[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
[/quote]
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
High school drop-out rate in major US cities at nearly 50 percent
A report released Tuesday by an educational advocacy group founded by retired general and former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell finds that almost half of all public high school students in the USâ?? fifty largest cities fail to graduate.
You just got to love the conclusion of the World Socialist Website:
Government is unable to run schools, therefore capitalism has failed us all.
You cant argue with that kind of logic, you literally can not.
You can just avoid to make eye contact and slowly back away.
[/quote]
Our education system definatly needs revamped , YAWN:)
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
[/quote]
That is true, but in this special case I do not regret the money spent, because as you say it is a drop in the bucket, I regret the lost opportunities of these people.
If there was at least a school voucher system where people could vote with their feet things would improve.
I think in this case the money actually is used to harm these kids and that is just not right.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
High school drop-out rate in major US cities at nearly 50 percent
A report released Tuesday by an educational advocacy group founded by retired general and former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell finds that almost half of all public high school students in the US�?�¢?? fifty largest cities fail to graduate.
You just got to love the conclusion of the World Socialist Website:
Government is unable to run schools, therefore capitalism has failed us all.
You cant argue with that kind of logic, you literally can not.
You can just avoid to make eye contact and slowly back away.
Our education system definatly needs revamped , YAWN:)
[/quote]
Well, yes, peoples lives that are destroyed with your tax dollars because of a shitty ideology that simply does not work…
What else is new?
Your point was though that a whole generation would not get a decent education if it was a private business.
Well, what you are describing is happening right now.
A private system could create a bunch of uneducated morons at a much lower cost at least.
So, what is it you actually fear about a private system so much when the worst you could come up with is happening right now?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
orion wrote:Well that wasnt anything really the respond to just a few things:
There are always unemployed?
So what? Marxs days are over, workers do not toil away on steam driven primitive machines.
They operate highly sophisticated machinery, and you do not want to cut the wages of someone that operates hundreds of thousands worth of capital. You do not get someone who can work the machinery at a loading dock at a moments notice and if he stands up and leaves you lose millions each day.
The idea that “the unemployed” could simply take on any job that takes years of training is blatantly absurd.
No, there are only so many people willing and capable of doing certain jobs and you better compete as a capitalist.
Second, no, even the average worker could not only afford bread,salt, tea and sugar, he actually did not give a shit about prices any more.
Just decades earlier there had been riots when the price of bread rose, now it just was not that important anymore.
They took it for granted, just like you do with all the abundance that surrounds you.
Like I thought, nothing here.
I will say that you seem to be utterly unacquainted with the history of capitalist development (more or less necessary if you’re going to endorse it). Workers “didn’t give a shit” about prices anymore? I suppose the numerous strikes in this period were just greedy workers being unappreciative of their masters’ munificence? I suppose all those happy pictures of 19th century industrial workers reflect their carefree attitudes toward the price of things? Your argument is contradicted by the whole of history. For you to be correct, entire countries would have to have been subject to mass hallucination. Incidentally, it’s interesting how popular socialism becomes whenever your favorite policies are implemented.
[/quote]
Well yes, whole countries have been “subject to mass hallucination.”
What else is new?
You think we can decide what is the truth by an appeal to the masses?
At one time, behind the debate was an ideological argument between the critics (especially Marxists) and the defenders of free markets. The critics, or pessimists, saw nineteenth-century England as Charles Dickensâ??s Coketown or poet William Blakeâ??s â??dark, satanic mills,â?? with capitalists squeezing more surplus value out of the working class with each passing year. The defenders, or optimists, saw nineteenth-century England as the birthplace of a consumer revolution that made more and more consumer goods available to ordinary people with each passing year. The ideological underpinnings of the debate eventually faded, probably because, as T. S. Ashton pointed out in 1948, the industrial revolution meant the difference between the grinding poverty that had characterized most of human history and the affluence of the modern industrialized nations. No economist today seriously disputes the fact that the industrial revolution began the transformation that has led to extraordinarily high (compared with the rest of human history) living standards for ordinary people throughout the market industrial economies.
The standard-of-living debate today is not about whether the industrial revolution made people better off, but about when. The pessimists claim no marked improvement in standards of living until the 1840s or 1850s. Most optimists, by contrast, believe that living standards were rising by the 1810s or 1820s, or even earlier.
The most influential recent contribution to the optimist position (and the center of much of the subsequent standard-of-living debate) is a 1983 paper by Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson that produced new estimates of real wages in England for the years 1755 to 1851. These estimates are based on money wages for workers in several broad categories, including both blue-collar and white-collar occupations. The authorsâ?? cost-of-living index attempted to represent actual working-class budgets. Lindertâ??s and Williamsonâ??s analyses produced two striking results. First, they showed that real wages grew slowly between 1781 and 1819. Second, after 1819, real wages grew rapidly for all groups of workers. For all blue-collar workersâ??a good stand-in for the working classesâ??the Lindert-Williamson index number for real wages rose from 50 in 1819 to 100 in 1851. That is, real wages doubled in just thirty-two years.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
That is true, but in this special case I do not regret the money spent, because as you say it is a drop in the bucket, I regret the lost opportunities of these people.
If there was at least a school voucher system where people could vote with their feet things would improve.
I think in this case the money actually is used to harm these kids and that is just not right.
Um, even more wrong.
[/quote]
Arizona is working a bastardized version of this , and it is not quite panning out
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
That is true, but in this special case I do not regret the money spent, because as you say it is a drop in the bucket, I regret the lost opportunities of these people.
If there was at least a school voucher system where people could vote with their feet things would improve.
I think in this case the money actually is used to harm these kids and that is just not right.
Um, even more wrong.
Arizona is working a bastardized version of this , and it is not quite panning out
[/quote]
How did they “bastardize” it and how much room did they give those schools?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
[/quote]
I agree with getting rid of the war on drugs. Afghanistan needed to happen, but since our spineless leader is to afraid to get a Declaration of war and go in there full force its time to pull out. Iraq we are out next year, so no matter what anyone thinks about that war it is done.
Social programs take up close to 50% of the budget. If people want Social programs do them through the state.
There was something like 47 billion in fraud medicare payments payed out this year. Clearly at the Federal level Social programs are doing more harm then good.
[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
That is true, but in this special case I do not regret the money spent, because as you say it is a drop in the bucket, I regret the lost opportunities of these people.
If there was at least a school voucher system where people could vote with their feet things would improve.
I think in this case the money actually is used to harm these kids and that is just not right.
Um, even more wrong.
Arizona is working a bastardized version of this , and it is not quite panning out
How did they “bastardize” it and how much room did they give those schools?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
I think a good dose of libertarianism especially socially would be a good thing , but if you did away with public education in one generation we would have the masses being totally uneducated, Half of the people (IF LUCKY) would be able to read .
Yeah, but what would CHANGE?
Being conservative means quit throwing money down rat holes, the war on Drugs, terrorism, and war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and any war. I think if we do not like them kill their leader or stay out of it, period. I think the social programs that every body gets their panties in a bunch over are just a drop in the bucket
That is true, but in this special case I do not regret the money spent, because as you say it is a drop in the bucket, I regret the lost opportunities of these people.
If there was at least a school voucher system where people could vote with their feet things would improve.
I think in this case the money actually is used to harm these kids and that is just not right.
Um, even more wrong.
Arizona is working a bastardized version of this , and it is not quite panning out
How did they “bastardize” it and how much room did they give those schools?