1. Vouchers takes money away from public schools and therefore my child in public school has access to less resources.
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
Quote:
2. Recreational drug use results in higher costs for public substance abuse clinics increasing the need for additional taxation.
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
Quote:
3. People who screw-up their own retirement fund by making bad investments results in requiring additional public assistance or bail-out.
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
Whoa! I never said my daughter deserved both (not even remotely). I just want to make sure she's not getting less then she normally would have on a voucher system. We should be spending our resources on making sure our schools are every bit as effective as private schools rather than conceding that public schools are flawed and therefore parents need a choice.
That said, after looking into this issue deeper, I have to break from my normal liberal labido and concede to Trumptman that his information about school compensation per child is very accurate. So, please, get off the horse and point your finger somewhere else.
Quote:
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
Fair enough.
Quote:
One should be able to opt-out of social security.
I disagree. Social Security is a safety net. The last thing we need is a safety net for the safety net.
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
Whoa! I never said my daughter deserved both (not even remotely). I just want to make sure she's not getting less then she normally would have on a voucher system. We should be spending our resources on making sure our schools are every bit as effective as private schools rather than conceding that public schools are flawed and therefore parents need a choice.
That said, after looking into this issue deeper, I have to break from my normal liberal labido and concede to Trumptman that his information about school compensation per child is very accurate. So, please, get off the horse and point your finger somewhere else.
Fair enough.
I disagree. Social Security is a safety net. The last thing we need is a safety net for the safety net.
I must say that I respect you. I appreciate your willingness to reexamine your own beliefs and alter them based on new information. That is much much more than can be said for a good majority of the dems and reps on this board.
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
I would also have to reevaluate my position against school vouchers if I knew that were true. Any articles for further reading?
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
The money doesn't have to go back into the school system, it just shouldn't go into a voucher for a private for-profit industry.
And if Social Security is optional, all government programs should be optional.
The money doesn't have to go back into the school system, it just shouldn't go into a voucher for a private for-profit industry.
And if Social Security is optional, all government programs should be optional.
bunge,
I mean this politely. Usually even though I disagree with you, your answers are typically much more thought out and coherent than this.
They don't have to go back to the school system, but can't go to private schools?
Our government has no problem funding both public and private universities in both financial aid, research, etc. Last time I checked no one though our university system "sucked."
Social Security doesn't have to be opted out of, rather the person can just be required to contribute that money to a 401k program that they then own versus the government system which is pretty much take all the money today, spend all of it today, and good luck on your own tomorrow. You know it will be that or they will inflate their way out of these debts which will crush the eldery much worse as well.
That article is just plain stupid. Don't trust a woman to invest her own Social Security? That's the dumbest stretch I've heard in a long time.
The SS isn't 'her's,' it's ours. Democrats are more than happy to let the lady invest her money. Breast implants? It's very clear that some people believe they're unsafe, and they have caused problems. Create a safe alternative and no one is going to try and stop 'her' from getting implants.
This is just pure crap. Any logical human being should be able to see through the rhetoric of the article and realize they're just lying to stir the coals in the fire.
Sorry I couldn't let this go by either.
You don't think there are folks who argue that abortion is dangerous? Likewise there was a teen who died from RU486 this year as well. Every year there are still a few women who die from complications related to abortion procedures. Abortion is safer now than it was in a back alley, but it is not a completely failsafe procedure with no risk.
I say that because to say that a woman, with no evidence of true harm (not hysteria) shouldn't be able to get a silicone breast implant (because SOME people think it dangerous) is the EXACT same type of thinking behind abortion arguments. At least with the breast implant discussions there still aren't any possibilities of human rights issues, yet NOW and many Democrats sit on the exact OPPOSITE of this choice. Shouldn't it be a private matter between a woman and her doctor? Shouldn't she be able to weigh the gains and risks and make that decision herself? You empower 12 year olds with abortion and coddle 40 years olds with breast implants.
Our government has no problem funding both public and private universities in both financial aid, research, etc. Last time I checked no one though our university system "sucked."
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Social Security doesn't have to be opted out of, rather the person can just be required to contribute that money to a 401k program that they then own versus the government system which is pretty much take all the money today, spend all of it today, and good luck on your own tomorrow. You know it will be that or they will inflate their way out of these debts which will crush the eldery much worse as well.
Nick
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
Two, the SS we pay isn't for us, it's for the current generation of elderly. So putting it in a 401K for the future isn't helpful, it's harmful. I'm 100% in favor of people saving and such, and I'm not in favor of the government doing it for me. I am in favor of the the government helping the elderly though. They've already contributed more than we have and should get some payback as well.
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
bunge greetings,
"a parent just being selfish"
What do you mean by this? I am not following you here.
"unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want"
Are you saying that what ever a government does from tradition must always be and that one aspect of government can not be modified unless all others are as well modified?
Why do you feel that way if that is indeed what you are saying?
What do you mean by this? I am not following you here.
BR accused someone here of being selfish because they were against vouchers. I was just saying that there are lots of reasons to be against vouchers, not just selfish ones.
Quote:
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Are you saying that what ever a government does from tradition must always be and that one aspect of government can not be modified unless all others are as well modified?
Why do you feel that way if that is indeed what you are saying?
No, BR suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I think that's a bad idea. No other government program is optional. You and I both pay taxes and we can't directly decide how they're used. Singling out Social Security for this preferential treatment is backwards in my mind.
I'd still think giving the option to tax payers is a bad idea, but the only way I could support it is if we as tax payers could opt our tax dollars out of ANY program, not just Social Security. So if BR opts out of SS, I could opt-out of funding a war in Iraq, and you could opt out of...something you really don't like supporting. Just leaving one program open to this is unjust in my mind.
You don't think there are folks who argue that abortion is dangerous? Likewise there was a teen who died from RU486 this year as well. Every year there are still a few women who die from complications related to abortion procedures. Abortion is safer now than it was in a back alley, but it is not a completely failsafe procedure with no risk.
I say that because to say that a woman, with no evidence of true harm (not hysteria) shouldn't be able to get a silicone breast implant (because SOME people think it dangerous) is the EXACT same type of thinking behind abortion arguments. At least with the breast implant discussions there still aren't any possibilities of human rights issues, yet NOW and many Democrats sit on the exact OPPOSITE of this choice. Shouldn't it be a private matter between a woman and her doctor? Shouldn't she be able to weigh the gains and risks and make that decision herself? You empower 12 year olds with abortion and coddle 40 years olds with breast implants.
Nick
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety of women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
While I disagree with late term abortions Shawn has made himself clear here.
Here we reach the heart of the issue. I'm for choice. You're not. Thanks for playing. Time to agree to disagree.
So succinct.
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed. (which as far as I can tell IS what's happening in certain cases). From a purely logical standpoint that article is incredibly solid. Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
Comments
Originally posted by Northgate
1. Vouchers takes money away from public schools and therefore my child in public school has access to less resources.
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
2. Recreational drug use results in higher costs for public substance abuse clinics increasing the need for additional taxation.
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
3. People who screw-up their own retirement fund by making bad investments results in requiring additional public assistance or bail-out.
One should be able to opt-out of social security.
Originally posted by BR
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
Whoa! I never said my daughter deserved both (not even remotely). I just want to make sure she's not getting less then she normally would have on a voucher system. We should be spending our resources on making sure our schools are every bit as effective as private schools rather than conceding that public schools are flawed and therefore parents need a choice.
That said, after looking into this issue deeper, I have to break from my normal liberal labido and concede to Trumptman that his information about school compensation per child is very accurate. So, please, get off the horse and point your finger somewhere else.
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
Fair enough.
One should be able to opt-out of social security.
I disagree. Social Security is a safety net. The last thing we need is a safety net for the safety net.
Originally posted by BR
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
Compare that to the costs of prisons, fbi & dea members, lives of the innocent gunned down by dealers involved in turf wars, et cetera. Sorry, overall cost would be MUCH less.
One should be able to opt-out of social security.
BR is right on all counts here
Fellowship
probably the biggest money suckhole in the entire US.
Originally posted by Northgate
Whoa! I never said my daughter deserved both (not even remotely). I just want to make sure she's not getting less then she normally would have on a voucher system. We should be spending our resources on making sure our schools are every bit as effective as private schools rather than conceding that public schools are flawed and therefore parents need a choice.
That said, after looking into this issue deeper, I have to break from my normal liberal labido and concede to Trumptman that his information about school compensation per child is very accurate. So, please, get off the horse and point your finger somewhere else.
Fair enough.
I disagree. Social Security is a safety net. The last thing we need is a safety net for the safety net.
I must say that I respect you. I appreciate your willingness to reexamine your own beliefs and alter them based on new information. That is much much more than can be said for a good majority of the dems and reps on this board.
Originally posted by BR
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
I would also have to reevaluate my position against school vouchers if I knew that were true. Any articles for further reading?
Originally posted by BR
Vouchers would take out only the amount designated for each individual child. Frankly, it's you who is being selfish, claiming that your child deserves not only the money set aside for her but also the money set aside for the student that is going to a private school.
The money doesn't have to go back into the school system, it just shouldn't go into a voucher for a private for-profit industry.
And if Social Security is optional, all government programs should be optional.
Originally posted by bunge
The money doesn't have to go back into the school system, it just shouldn't go into a voucher for a private for-profit industry.
And if Social Security is optional, all government programs should be optional.
bunge,
I mean this politely. Usually even though I disagree with you, your answers are typically much more thought out and coherent than this.
They don't have to go back to the school system, but can't go to private schools?
Our government has no problem funding both public and private universities in both financial aid, research, etc. Last time I checked no one though our university system "sucked."
Social Security doesn't have to be opted out of, rather the person can just be required to contribute that money to a 401k program that they then own versus the government system which is pretty much take all the money today, spend all of it today, and good luck on your own tomorrow. You know it will be that or they will inflate their way out of these debts which will crush the eldery much worse as well.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
These arguments have no value.
Yeah, well keep arguing against big boobs and see how long until you are mauled.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
This is why I'm an anarchist. I love it.
That article is just plain stupid. Don't trust a woman to invest her own Social Security? That's the dumbest stretch I've heard in a long time.
The SS isn't 'her's,' it's ours. Democrats are more than happy to let the lady invest her money. Breast implants? It's very clear that some people believe they're unsafe, and they have caused problems. Create a safe alternative and no one is going to try and stop 'her' from getting implants.
This is just pure crap. Any logical human being should be able to see through the rhetoric of the article and realize they're just lying to stir the coals in the fire.
Sorry I couldn't let this go by either.
You don't think there are folks who argue that abortion is dangerous? Likewise there was a teen who died from RU486 this year as well. Every year there are still a few women who die from complications related to abortion procedures. Abortion is safer now than it was in a back alley, but it is not a completely failsafe procedure with no risk.
I say that because to say that a woman, with no evidence of true harm (not hysteria) shouldn't be able to get a silicone breast implant (because SOME people think it dangerous) is the EXACT same type of thinking behind abortion arguments. At least with the breast implant discussions there still aren't any possibilities of human rights issues, yet NOW and many Democrats sit on the exact OPPOSITE of this choice. Shouldn't it be a private matter between a woman and her doctor? Shouldn't she be able to weigh the gains and risks and make that decision herself? You empower 12 year olds with abortion and coddle 40 years olds with breast implants.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Shouldn't she be able to way the gains and risks and make that decision herself? Nick
Weigh
Fellows
Originally posted by trumptman
Our government has no problem funding both public and private universities in both financial aid, research, etc. Last time I checked no one though our university system "sucked."
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Originally posted by trumptman
Social Security doesn't have to be opted out of, rather the person can just be required to contribute that money to a 401k program that they then own versus the government system which is pretty much take all the money today, spend all of it today, and good luck on your own tomorrow. You know it will be that or they will inflate their way out of these debts which will crush the eldery much worse as well.
Nick
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
Two, the SS we pay isn't for us, it's for the current generation of elderly. So putting it in a 401K for the future isn't helpful, it's harmful. I'm 100% in favor of people saving and such, and I'm not in favor of the government doing it for me. I am in favor of the the government helping the elderly though. They've already contributed more than we have and should get some payback as well.
Originally posted by bunge
Fair enough, but I was simply pointing out to BR that there are other viable options rather than a parent just being selfish; I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.
Two thoughts.
One, it was BR who suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I disagree with the thought unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want.
bunge greetings,
"a parent just being selfish"
What do you mean by this? I am not following you here.
"unless we give people the option to opt-out of any government program they want"
Are you saying that what ever a government does from tradition must always be and that one aspect of government can not be modified unless all others are as well modified?
Why do you feel that way if that is indeed what you are saying?
Respectfully,
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
bunge greetings,
Long time no discuss! [EDIT: whoops.]
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
What do you mean by this? I am not following you here.
BR accused someone here of being selfish because they were against vouchers. I was just saying that there are lots of reasons to be against vouchers, not just selfish ones.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Are you saying that what ever a government does from tradition must always be and that one aspect of government can not be modified unless all others are as well modified?
Why do you feel that way if that is indeed what you are saying?
No, BR suggested that people should be able to opt-out of SS. I think that's a bad idea. No other government program is optional. You and I both pay taxes and we can't directly decide how they're used. Singling out Social Security for this preferential treatment is backwards in my mind.
I'd still think giving the option to tax payers is a bad idea, but the only way I could support it is if we as tax payers could opt our tax dollars out of ANY program, not just Social Security. So if BR opts out of SS, I could opt-out of funding a war in Iraq, and you could opt out of...something you really don't like supporting. Just leaving one program open to this is unjust in my mind.
Originally posted by bunge
Long time to discuss!
I understand now where you are coming from. Thanks for your reply.
Fellows
Originally posted by bunge
I'd still think giving the option to tax payers is a bad idea
Here we reach the heart of the issue. I'm for choice. You're not. Thanks for playing. Time to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sorry I couldn't let this go by either.
You don't think there are folks who argue that abortion is dangerous? Likewise there was a teen who died from RU486 this year as well. Every year there are still a few women who die from complications related to abortion procedures. Abortion is safer now than it was in a back alley, but it is not a completely failsafe procedure with no risk.
I say that because to say that a woman, with no evidence of true harm (not hysteria) shouldn't be able to get a silicone breast implant (because SOME people think it dangerous) is the EXACT same type of thinking behind abortion arguments. At least with the breast implant discussions there still aren't any possibilities of human rights issues, yet NOW and many Democrats sit on the exact OPPOSITE of this choice. Shouldn't it be a private matter between a woman and her doctor? Shouldn't she be able to weigh the gains and risks and make that decision herself? You empower 12 year olds with abortion and coddle 40 years olds with breast implants.
Nick
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety of women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
With abortion, there really is no doubt as to the safety of the procedure besides the risks inherent to any major surgical operation. With silicone breast implants, no one knows the long-term safety of the material so the long-term risks are also unknown. So NOW's position does not result from a strange desire to coddle 40 year old women but from a real concern for the safety women. I can't put it any more succinctly than that.
While I disagree with late term abortions Shawn has made himself clear here.
Fellows
Originally posted by BR
Here we reach the heart of the issue. I'm for choice. You're not. Thanks for playing. Time to agree to disagree.
So succinct.
I can't really see how so many of you guys are reading the Cato article and coming to the conclusion that it's somehow hypocritical or structurally/logically flawed. (which as far as I can tell IS what's happening in certain cases). From a purely logical standpoint that article is incredibly solid. Arguing with a libertarian about freedom is like arguing with an authoritarian about distrust. You can't win. I'm not just saying this for affect: it's actually impossible to argumentatively "beat" a good libertarian on the grounds of ideological consistency because the concept in this case is so damn simple.
There are perhaps little nuances about what kind of choices are against the libertarian ideal, but choice itself is a simple concept, and it's something that is increasingly compromised in this country.
Originally posted by BR
Here we reach the heart of the issue. I'm for choice. You're not. Thanks for playing. Time to agree to disagree.
Are you for choice for one, or choice for all? I'm for equality. You're not. Thanks, but no thanks.