The Palin/Biden Debate: 10/02/08

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
448

[quote]pushharder wrote:
malonetd wrote:
pushharder wrote:
rainjack wrote:

…Show me where in the constitution the federal government has the power to run the education of our children. It should be a state issue, just like 100% of the stupid social programs the government has decided to stick their noses in.

Don’t you remember his (or was it Malone’s?) post that dripped contempt all over the 10th Amendment and how antiquated it is?

If you’re referring to my post, I was hoping it was easily recognized sarcasm. I thought it oozed sarcasm.

I thought you would especially get it since we had the conversation before about the 10th. (Now, I’m thinking maybe it wasn’t you.)

You may be right and if you intended sarcasm and I didn’t get it or forgot that I got it, I apologize.

BTW, what do you libs do with the 10th? What DOES it mean to you? Why is it the “forgotten Amendment”? Or should we start another thread?[/quote]

I’m probably not the right person to ask, I think I get thrown in with the liberals because of abortion. I firmly believe in more power being in the hands of the states

To me, the 10th means exactly what it says. I don’t see how it could be misinterpreted in anyway. It’s probably one of the least ambiguous things in the Constitution. I don’t why it has become forgotten or why it has been shit on in so many different ways.

449

It’s simple. If only states had the option to create and maintain entitlement/welfare programs, there wouldn’t be any. One of the most common arguements from liberals when one suggests the federal government has no business running programs which should be left to the individual states, is:

“Then all the poor people would swamp the states that decide to have entitlement programs! So, it has to be mandated from the federal government!”

450

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s simple. If only states had the option to create and maintain entitlement/welfare programs, there wouldn’t be any. One of the most common arguements from liberals when one suggests the federal government has no business running programs which should be left to the individual states, is:

“Then all the poor people would swamp the states that decide to have entitlement programs! So, it has to be mandated from the federal government!”

[/quote]

And it’s a horrible argument. Vouchers, if they should exist at all, should be a state-run program. Like many other programs that would be better left to the states but that the federal government sticks its nose in.

I wouldn’t want to live somewhere with a voucher program. If someone lives in a state with a struggling education system, private schools are much preferred by most residents, and there’s enough popular support, let them set up a state voucher program.

The educational outcomes speak for themselves. They haven’t been improved. But it is a money saver for parents who prefer private school. It’s not something that should be forced on me.

451

[quote]pushharder wrote:

BTW, what do you libs do with the 10th? What DOES it mean to you? Why is it the “forgotten Amendment”? Or should we start another thread?[/quote]

A thread all its own could be a great investment of time indeed. The “federalist” argument needs to be brought back to national politics.

A perfect example - I believe it was Joe Biden (could be wrong) that made an issue of McCain voting against the Violence Against Women Act, draped in a general complaint that McCain wasn’t “sensitive” to the issue or, much worse, McCain didn’t want to protect women from violence.

An easy rhetorical misdirection nowadays, sure to send modern hipsters into a fit about McCain being “evil” or “chauvinistic” - and yet, the debate against the law hinged on whether the federal government should be enacting such laws within its powers, not over whether women should be protected from violence.

This analysis should be in every question of policy at the federal level, but isn’t.

The federalist question is completely ignored, and the GOP (and presumably the Democrat party) could use it to great advantage if they were to rediscover the importance of it.

Unfortunately for the Left, the 10th Amendment is meaningless, which fits neatly into their “Living Constitution” buffet-style constitution - take what you like, leave the rest.

Provincial concepts like “states’ rights” get in the way of the glorious march to Progress, and that section of the Constitution gets scrapped on the heap of “policy that old, rich, dead white guys liked”, even though the language is there and hasn’t changed.

452

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

BTW, what do you libs do with the 10th? What DOES it mean to you? Why is it the “forgotten Amendment”? Or should we start another thread?

A thread all its own could be a great investment of time indeed. The “federalist” argument needs to be brought back to national politics.

A perfect example - I believe it was Joe Biden (could be wrong) that made an issue of McCain voting against the Violence Against Women Act, draped in a general complaint that McCain wasn’t “sensitive” to the issue or, much worse, McCain didn’t want to protect women from violence.

An easy rhetorical misdirection nowadays, sure to send modern hipsters into a fit about McCain being “evil” or “chauvinistic” - and yet, the debate against the law hinged on whether the federal government should be enacting such laws within its powers, not over whether women should be protected from violence.

This analysis should be in every question of policy at the federal level, but isn’t.

The federalist question is completely ignored, and the GOP (and presumably the Democrat party) could use it to great advantage if they were to rediscover the importance of it.

Unfortunately for the Left, the 10th Amendment is meaningless, which fits neatly into their “Living Constitution” buffet-style constitution - take what you like, leave the rest.

Provincial concepts like “states’ rights” get in the way of the glorious march to Progress, and that section of the Constitution gets scrapped on the heap of “policy that old, rich, dead white guys liked”, even though the language is there and hasn’t changed.[/quote]

The Supreme Court was right on this one. Rape and other violence against women is obviously atrocious. But let’s not pretend it’s really an economic, interstate commerce issue.

453

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Unfortunately for the Left, the 10th Amendment is meaningless, which fits neatly into their “Living Constitution” buffet-style constitution - take what you like, leave the rest.

Provincial concepts like “states’ rights” get in the way of the glorious march to Progress, and that section of the Constitution gets scrapped on the heap of “policy that old, rich, dead white guys liked”, even though the language is there and hasn’t changed.[/quote]

It’s really not a misintrepretation of the 10th amendment that has resulted in the gross expansion of the federal government. It’s an expansive interpretation (arguably a misinterpreation) of specifically granted federal powers like the interstate commerce clause.

And ‘loopholes’ like the necesssary and proper kind of clause. These kind of interpretations have avoided the issue of whether something was not specifically enumerated and thus appropriately left to the states. Because everything is pushed into the box of fitting under some umbrella of federal power.

455

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Unfortunately for the Left, the 10th Amendment is meaningless, which fits neatly into their “Living Constitution” buffet-style constitution - take what you like, leave the rest.

Provincial concepts like “states’ rights” get in the way of the glorious march to Progress, and that section of the Constitution gets scrapped on the heap of “policy that old, rich, dead white guys liked”, even though the language is there and hasn’t changed.

It’s really not a misintrepretation of the 10th amendment that has resulted in the gross expansion of the federal government. It’s an expansive interpretation (arguably a misinterpreation) of specifically granted federal powers like the interstate commerce clause.

And ‘loopholes’ like the necesssary and proper kind of clause. These kind of interpretations have avoided the issue of whether something was not specifically enumerated and thus appropriately left to the states. Because everything is pushed into the box of fitting under some umbrella of federal power.

Yes, but these so called ambiguous loopholes and their interpretation and such should not trump the clear cut language and intent of the 10th. It’s sheer sacrilege in a sense. It’s abhorrent.

How can the 10th be so casually discarded but the 1st be so revered? The numbering of the Amendments does not indicate some kind of a hierarchy. If so, the hallowed 14th should mean a little less than the forgotten 10th and the 22nd should mean even less and so on and so forth.

If the 10th doesn’t really mean what is says and is a victim of the Living Constitution philosophy, then what the hell does it really mean today? Someone tell me.

Why not just pass another Amendment that repeals it?[/quote]

I agree with you.

456

[quote]pushharder wrote:
How can the 10th be so casually discarded but the 1st be so revered? The numbering of the Amendments does not indicate some kind of a hierarchy.[/quote]

For example, it is the Second Amendment that guarantees all the other amendments.

457

jsbrook,

I agree with most of the things you post on this forum, but I disagree with you regarding school choice. We should adopt a voucher system (on the state or district level).

I agree with all of the problems that you’ve brought up. But I think introducing market mechanisms is part of the solution to our problems. Yes, poor schools are falling behind, but can a poor family really pick up and move to a nicer area to go to a nicer school like you’re suggesting?

Of course not. [u]A well-run voucher system[/u] (yes, yes, I know…this is why people like you need to continue to make noise to make sure it is implemented correctly, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers) would allow poor parents who care about their children’s education, to have an opportunity that they don’t currently have.

In Milwaukee, I’ve met poor parents who work their asses off to give their kids an opportunity that they otherwise couldn’t have had. In short, the benefits of “giving kids/parents who care a chance” is greater than the potential pitfalls, IMO.

Now we’re still going to have a problem with schools that are failing. They’ll see their #s dip and they’ll be dealing primarily with kids and parents who couldn’t care less. I see this as a separate problem. We need to work to give more kids the chance to succeed, not reduce their chances because their parents can’t afford to move.

458

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook,

I agree with most of the things you post on this forum, but I disagree with you regarding school choice. We should adopt a voucher system (on the state or district level).

I agree with all of the problems that you’ve brought up. But I think introducing market mechanisms is part of the solution to our problems.

Yes, poor schools are falling behind, but can a poor family really pick up and move to a nicer area to go to a nicer school like you’re suggesting? Of course not.

[u]A well-run voucher system[/u]

(yes, yes, I know…this is why people like you need to continue to make noise to make sure it is implemented correctly, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers)

would allow poor parents who care about their children’s education, to have an opportunity that they don’t currently have. In Milwaukee, I’ve met poor parents who work their asses off to give their kids an opportunity that they otherwise couldn’t have had.

In short, the benefits of “giving kids/parents who care a chance” is greater than the potential pitfalls, IMO.

Now we’re still going to have a problem with schools that are failing. They’ll see their #s dip and they’ll be dealing primarily with kids and parents who couldn’t care less. I see this as a separate problem.

We need to work to give more kids the chance to succeed, not reduce their chances because their parents can’t afford to move.

[/quote]

Well, fine. Maybe a well-run STATE voucher program. One that is geared primarily to low-income students who could never afford private school. Not one where over 80% of the recipients were enrolled in private school before the program came along. But there hasn’t been one yet.

Any successful voucher program that helps the needy and actually makes a difference in educational outcomes–rather than simply saving comfortable parents money at the expense of the rest of us–would also need an extensive support network and programs to help ensure the success of recipients once in private schools.

Private voucher programs have had this. But to the best of my knowledge, no public ones have.

459

Why would you deny me the best use of my tax dollars?

460

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Why would you deny me the best use of my tax dollars?[/quote]

Read all my above posts. The way all of these programs have been structured, they’ve helped very few needy children in impoverished sub-par school district. I don’t want MY tax dollars, particularly my FEDERAL tax dollars (in the case of a federal voucher program),

To fund your choice to send your kids to private school and other parents like you who are doing fine financing it on their own. Not when I plan to live somewhere with high property taxes and otherwise high STATE and LOCAL taxes so my kids can go to an excellent public school.

461

Personally, I think private and parochial schools are vastly inferior to top public schools. You get a good education which makes it preferable to a bad public school But usually the peer group is horrendous.

I wouldn’t send a child to a private school unless it was necessary because of learning disability or something the public school couldn’t adequately cater to.

I went to private school from first to fifth grade. Then my parents moved me to public school. They did it because of the peer group. The kids were just messed up. Grew up with tons of money, way too fast, few values, NO boundaries.

Had everything handed to them. Most of them are really messed up today. Drug problems. Aimless. Not working. My parents had plenty of money, but I had work for things. I drove a civic. Not a BMW.

I was raised to recognize how lucky I was and not take things for granted. In my experience, kids in public school–even wealthy ones–are raised with much better values and are much less messed up.

Parochial schools are even worse. I dated a Catholic girl for a year in high school. She went to an all-girls Catholic school. I’ve never seen such a boy-crazy, promiscuous, hypersexualized group of girls. It was great at 16. But I would never want that to be my daughter when I’m 40.

462

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

It’s really not a misintrepretation of the 10th amendment that has resulted in the gross expansion of the federal government. It’s an expansive interpretation (arguably a misinterpreation) of specifically granted federal powers like the interstate commerce clause. [/quote]

Partially correct - the 10th Amendment is supposed to inform that debate because it is a constant constitutional reminder that those federal powers, constrained by other means as well, are limited.

During the debate over what the limits of federal powers should be (via Commerce Clause, etc.), there is always the “guardrail” that the 10th has to mean something.

It is written as a truism, and is not specific - but must be at the front of the debate. That was the intention of adding it in the first place.

463

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Personally, I think private and parochial schools are vastly inferior to top public schools. You get a good education which makes it preferable to a bad public school But usually the peer group is horrendous.

I wouldn’t send a child to a private school unless it was necessary because of learning disability or something the public school couldn’t adequately cater to.

I went to private school from first to fifth grade. Then my parents moved me to public school. They did it because of the peer group.

The kids were just messed up. Grew up with tons of money, way too fast, few values, NO boundaries. Had everything handed to them. Most of them are really messed up today. Drug problems. Aimless. Not working.

My parents had plenty of money, but I had work for things. I drove a civic. Not a BMW. I was raised to recognize how lucky I was and not take things for granted. In my experience, kids in public school–even wealthy ones–are raised with much better values and are much less messed up.

Parochial schools are even worse. I dated a Catholic girl for a year in high school. She went to an all-girls Catholic school. I’ve never seen such a boy-crazy, promiscuous, hypersexualized group of girls. It was great at 16. But I would never want that to be my daughter when I’m 40.[/quote]

Your not getting it. I don’t know how else to help you. good luck.

464

[quote]lixy wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Again, fuck the poor kids.

Asshole!

Was the double-entendre really necessary?[/quote]

I was being facetious.

465

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…You’re the one that needs to mull things over. You just don’t get it.

Respectfully, friend, YOU really don’t get it. Your whole post implies that the government owns all our money and graciously doles it back to us, doing us a favor because it is such a benevolent force for good.

Someone who receives a voucher is not being “subsidized” for crying out loud! It was THEIR money to begin with but since they are not burdening the system with their children, the government is returning THEIR money to them so that it can be used to fund the school of their choice.

Why does the logic and good sense behind this escape you? Because socialism and its mindset are so insidious that you honest to gawd don’t understand how it has systemically infected your entire philosophy.

Yes, I get that part of it. Vouchers save parents money who can already afford to send their kids to private or parochial school. What they don’t do is actually help poor, struggling students whose parents have no other alternatives.

Where voucher programs have been implemented, most of these students have not been accepted. And many of the ones who have been cannot attend because the vouchers don’t cover the full cost of tuition and those parents can’t pay the difference.

So they stay in the shitty inner city schools or podunk country schools which are now even shittier. Additionally, there are problems because these struggle to handle the curriculum, and other students who are in these classes suffer as well.

If I want to send my kids to private school, I’ll appreciate avoiding the doubletax as much as the next guy. Sounds good. Seems right. Fundamentally fair. But that’s all vouchers do. They’re a money saver.

That’s it. Don’t for one second think anybody’s getting a better education or one they would not have gotten anyway. Vouchers don’t make a difference for the people that actually need help. My kids will get a great education no matter what. That would be true if there was no federal funding for education.

I suspect it’s the same with your kids. Nice for me to pay less. I appreciate that. But most parents who couldn’t have afforded to give their kids a good education still can’t under a voucher system.

By contrast to public voucher systems which have been a disaster in Milwaukee, Florida, California, and Cleveland, private vouchers work very well. In Pittsburgh, there is a privately funded Extra Mile Foundation. It doesn’t use public tax money to pay for vouchers.

It uses private donations to pay the tuition for low income African-American children to attend private Catholic schools. Over 70% of the students come from families whose income is low enough to qualify for free or reduced priced lunches.

The program works with the private schools and sets up special support for the students to handle the curriculum, educates parents and works with them to set up a good home environment and support, and pushes these private schools to accept students. These students tend to excel.[/quote]

nope, wrong, you are missing the point.

466

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Personally, I think private and parochial schools are vastly inferior to top public schools. You get a good education which makes it preferable to a bad public school But usually the peer group is horrendous.

I wouldn’t send a child to a private school unless it was necessary because of learning disability or something the public school couldn’t adequately cater to.

I went to private school from first to fifth grade. Then my parents moved me to public school. They did it because of the peer group. The kids were just messed up. Grew up with tons of money, way too fast, few values, NO boundaries. Had everything handed to them.

Most of them are really messed up today. Drug problems. Aimless. Not working. My parents had plenty of money, but I had work for things. I drove a civic. Not a BMW. I was raised to recognize how lucky I was and not take things for granted.

In my experience, kids in public school–even wealthy ones–are raised with much better values and are much less messed up.

Parochial schools are even worse. I dated a Catholic girl for a year in high school. She went to an all-girls Catholic school. I’ve never seen such a boy-crazy, promiscuous, hypersexualized group of girls. It was great at 16. But I would never want that to be my daughter when I’m 40.[/quote]

So the problem is the parents, not the schools, right?

467

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
, and why people like dhickey should pay more attention to you to realize the potential pitfalls of the vouchers) [/quote]

Wrong. I have thought about this more than Jsbrook. This is evident in his posts. We have already gone around on this in anohter thread. I am not going to do it again unless someone starts another thread.

There are no significant pitfalls (compared to what we have) to a voucher program. All the gov’t has to do is set standardized testing (optional but probably necessary at first) and write the check.