Political Roundtable/Black hole of doom Part Deux

[Ruzious]

I don't have a good answer for improving education, but the answer should not involve making public schools worse - and I think that's what would happen with a voucher system. And it's not like you just divide the total cost of public shools by the total number of students using it - and just assume you take one kid out and you save that amount. There are fixed costs involved that won't go away by moving a kid to a private school - the cost of schools, cost of teachers, utilities, janitors, etc. Instead of focusing on tearing down the system, figure out how to make public schools as good as they used to be.

[DCZards]

Most of those on the "front end of the bell curve" got there as a result of inequities. I think it's about time we level the playing field.

No, you want to tilt the playing field even more than it already is.

I'm not even certain what educational equity means.

Nor do I see why you would even want educational equity.

Educational equity means that ALL women have access to prenatal care so that their kids can start off with healthy minds and bodies (hey, we can even call it Obamacare); eduational equity means that ALL kids have access to Head Start and other early childhood education programs, which are so essential to their development and pay dividends in the long run (see the Perry School Study out of Yipsilanti, Michigan); educational equity means making sure that ALL kids go to well-maintained schools with the the latest books and technology and well-prepared teachers who receive on-going professional training; and educational equity means that ALL kids have access to after-school and summer enrichment programs.

I know this will cost money (it might even require that corporations pay their taxes) and, of course, the parents of these kids should be required to step up and do their parts, which will likely mean offering them training and maybe even new skills so that they can get jobs. But what it means most of all is that we want for "other people's children" what we would want for our own children.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
---John Lennon

[hands11]

How about this one. He makes a boat load based on name recognition and he is getting a ton of free advertising by doing what he is doing. You ever heard of Sarah Palin ? Trump isn't going to run. America would not elect someone like this. He is just in it for the free publicity and the money that follows.

I considered that, but I don't think it makes sense. Trump is already popular. Everyone already knows who he is. All this stunt does is alienate him from half the population.

Doesn't matter is he was already popular. So was Madonna. No really talks about here like they used to. But here we are on a sports board talking about the Don.

Just what he is doing is working.

[hands11]

There's no definition of what "natural born citizen" means.

If you are born in, say, Panama, like John McCain was, but one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you are a citizen. If that is not a "natural born" citizen then John McCain is not a natural born citizen.

Obama's mom is a U.S. citizen. End of argument. The rest really does not matter. I've had to explain this to Tea Partiers on the metro twice already, it's really getting tiring.

Good point, zonker. My American buddy has a 7 year-old son who was born in the Dominican Republic to a Dominican woman. His son, who now lives with my buddy in Maryland, has always been considered an American citizen.

Wow. Why haven't they been talking about it that simply. Isn't this the whole reason why military men are chased when overseas. If they get a women pregnant, the kid is an American.

How could a kid of an American women not be an American?

[hands11]

What bothers me is the blaming of "corporate America" rather than put the blame squarely where it belongs: in the financial sector and the corrupt politicians who support it (both Dems and Reps).

The wealth disparity issue would have looked much better if the government would have butt out in 2008 when the crash happened. All the over-leveraged fat cats would have been wiped out while the mostly non-investing middle class wouldn't have born nearly as much of the brunt. Instead, the government (bribed by the financial industry) stepped in and bailed everybody out while printing money (giving it to the banks first) in attempt to inflate away the debts via currency devaluation. That increased the price of commodities and the pain of the price increase is felt proportionately more by the lower and middle class.

It not Corporations per say. That is part of the spin. My company is a corporation. We are not a part of this. It bigger corporation and multination corporation. And let not forget who corporations have bought their way into being people when in the past it was very clear that they were not and they had very limited charpers that expired.

The politician as in large part a product of the election system we have in place. They can't not partake or they are likely to get elected.

Its also the new laws the supreme court passed that allows so much money from unknown source. This is what the money have bought and this is who the system feeds itsself. It is the mega rick that are rigging the system so badly that the common person stands less of a chance. They master market to people who don't understand and they get them to vote against their interested based on lies like lowering taxes will help balance the budget.



Lastly, it is national elections that are run by states. Everyone does it different. Time to make national elections regulaled by national rules.

[nate33]

When you privatize the public school system, in ten years (without a doubt in my mind) you will end up with the majority of the south being taught in creationist schools and the majority of city kids being taught at McDonald's and Walmart High (where they will replace art and science classes with register operation courses).

Privatizing energy lead to Enron. Deregulation of the oil industry lead to the gulf covered in oil. Privatizing of the airline industry? How's that workin' out for safety and cheaper fares? Deregulation of the banking industry? How'd that work out? Perhaps we shouldn't make the same mistake with our nation's children.

According to wikipedia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland have voucher systems.

According to this study, the Netherlands ranks 7th worldwide, the U.S. ranks 14th, Sweden ranks 15th, and Ireland ranks 17th. The U.S. spends $10,267 per pupil. Sweden spends $8,123. The Netherlands spends $8,109. Ireland spends $7318. Basically, the voucher schools spend between 70% and 80% of what we spend per pupil and get equal or better results.

[barelyawake]

Ah, you wish to mimic the Swedish. I didn't understand. Ok, I'm in. First, we need to double our taxes. Then, unionize almost the entire populace -- the way Sweden has. Form fifteen parties all with the name Democrat in them. Ban creationism in schools. Riot over things like the minimum wage. And generally completely and totally change our political outlook. Then, we would have enough safety nets to allow a voucher system (which, btw, is unlike the ones which the GOP wish to implement).

See, Sweden has a completely different social worldview than we do (which is reflected in their politics). Here, those social, political and economic safety nets that the Sweeds enjoy have been torndown by those who worship, but are to the extreme right of, Ronnie boy. We have increasingly no checks on corporations. And again, if you don't think that corporations arent salivating at the prospect of making over America like China (with cheap, and yes child, labor), you are kidding yourself. Sweden would never allow half the things social and fiscal conservatives want. That's the difference.

[Zonkerbl]

There's no definition of what "natural born citizen" means.

If you are born in, say, Panama, like John McCain was, but one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you are a citizen. If that is not a "natural born" citizen then John McCain is not a natural born citizen.

Obama's mom is a U.S. citizen. End of argument. The rest really does not matter. I've had to explain this to Tea Partiers on the metro twice already, it's really getting tiring.

Good point, zonker. My American buddy has a 7 year-old son who was born in the Dominican Republic to a Dominican woman. His son, who now lives with my buddy in Maryland, has always been considered an American citizen.

Wow. Why haven't they been talking about it that simply. Isn't this the whole reason why military men are chased when overseas. If they get a women pregnant, the kid is an American.

How could a kid of an American women not be an American?

There's confusion over the "natural born" part. The natural interpretation of that is that you have to be born a U.S. citizen, not be a naturalized citizen. But birthers argue that "natural born" means "born on U.S. soil," which is why they make such a big deal about Obama's birth certificate -- they claim he was born in Kenya, and therefore was not born on U.S. soil. But according to that argument, John McCain is not a natural born citizen, because he was born in Panama.

If I understand the way this works, the Supreme Court has been throwing out all these birther lawsuits because to them it's so obvious that "natural born citizen" means "citizen from birth," in which case having a U.S. parent is all you need to qualify.

[DCZards]

Ah, you wish to mimic the Swedish. I didn't understand. Ok, I'm in. First, we need to double our taxes. Then, unionize almost the entire populace -- the way Sweden has. Form fifteen parties all with the name Democrat in them. Ban creationism in schools. Riot over things like the minimum wage. And generally completely and totally change our political outlook. Then, we would have enough safety nets to allow a voucher system (which, btw, is unlike the ones we the GOP wish to implement). See, Sweden has a completely different social structure than we do (which is reflected in their politics). Here, those social, political and economic safety nets that the Sweeds enjoy have been torndown by those who worship, but are to the extreme right, of Ronny boy. We have increasingly no checks on corporations. And again, if you don't think that corporations are salivating at the prospect of making over America like China (with cheap, and yes child, labor), you are kidding yourself. Sweden would never allow it. That's the difference.

And, while we're at it, let's also mimic Swedish's universal healthcare. Oops, I mean Obamacare.

[hands11]

When you privatize the public school system, in ten years (without a doubt in my mind) you will end up with the majority of the south being taught in creationist schools and the majority of city kids being taught at McDonald's and Walmart High (where they will replace art and science classes with register operation courses).

Privatizing energy lead to Enron. Deregulation of the oil industry lead to the gulf covered in oil. Privatizing of the airline industry? How's that workin' out for safety and cheaper fares? Deregulation of the banking industry? How'd that work out? Perhaps we shouldn't make the same mistake with our nation's children.

Look, the train is coming down the tracks and there isn't much anyone can do about.

Demographics are changing.
Women are more empowered than ever
and orthodoc religious beliefs and fading. I find little difference between extreme christiams and the taliban or the communists.

Even the Pope has publically stated the evilution is true and it is common knowledge that the book of revolation is dunk. No educated Christian takes to Bible in it's entirity. Every "religion" is flowed. So is everly religious book. They are no written by God, they are written by man.

It's about spirituality.. It's about not being selfish. It about how we are connected, not how we are different.

[nate33]

Ah, you wish to mimic the Swedish. I didn't understand. Ok, I'm in. First, we need to double our taxes. Then, unionize almost the entire populace -- the way Sweden has. Form fifteen parties all with the name Democrat in them. Ban creationism in schools. Riot over things like the minimum wage. And generally completely and totally change our political outlook. Then, we would have enough safety nets to allow a voucher system (which, btw, is unlike the ones which the GOP wish to implement).

See, Sweden has a completely different social worldview than we do (which is reflected in their politics). Here, those social, political and economic safety nets that the Sweeds enjoy have been torndown by those who worship, but are to the extreme right of, Ronnie boy. We have increasingly no checks on corporations. And again, if you don't think that corporations arent salivating at the prospect of making over America like China (with cheap, and yes child, labor), you are kidding yourself. Sweden would never allow half the things social and fiscal conservatives want. That's the difference.

What does any of this have to do with their educational system?

Clearly, the evidence suggests that vouchers work if they're implemented properly.

[Illuminaire]

Even the Pope has publically stated the evilution is true and it is common knowledge that the book of revolation is dunk. No educated Christian takes to Bible in it's entirity. Every "religion" is flowed. So is everly religious book. They are no written by God, they are written by man.

It's about spirituality.. It's about not being selfish. It about how we are connected, not how we are different.

As an educated Christian man who has spent significant time in both secular and faith-based universities, I have no trouble taking the Bible in its entirety. Bibliology is actually one of my favorite subjects of study, especially the textual transmission of different manuscript variants.

Also, the idea that all religion is flawed supposes one of two things. First, that there if there is a god and objective truth about him, said god is incapable of communicating that truth to humans. (Pretty pathetic deity, really). Second, that there is no objective truth and everyone is wrong.

I don't object to you having such an opinion (though I believe you are incorrect, of course ^_^ ), but I do object to opinions stated as irrevocable fact - especially without supporting evidence.

I agree that spirituality is important. I believe the basis of that spirituality is significant, though, as what you believe about the nature of the universe will change how you respond to the world and the people in it. As a side note, if anyone wishes to discuss creationism and evolution, I am perfectly willing to have a PM conversation. I avoid that in forums, though, as those topics tend to draw a great deal of passion and mudslinging that makes calm discourse difficult at best.

[barelyawake]

I absolutely knew you wouldn't get the cause and effect. Ok, with a politically left leaning populace (like Sweden) you wouldn't have things like exploitation of the school system by corporations or religion. Why? Unions, political activism, etc.

You must know that a completely privatized school system in America would mean creationism forced on a swath of students in America. Not so in the liberal and socially active Sweden. Also, you wouldn't have the corporate culture invading schools in Sweden. Why? Different mindset. Different view of social activism. Labor unions to guard against it. Where as in America we justify making prisoners work for slave wages to work off their prison sentences. You can't see that corporations running high schools in America, which is starved for jobs, would be able to exploit youths? We already have McDonalds in lunchrooms despite protest. Next comes on-site management programs raising grade schoolers to work at whatever corporate entity owns the high school. Again, in the politically active Sweden, they guard themselves against such exploitation via many social and economic checks.

And that doesn't touch on how the economics of Sweden are different than America. And how the GOP plans to implement a voucher system is radically different than the one in Sweden (and with a different impact because of the different economic safety nets.

[nate33]

barelyawake, your abject hatred of free market capitalism and political conservatism is breathtaking. It's not worth it to continue debating with you. We'll never find any common ground.

[barelyawake]

I, of course, could say the same about your utter trust in a free market solving every problem. I don't hate capitalism. I love capitalism (when balanced and checked with government regulation and a healthy union system -- you know, like Sweden). I assume since you avoided the issue three times, you concede that creationists schools would pop-up all over the south. Meaning the government would be subsidizing students to learn that every aspect of science is false. If you think that's how to help American progress, or the American economy, then you are right we have nothing to discuss.

[nate33]

I never avoided the issue. You were the one who avoided my evidence that school choice works by throwing up the creationist schools red herring. You couldn't argue my facts so you had to resort to the ol' "crazy redneck Bible thumper" tactic.

But I'll address the issue if it pleases you. It's probably true that there would be some number of schools who end up teaching creationism. I don't think it would be large swaths of the South doing so, but even if it did happen, I don't think it's the end of the world. We experienced the Industrial Revolution despite schooling being handled primarily by religious types teaching creationism. Evolutionary theory is only a very, very small element of a student's curriculum.

I still trust parents and free choice more than governments and bureaucracy.

[DCZards]

According to wikipedia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Ireland have voucher systems.

According to this study, the Netherlands ranks 7th worldwide, the U.S. ranks 14th, Sweden ranks 15th, and Ireland ranks 17th. The U.S. spends $10,267 per pupil. Sweden spends $8,123. The Netherlands spends $8,109. Ireland spends $7318. Basically, the voucher schools spend between 70% and 80% of what we spend per pupil and get equal or better results.

Comparing what it costs to fund schools in the US and what the per pupil cost is elsewhere in the world is really a case of comparing apples and oranges. You have to go below the surface of these numbers and take into account factors like student demographics, the cost of living in those countries, the age and size of school buildings that must be maintained, a whole bunch of stuff.

I believe the point that barely was making is that the Swedish education system is part of a larger social, economic and political compact that the Swedes have embraced, which includes unions, universal healthcare, etc. So if you like the voucherized ed system in Sweden, remember that its success flows, in large part, from these other aspects of Swedish life and approach to government. You just can't cherry pick vouchers and expect the same or better ed. results as the Swedes. It's the total package of Swedish values that you'll need to accept, which, btw, includes robust public employee unions.

[nate33]

I understand barelyawake's point. I just reject it. He's basically saying that vouchers only work in socialist utopias and they won't work in capitalistic societies. He has no evidence to suggest this is true, only his gut feelings based on hatred for capitalism and love for socialism.

[barelyawake]

Lol Nate, your resort to namecalling is typical of your Fox news crowd. Anyone who suggests that the system you propose has major flaws "hates America," as you pretend to drape yourself in the red, white and blue as if you own it. I'm a "socialist" because I believe in tempered capitalism -- like we had in the 1950's. Typical and frankly petty.

You're right. We won't agree. And you're right. It isn't worth "debating" you.

[montestewart]

There's confusion over the "natural born" part. The natural interpretation of that is that you have to be born a U.S. citizen, not be a naturalized citizen. But birthers argue that "natural born" means "born on U.S. soil," which is why they make such a big deal about Obama's birth certificate -- they claim he was born in Kenya, and therefore was not born on U.S. soil. But according to that argument, John McCain is not a natural born citizen, because he was born in Panama.

If I understand the way this works, the Supreme Court has been throwing out all these birther lawsuits because to them it's so obvious that "natural born citizen" means "citizen from birth," in which case having a U.S. parent is all you need to qualify.

As far as I've seen, there's no tradition of granting "natural-born" status to children born outside of U.S. soil that have one American parent. There's a logic to that; if the child has only one American parent, then why isn't the child just as tied to the other parent's nationality? Born on U.S. soil tips the scales regardless. Born off of U.S. soil to two U.S. parents is another ambiguous area (unreasonably so, but it is) and there's no tradition of automatically granting "natural-born" status there either. Of course, the latter would easily be considered a U.S. citizen, and the former would likely almost as easily, but were someone born under those circumstances to run for president, there would be protests tied to tradition.

John McCain was born to two U.S. parents on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. Tradition has long (if not always) considered both U.S. bases and U.S. administered territories to be U.S. territory, just as U.S. embassies are considered U.S. territory. Anyone born under any of these circumstances would be considered "natural born," and McCain cleverly combined two in his birth. He was thinking ahead. Based on the evidence I've seen, he's pretty clearly "natural born."

Trump's claim that Obama's birth announcements in Hawaiian papers might have been planted in order to insure his U.S. citizenship (wait a minute, it wasn't to insure that he could one day run for president?) are so silly. If he was born in Kenya, he would not have been considered "natural born" (unless he was born at the U.S. embassy) but he could easily have become a U.S. citizen, because he had a native born U.S. citizen mother. Based on the evidence I've seen, he's pretty clearly "natural born."

The biggest con is not Obama hiding his true birth place. The biggest con is not trying to convince people that Obama is hiding his true birth place. That people are wasting their time thinking about this, when there are so many real issues out there...that's the biggest con.

PS: I've never given it much thought, but I'm not sure there couldn't be a great president that was not "natural born." Well, if there were a great president.