
Lynn Schusterman
Walter Scott, Jr.
Thomas Secunda and wife Cindy
Jim and Marilyn Simons
Harold Simmons and wife Annette
Jeff Skoll
Patrick Soon-Shiong and wife Michele Chan
Tom Steyer and wife Kat Taylor
James E. Stowers and wife Virginia
Ted Turner
Sanford Weill and wife Joan
Shelby White, widow of non-signatory Leon Levy
Charles Zegar and wife Merryl Snow Zegar
Mark Zuckerberg
You know. It sure seems like folks have an interest in giving money to help people be educated. Maybe it could work without the threat of confiscation of property by a governmentally owned gun?
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
>We can do without the non sequiturs. Just because one thing was bad 80 years ago and better today does not mean that anything from 1930 is bad. Besides, Department of Ed is only is only 31 years old.
It was to make a point. You seemed to think that just because we did something one way in the past, means that it's good enough for today.
>If you try to pick a new government system, they charge you with treason.
Actually, it's called voting. Sadly it's been highly corrupted by special interests in the private sector at this point.
>You know. It sure seems like folks have an interest in giving money to help people be educated. Maybe it could work without the threat of confiscation of property by a governmentally owned gun?
Ironic that you should mention Buffett and Gates. Both of whom have publicly stated that taxes should be higher on upper income earners . . .
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/billionaires-buffett-gates-tax-us/story?id=12259003
Furthermore, why exactly haven't they produced a better school system for the poor? Your argument is that surely they would if only they were taxed ever-so-slightly less? (As you pointed out education is a small percent of the total budget.) Well, we've been lowering taxes for the past 30 years, and we don't have anything like you're talking about to show for it.
- Greminty
It was to make a point. You seemed to think that just because we did something one way in the past, means that it's good enough for today.
>If you try to pick a new government system, they charge you with treason.
Actually, it's called voting. Sadly it's been highly corrupted by special interests in the private sector at this point.
>You know. It sure seems like folks have an interest in giving money to help people be educated. Maybe it could work without the threat of confiscation of property by a governmentally owned gun?
Ironic that you should mention Buffett and Gates. Both of whom have publicly stated that taxes should be higher on upper income earners . . .
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/billionaires-buffett-gates-tax-us/story?id=12259003
Furthermore, why exactly haven't they produced a better school system for the poor? Your argument is that surely they would if only they were taxed ever-so-slightly less? (As you pointed out education is a small percent of the total budget.) Well, we've been lowering taxes for the past 30 years, and we don't have anything like you're talking about to show for it.
- Greminty
<<
Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.>>
I don't see the private sector or public sector accomplishing jack on education. The public sector gave us the current education bureaucracy which cannot move anywhere without the will of the teacher's unions.
Lets be totally honest with ourselves. The private sector doesn't want to pay to educate kids. They need educated young adults, though. To solve the education problem, you take the troublemakers and throw them out. You do not drag an entire class down to their level.
The public sector can solve this problem by getting a collective clue. Turn off the TV, turn off the music that promotes idiocy, take little Jane or John out of the fifteen extracurricular activities and give them homework to do. I, as an employer, would kill for a pool of kids fresh out of high school that could pass an Algebra I test easily. I have yet to hire anyone based on their soccer, karate, or rap skills.
We absolutely have to be cramming STEM classes down the kids throats. Not in five years after committee review, it has to start NOW. The bright kids need to be kept away from the little idiots and given a chance to shine.
Again, I don't disagree with this. Yes, it's less efficient, but that's not an argument for why it's not worth it. The private sector has no interest in educating low income kids, the public sector does.>>
I don't see the private sector or public sector accomplishing jack on education. The public sector gave us the current education bureaucracy which cannot move anywhere without the will of the teacher's unions.
Lets be totally honest with ourselves. The private sector doesn't want to pay to educate kids. They need educated young adults, though. To solve the education problem, you take the troublemakers and throw them out. You do not drag an entire class down to their level.
The public sector can solve this problem by getting a collective clue. Turn off the TV, turn off the music that promotes idiocy, take little Jane or John out of the fifteen extracurricular activities and give them homework to do. I, as an employer, would kill for a pool of kids fresh out of high school that could pass an Algebra I test easily. I have yet to hire anyone based on their soccer, karate, or rap skills.
We absolutely have to be cramming STEM classes down the kids throats. Not in five years after committee review, it has to start NOW. The bright kids need to be kept away from the little idiots and given a chance to shine.
>Actually, it's called voting. Sadly it's been highly corrupted by special interests in the private sector at this point.
Like labor unions, the single largest contributer to politicians? You know one way to stop all of the special interests power over us, do not give the power to the government in the first place to doll out to those who are in favor with the current administration (whomever it is).
>Ironic that you should mention Buffett and Gates. Both of whom have publicly stated that taxes should be higher on upper income earners . . .
Hey, we don't have to agree on politics for me to point out that they're trying very hard to improve the world. See the thing is, I find it laudable when people take the fruits of their labor and dedicate it to a good cause. (The IRS takes donations you know) Just like I find it reprehensible when people gang up together and force a minority to give up their rights for the sake of someone else's benefit. Make no mistake, taxing someone is removing their rights. It stops them from spending money they have earned on what they think is right. Heck, that is one of the rights' abridgments we founded this nation on. While I am by no means saying we should have no taxation, the ever encroaching loss of liberties on all fronts should be turned back. I can think of no area in which the current situation is too many individual rights and not enough power for the State.
>Furthermore, why exactly haven't they produced a better school system for the poor? Your argument is that surely they would if only they were taxed ever-so-slightly less? (As you pointed out education is a small percent of the total budget.) Well, we've been lowering taxes for the past 30 years, and we don't have anything like you're talking about to show for it.
We do have a better system now than we had 30 years ago. I can go on Project Gutenberg or Textbooksfree.org and get teaching material for free. For very little costs you can buy DVDs with lectures from the best teachers in the world. The fact that they are not being utilized is a failure of the individual and not the system. My sister has four kids she is home schooling. She teaches them and uses readily available textbooks. All four are well beyond the public school students thier age. My friend David who is out of work (he buys and sells books at the goodwill I go to to buy personal books) has 8 kids who are home schooled using DVDs. His wife is not a teacher of any stripe. Again, all above average achievements.
If you were to add on the option for parents to save that 11,000 bucks in taxes spent in a public school to send their children to private school (school choice, consistently attacked by teachers unions and the Dems they support) and the overall opportunities for students would only increase. In the end there will likely still be a place for fully government funded schools, but the ideal mixture is not going to be found by heading even more into the runaway spending by the fed model we have now.
In the end education is a symptom of the whole problem. At every turn the government is taking control of more parts of the economy that used to exist directly between individuals. (See licensing requirements for home decorators). The solution for failing and over costly government is not going to be borrowing ever more money (back to the debt talks) to pay for a more and more inefficient system. The solution will be found in using small scale systems that can adapt and improve (not just suck the life blood from the economy to pay for more paper pushers).
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
Like labor unions, the single largest contributer to politicians? You know one way to stop all of the special interests power over us, do not give the power to the government in the first place to doll out to those who are in favor with the current administration (whomever it is).
>Ironic that you should mention Buffett and Gates. Both of whom have publicly stated that taxes should be higher on upper income earners . . .
Hey, we don't have to agree on politics for me to point out that they're trying very hard to improve the world. See the thing is, I find it laudable when people take the fruits of their labor and dedicate it to a good cause. (The IRS takes donations you know) Just like I find it reprehensible when people gang up together and force a minority to give up their rights for the sake of someone else's benefit. Make no mistake, taxing someone is removing their rights. It stops them from spending money they have earned on what they think is right. Heck, that is one of the rights' abridgments we founded this nation on. While I am by no means saying we should have no taxation, the ever encroaching loss of liberties on all fronts should be turned back. I can think of no area in which the current situation is too many individual rights and not enough power for the State.
>Furthermore, why exactly haven't they produced a better school system for the poor? Your argument is that surely they would if only they were taxed ever-so-slightly less? (As you pointed out education is a small percent of the total budget.) Well, we've been lowering taxes for the past 30 years, and we don't have anything like you're talking about to show for it.
We do have a better system now than we had 30 years ago. I can go on Project Gutenberg or Textbooksfree.org and get teaching material for free. For very little costs you can buy DVDs with lectures from the best teachers in the world. The fact that they are not being utilized is a failure of the individual and not the system. My sister has four kids she is home schooling. She teaches them and uses readily available textbooks. All four are well beyond the public school students thier age. My friend David who is out of work (he buys and sells books at the goodwill I go to to buy personal books) has 8 kids who are home schooled using DVDs. His wife is not a teacher of any stripe. Again, all above average achievements.
If you were to add on the option for parents to save that 11,000 bucks in taxes spent in a public school to send their children to private school (school choice, consistently attacked by teachers unions and the Dems they support) and the overall opportunities for students would only increase. In the end there will likely still be a place for fully government funded schools, but the ideal mixture is not going to be found by heading even more into the runaway spending by the fed model we have now.
In the end education is a symptom of the whole problem. At every turn the government is taking control of more parts of the economy that used to exist directly between individuals. (See licensing requirements for home decorators). The solution for failing and over costly government is not going to be borrowing ever more money (back to the debt talks) to pay for a more and more inefficient system. The solution will be found in using small scale systems that can adapt and improve (not just suck the life blood from the economy to pay for more paper pushers).
AIM: GS4Menos
>Here lies the formless world we´re living in
>Gravity is finally giving in
>High altitudes and still upward we go
>I was never meant to lead but to follow
>They seem to get upset when I miss a payment.
I think you know what I mean. Consumer credit card debt is amortized over something like 20+ years, such that you have very low minimum payments (most of which is interest), but can pay off the full thing at any time. It's a very different structure from US government debt.
- Greminty
I think you know what I mean. Consumer credit card debt is amortized over something like 20+ years, such that you have very low minimum payments (most of which is interest), but can pay off the full thing at any time. It's a very different structure from US government debt.
- Greminty
>The solution will be found in using small scale systems that can adapt and improve (not just suck the life blood from the economy to pay for more paper pushers).
It sounds good in theory, but the past 30 years have shown us that it fails in practice. In reality, when you lower taxes, you just concentrate money among the richest few. You don't get small scale solutions, you get rule by corporations (and labor unions, yes). Okay, it's not much different than what we have now, but the solution to that is to fix campaign finance, not give up on government completely.
- Greminty
It sounds good in theory, but the past 30 years have shown us that it fails in practice. In reality, when you lower taxes, you just concentrate money among the richest few. You don't get small scale solutions, you get rule by corporations (and labor unions, yes). Okay, it's not much different than what we have now, but the solution to that is to fix campaign finance, not give up on government completely.
- Greminty
<<I think you know what I mean. Consumer credit card debt is amortized over something like 20+ years, such that you have very low minimum payments (most of which is interest), but can pay off the full thing at any time. It's a very different structure from US government debt.>>
I'm fully aware it is different. It's not like an indian loan. I can't pay it when I want with no additional interest.
I'm fully aware it is different. It's not like an indian loan. I can't pay it when I want with no additional interest.
<< Lets be totally honest with ourselves. The private sector doesn't want to pay to educate kids. They need educated young adults, though. To solve the education problem, you take the troublemakers and throw them out. You do not drag an entire class down to their level. >>
You also need to hold teachers accountable for doing their jobs. Too many skate by doing virtually nothing for our children, but due to the Teacher Union, can't be fired. We need to be able to fire poor teachers.
Josh
You also need to hold teachers accountable for doing their jobs. Too many skate by doing virtually nothing for our children, but due to the Teacher Union, can't be fired. We need to be able to fire poor teachers.
Josh
>Teacher's unions are the worst thing that's ever happened to education.
Not in our county!
Our county school administration has grown an order of magnitude in the last ten years. It is made up of individuals with very little experience in teaching kids, no understanding of how to do it, and absolutely no interest in listening to the teachers who deal directly with kids on a daily basis.
Tennessee got "Race to the Top" money. I'm told our county's share was spent in hiring more assistant principals and a middle school football coach. Not one cent went into the classroom.
Administration supports administration. Kids get lost.
Our teachers' union provided needed balance.
However our Tennessee teachers' unions have recently been declawed. I don't expect our local education to improve, but we'll see.
Bairyn
Not in our county!
Our county school administration has grown an order of magnitude in the last ten years. It is made up of individuals with very little experience in teaching kids, no understanding of how to do it, and absolutely no interest in listening to the teachers who deal directly with kids on a daily basis.
Tennessee got "Race to the Top" money. I'm told our county's share was spent in hiring more assistant principals and a middle school football coach. Not one cent went into the classroom.
Administration supports administration. Kids get lost.
Our teachers' union provided needed balance.
However our Tennessee teachers' unions have recently been declawed. I don't expect our local education to improve, but we'll see.
Bairyn
Not all areas operate with such top heavy administrations. There, the proposed balance of the teacher's unions swings the scales to their side. Thats when you get teachers goofing off when they should be teaching.
Frankly, the idea of county-wide school districts just scares the you know what out of me. Counties are rarely homogenous enough for one administration to effectively handle.
Frankly, the idea of county-wide school districts just scares the you know what out of me. Counties are rarely homogenous enough for one administration to effectively handle.
>Administration supports administration. Kids get lost.
>Our teachers' union provided needed balance.
Interesting. But I just can't justify their strong stance on keeping a purely seniority-based model. It's just not human nature to produce results in those circumstances. People need incentives to work harder and better. Maybe it makes younger teachers better because they have to fight to stay, but once they hit some level of seniority and consider themselves safe and the only way to get further pay raises is to just become more senior . . . there's just no way that's the right model for any job.
- Greminty
>Our teachers' union provided needed balance.
Interesting. But I just can't justify their strong stance on keeping a purely seniority-based model. It's just not human nature to produce results in those circumstances. People need incentives to work harder and better. Maybe it makes younger teachers better because they have to fight to stay, but once they hit some level of seniority and consider themselves safe and the only way to get further pay raises is to just become more senior . . . there's just no way that's the right model for any job.
- Greminty
Speaking of education, and Gates . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576461571362279948.html
- Greminty
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576461571362279948.html
- Greminty
Smart commentary from David Frum:
<< The Boehner plan promises to identify big cuts in discretionary spending over the next nine years. But wait a minute. Discretionary spending is appropriated spending. Congress can cut appropriations through the budget process anytime it wants. Why not just ... do it? How is it a big win to declare a commitment to do it over a decade to come?
<< The answer to that last is that the ordinary budget process requires some cooperation with the Senate and the president. And it was that cooperation that stuck in House Republicans' craw. The big benefit of the Boehner plan is that it is seen to be imposed -- and the current GOP mindset is that it's better to gain less by show of force than to get more by negotiation. >>
Source:
http://www.frumforum.com/a-famous-victory-2
I learned about the above link at http://danshaviro.blogspot.com/2011/07/this-is-why-were-risking-macroeconomic.html which has some good comments to add.
<< The Boehner plan promises to identify big cuts in discretionary spending over the next nine years. But wait a minute. Discretionary spending is appropriated spending. Congress can cut appropriations through the budget process anytime it wants. Why not just ... do it? How is it a big win to declare a commitment to do it over a decade to come?
<< The answer to that last is that the ordinary budget process requires some cooperation with the Senate and the president. And it was that cooperation that stuck in House Republicans' craw. The big benefit of the Boehner plan is that it is seen to be imposed -- and the current GOP mindset is that it's better to gain less by show of force than to get more by negotiation. >>
Source:
http://www.frumforum.com/a-famous-victory-2
I learned about the above link at http://danshaviro.blogspot.com/2011/07/this-is-why-were-risking-macroeconomic.html which has some good comments to add.
Below is an insightful analysis of the stakes and consequences of the debt ceiling standoff.
From the 7/29 PBS News Hour program, in which Mark Shields summarizes his view of the Republican/Tea Party attitude:
<< MARK SHIELDS: Well, if you put a penny of revenue, a penny of revenue, if you even suggest that a registered nurse in an emergency room and a New York firefighter shouldn't pay taxes twice the rate of a hedge fund manager, we leave. We're not going to be a party to that. That's -- that's basically where they were.
<< But more important than that, to use this vehicle, to think this is only a one-time precedent and that next time that there's a Democratic Congress and a Republican president that this isn't going to be used again vengefully, I mean, you talk about the poisoning of the Washington well, this does it in spades. >>
Full transcript and video:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/sandg_07-29.html
From the 7/29 PBS News Hour program, in which Mark Shields summarizes his view of the Republican/Tea Party attitude:
<< MARK SHIELDS: Well, if you put a penny of revenue, a penny of revenue, if you even suggest that a registered nurse in an emergency room and a New York firefighter shouldn't pay taxes twice the rate of a hedge fund manager, we leave. We're not going to be a party to that. That's -- that's basically where they were.
<< But more important than that, to use this vehicle, to think this is only a one-time precedent and that next time that there's a Democratic Congress and a Republican president that this isn't going to be used again vengefully, I mean, you talk about the poisoning of the Washington well, this does it in spades. >>
Full transcript and video:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/sandg_07-29.html
<<
<< MARK SHIELDS: Well, if you put a penny of revenue, a penny of revenue, if you even suggest that a registered nurse in an emergency room and a New York firefighter shouldn't pay taxes twice the rate of a hedge fund manager, we leave. We're not going to be a party to that. That's -- that's basically where they were.>>
I've never understood this line of thinking. What does a person's job have to do with their taxes, other than their income? I mean, I think what they are saying is, "This person makes a lot of money and we need to take more of it." If you follow that through, shouldn't doctors be punished further as well? What about politicians? Do we need tax rates for each profession?
Personally, I think we need a set percentage income tax rate. No deductions. You make $1 to infinity, you pay a percentage. Everyone feeling the pain is morally fair.
<< MARK SHIELDS: Well, if you put a penny of revenue, a penny of revenue, if you even suggest that a registered nurse in an emergency room and a New York firefighter shouldn't pay taxes twice the rate of a hedge fund manager, we leave. We're not going to be a party to that. That's -- that's basically where they were.>>
I've never understood this line of thinking. What does a person's job have to do with their taxes, other than their income? I mean, I think what they are saying is, "This person makes a lot of money and we need to take more of it." If you follow that through, shouldn't doctors be punished further as well? What about politicians? Do we need tax rates for each profession?
Personally, I think we need a set percentage income tax rate. No deductions. You make $1 to infinity, you pay a percentage. Everyone feeling the pain is morally fair.
<< Do we need tax rates for each profession? >>
No, we do not. Unfortunately, hedge fund managers currently get a special income tax rate that maxes out at 15% and is not subject to FICA taxes. Let's change it so that they have the same tax rates as everybody else.
Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/business/13tax.html
No, we do not. Unfortunately, hedge fund managers currently get a special income tax rate that maxes out at 15% and is not subject to FICA taxes. Let's change it so that they have the same tax rates as everybody else.
Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/business/13tax.html
>Personally, I think we need a set percentage income tax rate. No deductions. You make $1 to infinity, you pay a percentage. Everyone feeling the pain is morally fair.
It seems fair on the surface, but only if you consider every incremental dollar to be equal. But they're not. A basic tenet in economics is the law of diminishing marginal utility: all goods (including money) lose incremental value as you gain more of them. That is, the first unit you have is worth more (to you) than the 10th unit, which is worth more than the millionth unit. It's pretty obvious that for someone who makes $10k a year, each dollar is worth much much more to them than to someone who makes $20M a year.
So, if you tax based on utility instead of the nominal amount, you have to have a progressive (in nominal terms) rate. To me, a utility-flat tax is far more fair than a nominal-flat tax.
On the other hand, I do agree that we should try to broaden the tax base at the same time as we make it more progressive - largely (in both cases) by doing away with most deductions. Even if the bottom 20% is only paying 5% (as is appropriate), it is more fair that they pay some federal income taxes.
- Greminty
It seems fair on the surface, but only if you consider every incremental dollar to be equal. But they're not. A basic tenet in economics is the law of diminishing marginal utility: all goods (including money) lose incremental value as you gain more of them. That is, the first unit you have is worth more (to you) than the 10th unit, which is worth more than the millionth unit. It's pretty obvious that for someone who makes $10k a year, each dollar is worth much much more to them than to someone who makes $20M a year.
So, if you tax based on utility instead of the nominal amount, you have to have a progressive (in nominal terms) rate. To me, a utility-flat tax is far more fair than a nominal-flat tax.
On the other hand, I do agree that we should try to broaden the tax base at the same time as we make it more progressive - largely (in both cases) by doing away with most deductions. Even if the bottom 20% is only paying 5% (as is appropriate), it is more fair that they pay some federal income taxes.
- Greminty
<< On the other hand, I do agree that we should try to broaden the tax base at the same time as we make it more progressive - largely (in both cases) by doing away with most deductions. Even if the bottom 20% is only paying 5% (as is appropriate), it is more fair that they pay some federal income taxes. >>
I agreed with you for the most part until this. While it may seem fair for the bottom 20% to pay taxes. It's essentially wasted effort. If someone is making 20k a year, taking 5% in taxes just means that they need that much more in welfare and other social programs in order to survive. You might as well just let them keep that 5%. They're going to end up with it one way or another.
Josh
I agreed with you for the most part until this. While it may seem fair for the bottom 20% to pay taxes. It's essentially wasted effort. If someone is making 20k a year, taking 5% in taxes just means that they need that much more in welfare and other social programs in order to survive. You might as well just let them keep that 5%. They're going to end up with it one way or another.
Josh
