Republican Flips and Flops

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

I guess if you throw enough money at something you can get some sort of results. We all probably agree on that.

No, I don't, I think it has to be managed well or there will be more waste.

Get "big government" involved and there's no true urge to economize. They've got an unending source of income and they know it. So they just don't care. Boston's "big dig" comes to mind.

Getting off subject, but that has to do more with corrupted government with ties to contractors than it does with big government.

Now, OTOH, allow Private Enterprise to handle it, inject the profit motive and the risk of LOSING money and  you almost always get a better product.
 
With the school system you have to educate everyone, even the poor and the poor-middle class, shoot, even alot of the middle class would not be able to afford private school. But put that aside, even if private business did run it, they would run into the same problem, they would have to pay the teachers a competitive salary. A better teacher will produce a better education. We need to put our teachers on the same pedestal as our fireman and police. And I don't want to privatize those either. One thing that Bush says that I agree with is we need involvement with our community and I think the public school system is a good start.

Crossing an idea from another thread; The search for a workable hydrogen fueled car engine. Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?

Neither, cause trillion dollar oil corporations still have alot of oil to sell.

[strk]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Yeah, brilliant... Because a guy who busts his bellybutton for 130k a year only to give half of it away to the government is really in league with a 30million/year CEO.

Most 'rich' people are anything but. They take out loans, go into debt, have kids to feed and put through school and pay mortgages. They don't owe you, or the system, any more percentage points than anyone else.

Higher tax brackets are nothing but symbolic gestures to gain votes. Contratulations.

Get a grip on reality.

You obviously have no idea how the tax sysem favors the wealthy - case in point - INCOME only, and not wealth is taxed.

[strk]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Yeah, brilliant... Because a guy who busts his bellybutton for 130k a year only to give half of it away to the government is really in league with a 30million/year CEO.

Most 'rich' people are anything but. They take out loans, go into debt, have kids to feed and put through school and pay mortgages. They don't owe you, or the system, any more percentage points than anyone else.

Higher tax brackets are nothing but symbolic gestures to gain votes. Contratulations.

Get a grip on reality.

yeah - brilliant - so you want the poor to pair a higher percentage of their disposable income as taxes - who already pay a higher percentage for basic survival.  Who needs a tax cut more?

the rich sure as hell do owe a debt to this country because of the OPPORTUNITY that the US gives them.

oh, and btw higher tax brackers - like the deficit reduction act - spurred the economy because we stopped running deficits.  You just cant admit that the dread Clinton got it right.  

it kills me how you people are ready and willing to shill for the rich

[strk]

Originally posted by lazs2
interesting strk... so you simply want to "tax the rich"  maybe we could eat em too?   You want to leverl the playing field...  sorta... "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" ??   I would take it then you are against cities giving tax breaks to companies and "incentives" so that they will move to that area?

schools... Summer school is not "school" and the teachers get paid that deign to teach it.  The buildings are deserted much of the time in California.

In Los Angeles county the school system has 87% adminestrators.  I know of no other system that is run as basdly as the school system unless it is another socialist program.. provate schools consistently give a better product with less money thrown at em than least funded public school.   We are not talking higher educatin here (yet) this is 1-12.

redtail... so.. not wanting to pay your health health care or keep the public school mess makes me a homophobe and a biggot?   I take it that you are a black gay guy and have somehow taken the cutting off of your government tit as a threat?  If you wish to call that homopbic/biggot.... so be it.

I think it is gay black guys like you tho who are the real biggots... but then... that's just me.  

lazs

yeah that is right - we should invest in high quality education for our nation's future rather than short term tax breaks to lure companies to a town.  once that got started, corps would shop for the location that would be the biggest potato for their  interests

guess what?  they figured it was cheaper to go overseas.  THt is why we lost over 2 million manufacturing jobs - so slaves in china could make goods for import to the US

[Toad]

Point 1:

Please name a huge, nationwide mult-billion long term project that the Federal Government has "managed well".

There's where your entire argument falls to sub-atomic size pieces. Case in point is the Kansas City, Mo. school district. It was "taken over" by the Feds years ago because the local school board couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

Guess what? The KC school district is now, offically, in worse shape than it was when the Feds took over.

Just one example.


Getting off subject, but that has to do more with corrupted government with ties to contractors than it does with big government.


Oh, the "big dig" was just a local fubar? I see. Well, go ahead, name that big Fed program that works so well. The one without major fraud, waste and abuse that's incredibly efficient use of our tax dollars. Medicare perhaps? Social Security maybe? Highway program? Go ahead, I'll wait.

Gee..... private industry would have to pay teachers more money? Is that a BAD thing? (Hey, strk! maybe they'd move up in to that "rich" category and you could tax the living shirt out of them!!)

Private business might even have performance standards teachers had to meet......oh, wait.. that'd be BAD wouldn't it? I mean, expecting people to perform their jobs well and all. How unfair!

Lastly, you tell me no would would work on a hyrdrogen engine project if there were a $250 billion prize because the oil companies have oil?

Well, that's a thought I guess. You're right... there's no smart people out there that would want $250 billion.

However, that was not the question, was it? The question was:


Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

Please name a huge, nationwide mult-billion long term project that the Federal Government has "managed well"

I think NASA has done well

There's where your entire argument falls to sub-atomic size pieces. Case in point is the Kansas City, Mo. school district. It was "taken over" by the Feds years ago because the local school board couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

You are making my argument, why couldn't the local school board pour piss out of a boot? Who puts these people on the school board? You and I don't get involved, it falls to pieces, so we pass the buck. It has not been private for how long in our history? Why is it failing now when it has been public all this time b4?

ss what? The KC school district is now, offically, in worse shape than it was when the Feds took over.

Who wants the feds to take over?

the "big dig" was just a local fubar? I see. Well, go ahead, name that big Fed program that works so well. The one without major fraud, waste and abuse that's incredibly efficient use of our tax dollars. Medicare perhaps? Social Security maybe? Highway program? Go ahead, I'll wait.

So there is no corruption in the private sector? If it involves your tax dollar, it will be bloated, private or not. Medicare, SS, Highway, are not these funds being raided by our pres? (oh, and don't forget the military retirement fund. The big dig was built by PRIVATE contractors.

... private industry would have to pay teachers more money? Is that a BAD thing?

What are you talking about, do you read what I wrote? You have to pay them more money, that is a big problem right now. There is a saying around here, "if you can't do anything else, you teach". Why does it have to be private to give them more money? Are you saying our fire dept and police dept should go private too?

Private business might even have performance standards teachers had to meet......oh, wait.. that'd be BAD wouldn't it? I mean, expecting people to perform their jobs well and all. How unfair!

Again, more babbling, didn't I write a better teacher makes for a better education? You could make the same argument for fireman and policemen, you wanna make that private too?

Lastly, you tell me no would would work on a hyrdrogen engine project if there were a $250 billion prize because the oil companies have oil?Well, that's a thought I guess. You're right... there's no smart people out there that would want $250 billion.

It's not that, it's that there are smarter people with a lot more money and power that are not going to let it happen. We could be using biodiesel, but we don't, there is no push to use it, why don't we?

However, that was not the question, was it? The question was:
Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?

Again, same answer as the last post.

[Capt. Pork]

Originally posted by strk
it kills me how you people are ready and willing to shill for the rich

I'd very much like to be one of them some day, and not have to worry about a government playing Robin Hood with my hard earned dollars.

Yes, the country gives opportunities to those that take it. I owe a debt, sure, but to say that somebody that makes a little more owes a disproportionately larger debt is implying that they took advantage of somebody else to get into that position. That may be true in very rare cases, and those rare cases may create a bad rep for the rest of the group, but it's not the average.

Again, and I know this will be lost on you since you only read the first line, there's nothing 'Rich' about some guy working 80 hours a week to just barely fit into that exclusive upper bracket. He has no more obligation to you, or the government, or to the guy who'd just as soon work fewer hours week and complain about it. He worked for his money. He improves the economy and the nation with his labor--which is a service in and of itself.

Of course, it sounds so nice when a million-dollar ketchup bottle starts spewing about taxing the rich. Re-distrubution of wealth!

I'm sure you'll be hearing Chariots of Fire playing in your head, causing the hairs on the back of your neck to stand on end as you cast your vote for him.

[Sixpence]

Let me just add, we already have private schools. Those who can afford it do so. How is a private group going to be able to make money if the people it is directed to cannot afford it?

This has arguments on both sides, but the bottom line is our schools could do well if we got more involved.

http://www.teacherszone.com/Parpublicsch.htm#Public

"As research has shown, success in school is due in part  to, the teacher, the school and but largely to a parents' involvement in their child's academics progress."

You could even make more of an argument for homeschooling, which if you have a parent willing to stay home and do it, is a great idea.

MAJOR FINDINGS - ACHIEVEMENT
Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.
Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.

On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.

Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.

There were no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent held a state issued teaching certificate.

There were significant achievement differences among home school students when classified by amount of money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television viewing.

[lasersailor184]

I would just like to point out that spending during a recession for the fifteenth billion time is a sound economic policy.

Don't listen to what democrats or republicans say about spending during a recession.  They only say it to make uneducated people think that the other side is doing something awful.  They are not.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would just like to point out that spending during a recession for the fifteenth billion time is a sound economic policy.

Don't listen to what democrats or republicans say about spending during a recession.  They only say it to make uneducated people think that the other side is doing something awful.  They are not.

Yeah, when you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and can barely pay the mortgage, go out and borrow another 20k to spend, this is sound policy.

[Toad]

Sure you want to use NASA? Cost overruns abound, inefficiencies, botched missions and disasters.

I'm not making your argument. There IS no argument at all. The local board was a government running a school. There was no accountability, no profit/loss or performance reveiws. They failed so totally that the Feds stepped in and took over the school system. Guess what with a bigger "big government" running the show, things got WORSE. It's a graphic demonstration of where your method leads.

What would have happened if the "big dig" had been let as a contract to build and construct a privately funded "toll road"? This is how highways got built in the early part of our nation's history. Allow them a certain number of years to run the toll road to make back their investment plus a reasonable profit. I think it would have gottne done a lot cheaper with far less drain on the US taxpayer..... how about you?

If it involves your tax dollar, it will be bloated, private or not.

Disagree. It's all in how you structure the contract to the private contractors.

Paying teachers more money is a good thing. Even you realize that. What's the best, quickest way to get them more money AND get accountability on their performance? Private schools. Plain and simple. Paying them more in a public system such as we have provides no accountability. Note the hand wringing and crying about having to meet the minimal Federal standards we have right now.

I'd support privatizing police and fire if they were as dysfunctional as our public schools. Say, what do you think of all the privatized prisons being run for the states all over the country right now? Isn't that privatized police, in essence?

I simply want what works. Public schools don't work anymore, for a whole lot of reasons. Mainly, I think it's because there is no parental control of the schools. The edicts come down from on high and must be followed. And, like always, the guys farthest from the trenches seldom have a clue of what's going on or what is needed.

It's not that, it's that there are smarter people with a lot more money and power that are not going to let it happen.

Oh, yeah.. that's right! Like the 200 mpg Fish carburetor. Look, "big oil" can't buy off all the folks that would crop up going for the $250 billion prize. Even they can't afford that. Beyond that, the market for that technology would be so great that gazillions would be made. I'm betting that with that kind of incentive, the big oil companies would put their own scientists to work on the project.

Biodiesel has one big problem you conveniently overlook. It's probably the lowest cost alternative fuel but it's still not as cheap as petrodiesel. That may change as oil prices rise. But you can't get around the basic fact that it costs more to use and that's why it's not the predominant diesel fuel.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, when you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and can barely pay the mortgage, go out and borrow another 20k to spend, this is sound policy.

FDR sure thought so.

[lasersailor184]

No, you don't follow.  Government spending is different then Household spending.  That's why there are two entirely different courses in College.


To raise the GDP (I.E. make the economy do well), you can do one of two things Fiscally.  The First is to increase spending.  This puts more money into the economy, thus Pushes it up, bringing everything else along with it.

Next you can decrease taxes.  However, the amount you decrease the taxes is some multiplier greater then 1 what it will do to the economy.

I.E. You lower taxes 40 billion dollars, the economy might only go up 25 or 30 billion.  However, if you spend 40 billion dollars, the economy will go up a little bit more then 40 billion dollars.



You are spending money now, so you can save later.



Note that what kerry wants to do is called a Balanced Budget government.  While it will balance the government's debt, it will not help the economy at all.  Infact, fiscally it will probably hurt the economy because you are doing the opposite of what I described above.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad

Biodiesel has one big problem you conveniently overlook. It's probably the lowest cost alternative fuel but it's still not as cheap as petrodiesel. That may change as oil prices rise. But you can't get around the basic fact that it costs more to use and that's why it's not the predominant diesel fuel.

Well, there is one thing you conveniently overlook, the cost of securing foreign oil. Over the last 10 years we have spent almost 96 billion a year securing foreign oil. And since the war began in Iraq, you can double that. When that is factored in, the cost of biodiesel is much cheaper, and saves us lives.  For instance, in 1996, it was estimated that the military costs of securing foreign oil was $57 billion annually. Foreign tax credits accounted for another estimated $4 billion annually and environmental costs were estimated at $45 per barrel. For every billion dollars spent on foreign oil, America lost 10,000 – 25,000 jobs

[Toad]

Prove your thesis that all that military spending is solely "military costs of securing foreign oil".

Sources?

Not opinion, either; proof.