The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Regardless of who said it, they're right.


One of if not my favorite science fiction authors is Robert Heinlein.
One of his quotes is:


Makes perfect sense to me.

The problem is that they are the least likely to have a gun. Christians in a bible study inside of a church. It wouldn't matter if there were gun carts legally selling guns, rifles, grenades, attack dogs, personal SWAT teams or the service of the Navy Seals to anything with a heart beat right outside of the church, chances are they wouldn't have had any of that. Though I doubt they would have been able to stop Roof before he killed one or two people unless one of them would be able to overcome the shock and fear that the Military works so hard to train its troops to overcome. Look, I don't think gun control is a magic pill that would solve gun violence, but wonton gun proliferation isn't a magic pill either.

What's even worse is that if Roof was a Muslim and dropped some lines about Allah and Death to America, he wouldn't have even gotten to the church. The NSA would have tipped off the FBI and he be on the receiving end of a SWAT raid and they would have most certainly NOT bought him a hamburger and there would be 9 people alive today. But sadly, he wasn't Muslim, his victims weren't targeted because of a Jihad, and thus no one cared when he practically announced his attack online...and they bought him a hamburger, a hamburger.

[garhkal]

To your good list of requirements I would add drug testing and a celibacy/or mandatory contraception requirement; if you test positive for drugs (including tobacco!) or become pregnant or father a child while on benefits, you forfeit your eligibility.

Why include tobacco??

As to why we won't likely see reasonable eligibility requirements, you may not understand the symbiotic relationship that exists between the leeches and the people who tend to the needs of the leeches.

Eligibility requirements are determined and set by the various social service/welfare departments, usually at the state level. And there are often clauses such as "subject to the determination of the examiner", for example.


So we have the leeches themselves, who are dependent upon government $ for their existence, and we have a cadre of well paid, unionized government employees whose jobs depend upon the existence of the leeches. These govt. employees are not going to advocate requirements which would reduce the number of their jobs.

So the odds of getting reasonable requirements from the people who administer the systems are low.

Agreed. Less welfare recipients, means less of a bloated bureaucracy to administer it...

In essence, you are asking families who can't afford private schooling to pay at least $5,000 for their kids to have an education.

And how is that any more unfair than telling those who don't evne have kids, that they need to pay for everyone else's kid to get an education? Come to think of it, when did education become a "right" that the government needs to support?

You're telling me that parents who probably rent, not own, property are going to be able to foot the bill? And speaking of that, since they rent, the landlord would pay that in distribute the cost to all of their renters to keep rent as low as possible. Or they'll discourage renting to families with school age children all together.

Which is why i hate that schools come under property taxes, as renters who have kids, get hit disproportionally less than those who own their house do. (though technically, since if you fail to pay your property tax you can be evicted, you don't own your home, the state/township/county does).

It would give incentives to families to not buy homes at all. That would impact the housing market.

And you don't think that is already happening, where families see more of a benefit to rent, vice own, as they have less PT issues to worry about, compared to the single person/married with no kids couple?

For a minute I thought I was reading 1984 when I read this paragraph. Didn't you just deny saying that you wanted government to tell people they couldn't have kids? How on God's good earth can you even consider calling yourself a libertarian? Forced celibacy/contraceptives are strictly unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection of the law. So a married couple can't have kids while a family of 4 could still receive assistance? Yeah, not ganna work.

It is a strange and contentious issue. As it is, welfare seems to reward you the more kids you pop out.. So do we try and go a different route to reward those who don't become baby factories', or leave it as is?

That's like saying that cops and DA's don't want crime to go down cause they'll work themselves out of a job, or that doctors don't want cures for diseases because they'll end their carriers.

It is true in relation to medical companies though. They see more of a profit from treating the disease than curing it.

But when it's given, it has to be given equally.

Then why does a single mother say of 3, make more on welfare/wic/section 8 and 10 and all the other assistance programs, than say a single male, or a married couple needing public assistance?

Don't ask me, I've wondered about the same thing myself many times over.

I guess, it wouldn't bring money into the bank otherwise.

That's most likely it..

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

And how is that any more unfair than telling those who don't evne have kids, that they need to pay for everyone else's kid to get an education? Come to think of it, when did education become a "right" that the government needs to support?

Education is only for the rich now? Do you want to return to the stone age?

Or are you suggesting that only people who use certain services should pay for them.. Only victims of crime should pay for police. If your house is burning down, how can you justify calling for help to put it out? If it's your first fire you clearly haven't been paying your fireman tax.. Because you have to use a service before you start to pay for it...

Education may cost a lot of money. But I say it's worth it. How much more do you think it will cost to look after the future generations of man-beasts you're suggesting we devolve into? Do you really want a future where your children/grandchildren are forced to live in a post apocalyptic wasteland where they have to fight the uneducated masses for the last can of tuna just because you don't want to pay towards keeping as many kids in school as possible?

Do you know how insane some of the arguments in this thread are? It's a good thing you all spend your time arguing in here, and no one in this thread has any power to make these things happen. You would be dangerous if you did..

[Annoyed]

Why include tobacco??

Because it is a luxury, and a very expensive one at that.

[aretood2]

[QUOTE=garhkal;14375739]

Agreed. Less welfare recipients, means less of a bloated bureaucracy to administer it...

Currently, social workers are over worked. They have way more cases than they can handle, I am sure they wouldn't mind losing at least half of those cases. That, and if reforms are mad in line of what I described, even having minimal cases to work on would be way more than enough to keep them busy and their jobs secure.

And how is that any more unfair than telling those who don't evne have kids, that they need to pay for everyone else's kid to get an education? Come to think of it, when did education become a "right" that the government needs to support?

Since like the US was country. Well, actually during the first few decades that the US was a country.

In 1690 the Massachusetts Bay Colony was given a court mandate to establish a Latin school in every town of more than 50 people. In 1779 Thomas Jefferson (A well known Anti-American Communist) proposed a public education system where there would be two types of systems. One for poor people (that communist Anti-American Bigot!!!!) and one for the rich. Before the US Constitution was written, the Continental Congress of the United States Assembled proposed a scheme involving land, public funds, taxes, and schools which was the spiritual ancestor of public universities here in the US.

My own state's constitution, Pennsylvania, in 1790 mandates public education for poor kids, not rich kids, but poor kids (must have been populated by Marxist Communist terrorists masquerading as Quakers at that time). In 1817 Boston town meeting proposed which finally opened the first public school (read, a school for everyone) in 1820 (most likely staffed by socialists bent on spreading the wealth). Now grant it the founders are really old or close to their deathbeds at this time. You can see the pattern here. As the US developed increasing calls for public education routed in colonial era philosophy led to today's Lenin inspired idea that every kid ought to get a public education. And, as our some of our communist founders believed, that the aim was to educate the poor too via public funds.

It got to the point that by 1905 the US Supreme Court (Known then as the "Extremely Socialist Marxist Society of America") mandated that California provide Chinese children with public education. It seems, that even in an era where racial superiority was ingrained in the hard sciences and widely accepted by scientists people still thought that the "lesser races" had a right to a public education funded by the superior white people. So tell me, why would a sane non-racist American of today think that kids who he believes to be his equals don't have a right to public education?

In other words, the idea that kids have a right to government funded education is as old as dirt and strongly ingrained in American society and even an implicit give in so much that I am shocked that you would even hint otherwise.

Which is why i hate that schools come under property taxes, as renters who have kids, get hit disproportionally less than those who own their house do. (though technically, since if you fail to pay your property tax you can be evicted, you don't own your home, the state/township/county does).

And you don't think that is already happening, where families see more of a benefit to rent, vice own, as they have less PT issues to worry about, compared to the single person/married with no kids couple?

Don't tell me. As I said, it's better if school funding wasn't based on property taxes all together. It would certainly solve several issues as long as replacement funding for schools is secured.

Then why does a single mother say of 3, make more on welfare/wic/section 8 and 10 and all the other assistance programs, than say a single male, or a married couple needing public assistance?

Sometimes I get the feeling that you think you're arguing with a run of the mill liberal when you talk to me....I think you know the answer to your question, but just in case...

Because men ain't supposed to be single parents and the legal system favors women, especially if minority men are involved. My God, if a black or Hispanic man is fighting for child custody against a drug addict woman who has been see giving the child a sip of beer she could still conceivably win being white probably would only raise the chances of the man winning by like 1% (That is...if the mother is white otherwise they'll lose to a minority woman). Men wining custody cases are so rare in comparison that when the system has to help these men out, they get treated differently and given a lower priority.

As for couples getting less help...the same bias that helps single women win custody cases against men also helps them gain pity points against struggling couples. Pity points that get converted into aid.

[mad_gater]

The only real danger around here is ignorance of the inherent evils that government-controlled anything has wrought

long before the inherent failure that is the public "education" system we have now, lower income people were NOT, contrary to popular opinion, cast out into the cold cruel world without any education....gee however did we survive back then without all this life-saving bureaucracy? /sarcasm

[SoulReaver]

The only real danger around here is ignorance of the inherent evils that government-controlled anything has wrought

exactly - like eg. government telling women what they can't do with themselves

[Annoyed]

So according to John Kerry if more people carried guns in movie theatres and churches we would all be a lot safer... OK? scratches head

Pretty much.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27...ncealed-carry/

A 62-year-old man with a gun in each hand fired at four people – including a 1-year-old boy – before a civilian with a concealed carry permit returned fire and wounded the shooter, cops told FOX19.

[SoulReaver]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/27/cincinnati-man-shoots-at-1-year-old-boy-is-shot-by-man-with-concealed-carry/[/url]

this is in the US so that guy's lucky the coppers didn't gun him down (that's all they're good at apparently)

[Annoyed]

Because men ain't supposed to be single parents and the legal system favors women, especially if minority men are involved.

NEITHER gender should be single parents. The ideal situation for raising a child is two parents, one from column A and one from column B.

[Falcon Horus]

I tripped over an article on drugtesting people who receive welfare... The results are quite astonishing to say the least. States are literally loosing money over it - it apparently costs more than it's worth. And I'm not talking about the quality of the tests.

What Happened When Arizona Drug Tested People on Welfare

[mad_gater]

I tripped over an article on drugtesting people who receive welfare... The results are quite astonishing to say the least. States are literally loosing money over it - it apparently costs more than it's worth. And I'm not talking about the quality of the tests.

What Happened When Arizona Drug Tested People on Welfare

I think I found the rub: "The reasoning may be Arizona's 'reasonable cause' clause, which only tests applicants who respond that they have used drugs in the past 30 days. The goal was to save the state an estimated $1.7 million, but the savings have come nowhere near that, and the drug testing cost the state close to $500."

You really think people desperate for government assistance are gonna be 100% truthful...especially on something like that? I can imagine there being plenty of people addicted to drugs who would have no qualms whatsoever about answering "no" to having used drugs within the last 30 days in order to get or keep government assistance....and by the article's own admission they don't test people who answered "no" to that question.

if they tested EVERYONE applying and at totally random intervals tested EVERYONE currently on the dole....I would wager that they'd probably catch more addicts abusing the system

[garhkal]

Education is only for the rich now? Do you want to return to the stone age?

Where have i advocated that? And when did it BECOME a right?

Or are you suggesting that only people who use certain services should pay for them.. Only victims of crime should pay for police. If your house is burning down, how can you justify calling for help to put it out? If it's your first fire you clearly haven't been paying your fireman tax.. Because you have to use a service before you start to pay for it...

IMO Cops/fire/ambulance services should NOT be done that way. Schools on the other hand (since as i asked above, where exactly is 'education a universal right', should not come under the general welfare and security of all clause), should be treated that way.
Just like if i don't use a gym, i shouldn't need to pay for membership at it.

Education may cost a lot of money. But I say it's worth it. How much more do you think it will cost to look after the future generations of man-beasts you're suggesting we devolve into? Do you really want a future where your children/grandchildren are forced to live in a post apocalyptic wasteland where they have to fight the uneducated masses for the last can of tuna just because you don't want to pay towards keeping as many kids in school as possible?

So cause it may cost more later, just suck it up and pay it now?
And look at how many MILLIONS we are already throwing at schools. Some areas have seemed to gotten WORSE. And imo its not the school that's at fault, its the GANG culture that is ruining things..

In other words, the idea that kids have a right to government funded education is as old as dirt and strongly ingrained in American society and even an implicit give in so much that I am shocked that you would even hint otherwise.

So cause it has been (imo) wrongly around for so long, don't fight to change it? By that logic voting for women/minorities would never have come to pass.

The only real danger around here is ignorance of the inherent evils that government-controlled anything has wrought

long before the inherent failure that is the public "education" system we have now, lower income people were NOT, contrary to popular opinion, cast out into the cold cruel world without any education....gee however did we survive back then without all this life-saving bureaucracy? /sarcasm

Nor did they starve to death by the hundreds..

I think I found the rub: "The reasoning may be Arizona's 'reasonable cause' clause, which only tests applicants who respond that they have used drugs in the past 30 days. The goal was to save the state an estimated $1.7 million, but the savings have come nowhere near that, and the drug testing cost the state close to $500."

You really think people desperate for government assistance are gonna be 100% truthful...especially on something like that? I can imagine there being plenty of people addicted to drugs who would have no qualms whatsoever about answering "no" to having used drugs within the last 30 days in order to get or keep government assistance....and by the article's own admission they don't test people who answered "no" to that question.

if they tested EVERYONE applying and at totally random intervals tested EVERYONE currently on the dole....I would wager that they'd probably catch more addicts abusing the system

Agreed. Also since that story came from 'thinkprogressive' imo it seemed to have a liberal stance..

[aretood2]

The only real danger around here is ignorance of the inherent evils that government-controlled anything has wrought

long before the inherent failure that is the public "education" system we have now, lower income people were NOT, contrary to popular opinion, cast out into the cold cruel world without any education....gee however did we survive back then without all this life-saving bureaucracy? /sarcasm

I'm done. It'd obvious you have set your mind and no amount of facts will dissuade you. It's also obvious that data and research (nor the realities of a modern world) are not the bases of your beliefs.

Just a few facts I want to point out that most probably know:

1. The US educational system is not in shambles nor is it a failure. It still ranks above most nations in the world and beat the vast majority of developing nations and several developed 1st world nations.

2. Before the 80's, the US had the best education system in the world and in history. It was laws like Proposition 13 (California) that dealt a serious blow to the system as data shows. It was a good law, but it failed to account for necessary funding for schools.

3. Even after the 80's it was a good system still, but as researchers in the field of education show, Standardized testing and policies (federal ones that is) like No Child Left Behind severely hurt the educational system. Researchers have since been attempting to develop ways teachers can counter the "cram all knowledge before the test" culture that NCLB gave birth to. It's starting to work since they have come up with ways to do that.

4. Public schools outperform private schools. The only private schools that out preform their counterparts are those that can afford high quality teachers, resources, and have students who can afford high quality tutors (the actual rich schools.) Many struggle to keep on the same level as public schools on average and many private schools refuse students who struggle, have special needs, or are "dumb" while public schools take in those students and then get punished for it by people like you.

5. Colleges have only been complaining about students thanks to federal programs like NCLB and how it has single handily handicapped local schools from producing the results that made them world class educators back before the 80's.

6. The only real differences between the US education system and those of the few nations that are beating us are the following:

A. Their public actually values education and considers it a right. Yes, countries like the UK to the Scandinavians and the other developed nations of Europe. Not surprisingly, the East Asian nations are the same and two of said countries are beating the US.

B. Some, not all, of those nations to push out struggling students and only count those who don't struggle and don't test them thus their scores aren't affect by their low performance. By struggling I mean kids with learning disabilities, down syndrome, low preforming autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc. Our public schools actually try to teach them as much as possible and then include them in the tests which brings America's scores down.

C. They don't blame teachers nor demonize them but instead actually listen to researchers and implement necessary changes when needed. Now this isn't done without controversy, but the debate is different over there than here.

D. They don't treat it as a burden but as an investment. Which is why nations like Israel are not only catching up to the US in technological development but are surpassing the US and beating it in technological development.

E. The parents actually tend to care more about their kids education just like the public and hold their kids accountable (Especially in countries like Sweden, Finland, China and Israel), unlike some parents/people here in the US.

Everything else is the same. Same type of teachers, methods used in class, general policies, public funding, researchers (though here they tend to get ignored by policy makers) etc..

Where have i advocated that? And when did it BECOME a right?

It's not a right in the US. It's an obligation. All kids have to get educated or the parents go to jail. But it became an obligation as early as Moses' time really. Deuteronomy 6:4ff does establish a form of education and according to Jewish tradition it involves more than parents telling kids how it is. Which, interestingly enough, sheds some light into how universities an institutions of learning all began with religious institutions. But since you're agnostic I'll put it in terms you might be able to understand.

The founding fathers all valued education, not just moral upbringing. And in a time of apprenticeship schools weren't inherently needed even though many like Thomas Jefferson were already coming up with schemes that were very much like today's public system. They did that because they understood the inherent need and obligation for all kids to learn more than just what their parents know.

You and your ideological friends here are advocating a system of only private education which does translate to "education for the rich only."

IMO Cops/fire/ambulance services should NOT be done that way. Schools on the other hand (since as i asked above, where exactly is 'education a universal right', should not come under the general welfare and security of all clause), should be treated that way.
Just like if i don't use a gym, i shouldn't need to pay for membership at it.

Now you're comparing education to gym membership. Wow.

So cause it may cost more later, just suck it up and pay it now?
And look at how many MILLIONS we are already throwing at schools. Some areas have seemed to gotten WORSE. And imo its not the school that's at fault, its the GANG culture that is ruining things..

That's why they call it "investment" and it's SOME areas. As in NOT ALL as in you're ignoring the scores of successful schools. Goodness gracious did you have crappy teachers or something as a kid? Are you just anti-education? Does that even exist? And gang culture? Guess who helps fuel that? People like you who send a clear message to kids that schools don't matter and thus makes it easier for the gangs to suck them in. Gangs don't need to spread anti-school propaganda to get kids into their circle, people like you do enough of that.

So cause it has been (imo) wrongly around for so long, don't fight to change it? By that logic voting for women/minorities would never have come to pass.

The US constitution has also been around for a long time, so by your logic it should be discarded. You asked "since when was it considered a right" and I answered "since a long time." Don't try to weasel out of an answer you weren't expecting by all of a sudden changing the conversation as to the merits of whether or not it should be considered a right (which it has been and has even been encoded into the law of all the nations beating the US at it and those who are catching up and will surpass the US as long as people agree with you).

Nor did they starve to death by the hundreds..

Uh....they kinda did.

[Coco Pops]

I think education should be a right.... What is wrong with that?