Bill Gates Says He Doesn't Pay Enough Tax

[Accountable]

Re: Bill Gates Says He Dosen't Pay Enough Tax

Wasteful programs can always be cut from government programs, but to end the Department of Education when there is obvious need is illogical.

I don't see the "obvious need." Can you expound?

One of the great sacrifices without oversight would likely be even worsening educational environments for ethnic/ poverty stricken portions of our nation.

Oversight? What makes you think that sitting in an office in Washington instills a person with a degree of wisdom that sitting in an office in Columbus does not?

Finland has a great deal of success from it's quality of teachers.
This is something the US needs a lot of improvement with.
Can of worms there with the power of the NEA and it's position on tenure and performance relating to job security.

I can't speak for the nation, but tenure's not a problem in Texas. It has been eliminated (though it's grandfathered). As for performance relating to job security, the Finnish model doesn't have that problem, though probably due more to cultural reasons rather than systemic.

What do you mean, 'right way'?

I don't throw around quote marks for no reason. I tried to make it clear I didn't think there was one, which fits the context of the post.

I think there should be standards that the States should address, [I don't] but achieving them is going to vary from locale to locale. For instance and contrast.......the educational needs of rural poverty will not be the same as well to do suburbanites, nor the needs of poverty stricken in ghettos similar to either rural needs or suburbanites. Consider cultural differences and I don't see how blind regulated control from a Federal bureau will be effective.

Exactly my point. At MOST, Washington can keep statistical data a state can access to compare how its system compares to others, for benchmarking purposes. Nothing more is necessary because no one in Washington cares more for a state's education system than that state's citizens do. Any show to the contrary is more likely an interest in power and control than education.

You want an absolute [incorrect; in fact, just the opposite], but there isn't a logical one. Common sense can cover a lot of ground efficiently, but that does require the Feds giving up some control where locals work closer to the problems. At the same time, standards do need to be set and uniform.

Why?? Free market shows that the citizens themselves will force state governments to raise their own standards if they see that their own kids are falling behind other states. Making those adjustments at the state & local level are much easier than doing so at the federal level (not to mention that it's not constitutional). Trusting Washington to make uniform standards is what's gotten us in this mess in the first place.

Much of the angst in the midwest over the ED seems to come mostly from the fundamentalist segment that's being restricted from forcing their religion into public school curriculums.
I think allowing this would be incredibly destructive to the educational process, especially science.
I certainly wouldn't want Ohio to look like the mess Kansas got itself into in the recent past.

I'm ignorant of that situation, but I trust Ohioans to run their systems without input from Texans.

 

[Stone]

Re: Bill Gates Says He Dosen't Pay Enough Tax

I don't see the "obvious need." Can you expound?

Oversight? What makes you think that sitting in an office in Washington instills a person with a degree of wisdom that sitting in an office in Columbus does not?

I can't speak for the nation, but tenure's not a problem in Texas. It has been eliminated (though it's grandfathered). As for performance relating to job security, the Finnish model doesn't have that problem, though probably due more to cultural reasons rather than systemic.

I don't throw around quote marks for no reason. I tried to make it clear I didn't think there was one, which fits the context of the post.

Exactly my point. At MOST, Washington can keep statistical data a state can access to compare how its system compares to others, for benchmarking purposes. Nothing more is necessary because no one in Washington cares more for a state's education system than that state's citizens do. Any show to the contrary is more likely an interest in power and control than education.


Why?? Free market shows that the citizens themselves will force state governments to raise their own standards if they see that their own kids are falling behind other states. Making those adjustments at the state & local level are much easier than doing so at the federal level (not to mention that it's not constitutional). Trusting Washington to make uniform standards is what's gotten us in this mess in the first place.

I'm ignorant of that situation, but I trust Ohioans to run their systems without input from Texans.

I don't see the "obvious need." Can you expound?

Then you must be blinded by your political/religious dogma.
It's already in my posts.
The need for standards to bring equal and quality public education.
The need to keep indoctrination, especially imo of religious practices, out of the public educational process.

Oversight? What makes you think that sitting in an office in Washington instills a person with a degree of wisdom that sitting in an office in Columbus does not?

The issue isn't one of Ohio alone.....it's to set standards for a nation to achieve.
What makes you think 50 states would cooperate in deciding universal (each others) standards?......and yes....please address that question.

I can't speak for the nation, but tenure's not a problem in Texas. It has been eliminated (though it's grandfathered)

Sounds like you have a tenure problem. Tenure used to be based upon time and performance.
Since performance now relates more to incompetency, it's takes a much greater degree of inefficiency to remove a teacher from a position.

As for performance relating to job security, the Finnish model doesn't have that problem, though probably due more to cultural reasons rather than systemic.

The Finns are reported to have better relations between their school administrations and teacher unions.

I don't throw around quote marks for no reason. I tried to make it clear I didn't think there was one, which fits the context of the post.

Looks like you did.
If you ask a question you can't answer and I can't understand, what the hell are you expecting of me?
I don't have a clue what your context is.
What 'right ways' are there, even if you don't think they exist? ( )
Or is this just another attempt to start a discussion on absolutes?

At MOST, Washington can keep statistical data a state can access to compare how its system compares to others, for benchmarking purposes. Nothing more is necessary because no one in Washington cares more for a state's education system than that state's citizens do.

I disagree and have given good reasons. If a State can't/won't address their faults, your position actually legislates the acceptance of discriminatory practices in economic, ethnic and religious concerns.

If you don't want the oversight, don't take the Federal money.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
excerpt>

There are no unfunded federal education "mandates." Every federal education law is conditioned on a state or other grantee's decision to accept federal program funds.
Federal education program "requirements" are not unfunded mandates because the conditions in federal law apply only when a state (or other grantee) voluntarily chooses to accept federal funds. Any state that does not want to abide by a federal program's requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program. While most states choose to accept and use federal program funds, in the past, a few states have forgone funds for various reasons.

Exactly my point.

No...your point is to mindlessly cut out a department based upon your political position....rather than reconfigure it.

Why?? Free market shows that the citizens themselves will force state governments to raise their own standards if they see that their own kids are falling behind other states.

I suspect you don't know shit about a 'free market' system.
It does not exist in this country.
Attempts to deregulate are what brought about the banking fiasco that created the recession/depression we are now experiencing.
Sincerely, don't push your shit at me.

I'm ignorant of that situation, but I trust Ohioans to run their systems without input from Texans.

You do realize you just made my case?
With out oversight of both, there would be no cooperation in setting uniform standards.
It's the quality of education I argue for......something obviously lost on you.

Kansas is one example of how a State can impose religion into their curriculum at the expense of science, to the point that at one time, graduates of the Kansas public school systems had great difficulty in seeking admission in to out of state colleges and universities.
In the mid 00's.....Kansas was essentially a state of high school dumb asses.
Creationism has been briefly stopped in Pennsylvania in a Federal court, but the struggle to indoctrinate young minds into perverted/fundamentalist views of reality still continues.
Your strange views on a 'free market' system didn't and won't mean squat.

Trusting Washington to make uniform standards is what's gotten us in this mess in the first place.

All you offer is anarchy.
I call for reform and it seems to piss you off

 

[Accountable]

Re: Bill Gates Says He Dosen't Pay Enough Tax

Then you must be blinded by your political/religious dogma.
It's already in my posts.
The need for standards to bring equal and quality public education.
The need to keep indoctrination, especially imo of religious practices, out of the public educational process.

Again, you haven't shown anything approaching an "obvious" need for Washington intervention into what our Constitution clearly reserves to The People or the States. States can establish their own standards just as other states outside of the USA have done. To say there must be one standard for the USA is a fine opinion to hold, but you've hardly established an obvious need.

The issue isn't one of Ohio alone.....it's to set standards for a nation to achieve.
What makes you think 50 states would cooperate in deciding universal (each others) standards?......and yes....please address that question.

You ask me to address a question after not addressing the one I asked about wisdom in Washington. The issue isn't federal without first ratifying an amendment, so yes, it is an issue for Ohio alone, Texas alone, Oklahoma alone, etc, etc.
I don't necessarily think 50 states would cooperate in deciding on a single set of universal education standards. I also don't think we need to.

Or is this just another attempt to start a discussion on absolutes?

When I typed 'Do you agree, or do you think that Washington should establish "guidelines" and "assist" states in doing it the "right" way?' I mean to say that Washington doesn't establish guidelines, they establish mandates; they don't assist, they dictate; and they can't do either in the "right" way because there is no one right way for such a diverse nation. So, far from discussing absolutes, I'm trying to understand why you want to establish a single standard - an absolute.

If a State can't/won't address their faults, your position actually legislates the acceptance of discriminatory practices in economic, ethnic and religious concerns.

Not in any way. Discrimination has already been outlawed. Allowing states to make state decisions does not repeal any laws, nor does it give permission to violate any.

If you don't want the oversight, don't take the Federal money.

Oh how I wish my state would refuse it. Actually, I can't for the life of me find anything in our Constitution allowing Washington to redistribute our wealth, taking from each state according to its ability to pay and giving back according to what Washington decides is its need.

No...your point is to mindlessly cut out a department based upon your political position....rather than reconfigure it.

I suspect you don't know shit about a 'free market' system.
It does not exist in this country.
Attempts to deregulate are what brought about the banking fiasco that created the recession/depression we are now experiencing.
Sincerely, don't push your shit at me.

Stone, if you don't have a cogent response, just skip it.

You do realize you just made my case?
With out oversight of both, there would be no cooperation in setting uniform standards.

That's clear. What's not clear is the need for national standards. People seem to think that without the wisdom of Washington politicians that every state - states where the Washington politicians come from - will lose all direction and education in America will cease to be. I don't buy it. I see it simply as people being afraid to think outside the box, despite the evidence that what's happening inside the box is bad for the country.

Kansas is one example of how a State can impose religion into their curriculum at the expense of science, to the point that at one time, graduates of the Kansas public school systems had great difficulty in seeking admission in to out of state colleges and universities.
In the mid 2000's.....Kansas was essentially a state of high school dumb asses.
Creationism has been briefly stopped in Pennsylvania in a Federal court, but the struggle to indoctrinate young minds into perverted/fundamentalist views of reality still continues.

I couldn't google the Kansas story easily since it's more history than news. It's something that might actually change my mind, depending on the details. Do you have a link or organization I can check?

All you offer is anarchy.

Honoring our Constitution is hardly anarchy.

 

[Stone]

Re: Bill Gates Says He Dosen't Pay Enough Tax

Again, you haven't shown anything approaching an "obvious" need for Washington intervention into what our Constitution clearly reserves to The People or the States. States can establish their own standards just as other states outside of the USA have done. To say there must be one standard for the USA is a fine opinion to hold, but you've hardly established an obvious need.

You ask me to address a question after not addressing the one I asked about wisdom in Washington. The issue isn't federal without first ratifying an amendment, so yes, it is an issue for Ohio alone, Texas alone, Oklahoma alone, etc, etc.
I don't necessarily think 50 states would cooperate in deciding on a single set of universal education standards. I also don't think we need to.

When I typed 'Do you agree, or do you think that Washington should establish "guidelines" and "assist" states in doing it the "right" way?' I mean to say that Washington doesn't establish guidelines, they establish mandates; they don't assist, they dictate; and they can't do either in the "right" way because there is no one right way for such a diverse nation. So, far from discussing absolutes, I'm trying to understand why you want to establish a single standard - an absolute.

Not in any way. Discrimination has already been outlawed. Allowing states to make state decisions does not repeal any laws, nor does it give permission to violate any.

Oh how I wish my state would refuse it. Actually, I can't for the life of me find anything in our Constitution allowing Washington to redistribute our wealth, taking from each state according to its ability to pay and giving back according to what Washington decides is its need.

Stone, if you don't have a cogent response, just skip it.


That's clear. What's not clear is the need for national standards. People seem to think that without the wisdom of Washington politicians that every state - states where the Washington politicians come from - will lose all direction and education in America will cease to be. I don't buy it. I see it simply as people being afraid to think outside the box, despite the evidence that what's happening inside the box is bad for the country.

I couldn't google the Kansas story easily since it's more history than news. It's something that might actually change my mind, depending on the details. Do you have a link or organization I can check?

Honoring our Constitution is hardly anarchy.

Again, you haven't shown anything approaching an "obvious" need for Washington intervention into what our Constitution clearly reserves to The People or the States.

You either aren't reading what I post or are not able to comprehend it.
Simply....with out a universal standard, States that fall behind in their duty to promote quality education are a detriment to themselves and the nation....as 'we' are not just competing within ourselves, 'we' are competing in a global economy and education is an element that drives our success.

As far as the Constitution goes.....grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion should suffice.

To say there must be one standard for the USA is a fine opinion to hold, but you've hardly established an obvious need.

How about.....it arises from the 'dumbassery' that already exists and has existed in the past?
With the quality of education declining, you have no argument to regionalize standards.
The Feds should be presenting a base line and then it's up to the States to surpass it if so desired.

You ask me to address a question after not addressing the one I asked about wisdom in Washington.

It was a non sequitur....wisdom in any government at any level is limited by the quality of it's personnel.

The issue isn't federal without first ratifying an amendment,

Lame......as long as issues of civil rights and religion exist in the educational process, there is reason for involvement. In a perfect world scenario where pollyanna is our supreme leader and everyone of the same mind.....yeah, sure....those issues are going to disappear.

I don't necessarily think 50 states would cooperate in deciding on a single set of universal education standards. I also don't think we need to.

What reason can you give that allows for the possibility of violating the civil rights that are spelled out in the Constitution?
Let's start with science and it's replacement with creation science.
An obvious degradation of the educational process and the violating of the Constitution in regards to freedom of ( and from ) religion.

How about civil rights?

Do you really believe the poor and disadvantaged should be treated to lesser educations than the middle class.
Hell....we've had these problems in Ohio.
Sure, the State threatens to intervene....and that's often initiated by the Feds.
The Feds even took Ohio to court because over their method of taxation for school revenue.
It was shown to be discriminatory to the less wealthy counties.


I only need a 'door' to prove need and those are wide and elements of the Constitution.

When I typed 'Do you agree, or do you think that Washington should establish "guidelines" and "assist" states in doing it the "right" way?' I mean to say that Washington doesn't establish guidelines, they establish mandates; they don't assist, they dictate; and they can't do either in the "right" way because there is no one right way for such a diverse nation

There is no law requiring the States to be involved if they so choose to decline Federal funding.
The use of the term 'mandate' is bogus.
Don't want the Federal guidelines, don't take their money........or are you arguing that there should be no strings attached?

So, far from discussing absolutes, I'm trying to understand why you want to establish a single standard - an absolute.

The Feds are setting a baseline, a baseline is not an absolute........you're only playing a game of sophistry.

Not in any way. Discrimination has already been outlawed.

A big way....your argument lends support to the illegal acts that do occur and strengthens argument for acceptance of those acts.

Oh how I wish my state would refuse it.

Well...there you go
Now your State Officials aren't receptive to your argument either
And you want them to 'do the right thing' in the 'right way', what ever that is.

I can't for the life of me find anything in our Constitution allowing Washington to redistribute our wealth, taking from each state according to its ability to pay and giving back according to what Washington decides is its need.

Life is cruel.

:24:

Stone, if you don't have a cogent response, just skip it.

No...I really don't think anyone that posts theory in a perfect world .....and tries to present it as our existing economic model.... and then derive a cogent assessment as if that perfect word were ours.....knows shit from shinola.

What's not clear is the need for national standards.

Personally, I don't think they are high enough.
Ever wonder why cash registers have become computers that scan and total?
Ever wonder why automated checkouts are gradually replacing the computerized registers?
As time passes, man is being replaced by machines that accomplish tasks cheaper and better.
Also......it's getting more and more difficult to find young people that appreciate the concept of magnitude of orders.
Putting them behind a mechanical cash register is often not profitable

So....while you argue to dismantle education, I see the need for better education.

Do you have a link or organization I can check?

If you're up for some reading:
This sets the stage, generalizations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/a/EvolutionSchoolKansas.htm

http://67.192.238.60/media-center/p...onist-strategies-the-90s/what-happened-kansas

Much has disappeared online since I was involved in those debates......when out of state college enrollment dropped, the above was partially reversed.
In Ohio......creation science isn't supposed to be taught as a science, but at the same time, biology relating to evolution isn't taught in public schools unless religion is also.
That's a big drag on the educational process.

So....I don't trust the States or the Feds......but I do see that a national base line/standard is better than none.
It's logical and practical.

If you would argue reform, so that concepts like 'no child left behind' presented as a political dog and pony show where education amounted to little more than learning how to take and pass tests.....were eliminated....I'd agree with you.

But you argue to eliminate the ED, and I don't agree.

Honoring our Constitution is hardly anarchy

It must be terribly frustrating, being Libertarian, and seeing how differently the Constitution has been interpreted over time.
But then, as a society matures and complexity imbeds itself, change does occur. And a need to adjust to those changes.
The Constitution isn't written in stone. It was designed to evolve. My belief is that it wasn't written to be either illogical nor repressive.

Your arguments are both.

 

[Accountable]

You either aren't reading what I post or are not able to comprehend it.
Simply....with out a universal standard, States that fall behind in their duty to promote quality education are a detriment to themselves and the nation....as 'we' are not just competing within ourselves, 'we' are competing in a global economy and education is an element that drives our success.

As far as the Constitution goes.....grounds of discrimination and freedom of religion should suffice.

I understood it just fine. I just don't agree.
This global competition bit ... that's worth a separate thread to discuss what constitutes winning and what happens to the losers.
Your comment on the constitution is not remotely sufficient. Are you part of that "the Constitution is just a relic of the past" crowd?

How about.....it arises from the 'dumbassery' that already exists and has existed in the past?
With the quality of education declining, you have no argument to regionalize standards.

Since the standards are already national and quality is declining anyway, regionalization is the only argument that stands.

The Feds should be presenting a base line and then it's up to the States to surpass it if so desired.

Unfortunately national baselines end up being ultimate goals that districts spend unbelievable amounts of energy creating excuses not to attain. It's because responsibility, therefore sense of ownership is taken away. Things are not as important if someone else owns it. It's a phenomenon rife in large bureaucracies. I'm sure you've seen it before. I've spent my adult life in large bureaucracies - first USAF and now public high school. Nothing excels until the people at the lowest levels take ownership of it. That is incredibly hard to accomplish, but is easier the fewer levels between the decision-makers and the people that need to do the work.

as long as issues of civil rights and religion exist in the educational process, there is reason for involvement.

Not legal reason

What reason can you give that allows for the possibility of violating the civil rights that are spelled out in the Constitution?

Liberty. You can't go around imposing restrictions based on imagined future possible infractions. That's tyranny. In a free land we have to trust that people will do the right thing until they prove otherwise.

There is no law requiring the States to be involved if they so choose to decline Federal funding.
Don't want the Federal guidelines, don't take their money........or are you arguing that there should be no strings attached?

I'm arguing that there should be no federal funding. Washington is taking from each state according to its ability to pay and giving back according to what Washington decides is its need - we're not Marxist. But beyond that, Washington is using the federal power to tax to control that which they are constitutionally restricted from controlling.

The Feds are setting a baseline, a baseline is not an absolute.

You're the one that brought up absolutes. You have an annoying habit of throwing out accusations and declarations of what I think or what my motivations are, rather than simply discussing the issue. I find myself wasting time defending against your phantoms. Let's stick to the subject.

Personally, I don't think they are high enough.

We're not talking about what the standard should be, but who should be setting them.

So....while you argue to dismantle education, I see the need for better education.

So if Washington doesn't do it then it doesn't get done? Holding Washington to their constitutional limits is not dismantling education. Hyperbole.

If you're up for some reading:
This sets the stage, generalizations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionreligionreligious/a/EvolutionSchoolKansas.htm

http://67.192.238.60/media-center/p...onist-strategies-the-90s/what-happened-kansas

Much has disappeared online since I was involved in those debates......when out of state college enrollment dropped, the above was partially reversed.

Thanks. I'll have to look at it later. I'm busting my federally-enforced deadline for submitting useless paperwork by spending so much time on this thread already.

So....I don't trust the States or the Feds......but I do see that a national base line/standard is better than none.
It's logical and practical.

That's valid, but legally we need an amendment for it to happen.

If you would argue reform, so that concepts like 'no child left behind' presented as a political dog and pony show where education amounted to little more than learning how to take and pass tests.....were eliminated....I'd agree with you.

But you argue to eliminate the ED, and I don't agree.

At the very most, Washington should gather & publish comparative data so that states & districts can see how they stand nationally, and benchmark off the more successful systems. Taxing systems to redistribute the wealth should be forbidden - in all non-federal agencies, not just education. The temptation to attach strings is too strong. Washington as a watchdog is good. Washington as Big Brother is bad.

It must be terribly frustrating, being Libertarian, and seeing how differently the Constitution has been interpreted over time.

That's libertarian the adjective, small 'l'. And yes, it's very frustrating. No one has violated our Constitution more than GW Bush, though Obama is trying. I don't see why Congress doesn't just grow a set and declare the Constitution no longer law.

But then, as a society matures and complexity imbeds itself, change does occur. And a need to adjust to those changes.
The Constitution isn't written in stone. It was designed to evolve.

Yes. That's what the amendment process is for, but no one even bothers with checking constitutionality of the bills anymore. It doesn't even occur to them.

My belief is that it wasn't written to be either illogical nor repressive.

Your arguments are both.

You don't see the logic. That doesn't mean it is illogical. And liberty is not repressive or unconstitutional. Federal intervention in public education is both.

 

[Stone]

I understood it just fine. I just don't agree. .

edited for brevity.....word count ran over 10000 characters )

This global competition bit ... that's worth a separate thread to discuss what constitutes winning and what happens to the losers.

That's called avoidance.

Your comment on the constitution is not remotely sufficient.

In your opinion, you mean.

Are you part of that "the Constitution is just a relic of the past" crowd?

Nope....and my comments on it were very clear.

Since the standards are already national and quality is declining anyway, regionalization is the only argument that stands.

Utter nonsense.
Regionalization of standards allows lower standards, it does not guarantee a higher standard.
The issue of regionalization is pertinent in the methods used to achieve a baseline however.
This is where locals have an advantage of addressing cultural and economic variations.
Your position ignores this completely.

Unfortunately national baselines end up being ultimate goals that districts spend unbelievable amounts of energy creating excuses not to attain.

That does happen and is something that needs correction.
But you aren't calling for correction.
You are arguing to ignore the inequalities that initiate discriminatory practices.......some intentional, some defacto.

It's because responsibility, therefore sense of ownership is taken away. Things are not as important if someone else owns it. It's a phenomenon rife in large bureaucracies.

You are trying to confuse bureaucratic control with your argument for ending a program.
Separate issues and problems.

I'm sure you've seen it before.

Indeed......but your argument is one of eliminating what is inefficient rather than arguing for efficiency.

Nothing excels until the people at the lowest levels take ownership of it.

And if those at that lowest level have impediments in the educational process, they are not going to have the knowledge, as tools, to achieve true ownership of their destinies.
Your argument, while not intentional, does shackle an element of a population to the will of others. The exception being a 'perfect world' where a defacto scenario wouldn't exist.
ie....your argument is neither logical nor practical.

Not legal reason

In your opinion.


my question:
"What reason can you give that allows for the possibility of violating the civil rights that are spelled out in the Constitution? "
your reply:

Liberty.

For whom?
As shown, your argument is a mechanism for what is essentially defacto slavery by way of legislating ignorance.
You have a strange sense of the concept.

You can't go around imposing restrictions based on imagined future possible infractions.

I gave you real life examples of how ignorance is leveraged against the public on the State and local level.
You are merely in denial of reality.

Washington is taking from each state according to its ability to pay and giving back according to what Washington decides is its need - we're not Marxist.

Ohio also takes from those with the ability to pay and disperses it according to need.
So do our counties.
State income and county property taxes are what they're called.
Those with out children are even required to pay.
Your argument now calls for the disbanding of most of our public educational system because you see the mechanism as Marxist.

But with your present argument, you now also tag the Constitution as Marxist as you claim civil rights and freedom of religion are not legal Constitutional issues and forces Marxism upon us.
Trust me.....there is no logic in that position

But beyond that, Washington is using the federal power to tax to control that which they are constitutionally restricted from controlling.

Tell your State officials not to take the Fed's money
And your claim of it being un-Constitutional has been blown away long ago

You're the one that brought up absolutes

I'm the one that pointed out that you are designing an argument of absolutes.

You have an annoying habit of throwing out accusations and declarations of what I think or what my motivations are

Life is cruel

But I do give good argument for them.


I do think your position is purely political.
Certainly not practical.
Nor logical.

rather than simply discussing the issue.

That's merely whining on your part because you don't like my replies.

I find myself wasting time defending against your phantoms. Let's stick to the subject.

Like claiming that setting a baseline for the quality of education across the US is Marxism?
Surely you jest?

We're not talking about what the standard should be, but who should be setting them.

As shown, the Federal involvement is a carrot and stick approach to that attempts to bring universal quality education to the general public in cases where State activity is lacking and generates situations of defacto discrimination and repulsive issues of religious indoctrination.....factors that do adversely affect the educational process.
Your argument is merely one of constantly denying that these are Constitutional issues.
You have no argument. Reality betrays you.

So if Washington doesn't do it then it doesn't get done?

This is the type of question from a small mind....begging a question.
A major fallacy in a debate.
When reasonable standards aren't being achieved, and Constitutional issues are involved as shown, there is good reason for the Feds as a governing body to be involved.
And I have given recent examples where the rights of a citizen have been at risk and even violated.
Again...your argument does not consider reform, it only positions removal because it's inefficient.
The logic of your argument could even include the disbanding of Congress because it's inefficient......rather than to argue for reform.

Holding Washington to their constitutional limits is not dismantling education. Hyperbole.

You're repeating yourself and I've already shown you the fallacies of your logic.
You do argue for the State's right to limit education.

Thanks. I'll have to look at it later. I'm busting my federally-enforced deadline for submitting useless paperwork by spending so much time on this thread already.

The Feds are bad on that also

That's valid, but legally we need an amendment for it to happen.

Congress did enact the 'No Child left Behind' legislation to provide funding for it's intended purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind
It's up to someone to prove that it's un-Constitutional before the Supreme Court.
Paraphrasing one of your comments in another thread....'That ain't gonna happen'

 

[Stone]

.............................
That's valid, but legally we need an amendment for it to happen.

At the very most, Washington should gather & publish comparative data so that states & districts can see how they stand nationally, and benchmark off the more successful systems. Taxing systems to redistribute the wealth should be forbidden - in all non-federal agencies, not just education. The temptation to attach strings is too strong. Washington as a watchdog is good. Washington as Big Brother is bad.

That's libertarian the adjective, small 'l'. And yes, it's very frustrating. No one has violated our Constitution more than GW Bush, though Obama is trying. I don't see why Congress doesn't just grow a set and declare the Constitution no longer law.

Yes. That's what the amendment process is for, but no one even bothers with checking constitutionality of the bills anymore. It doesn't even occur to them.

You don't see the logic. That doesn't mean it is illogical. And liberty is not repressive or unconstitutional. Federal intervention in public education is both.

For some reason, I missed the above in my previous comment.

At the very most, Washington should gather & publish comparative data so that states & districts can see how they stand nationally, and benchmark off the more successful systems.

Limiting the Fed's involvement does not address the Constitutional issues of discrimination and freedom of religion.
You have referred to this before and nothing has changed.

Taxing systems to redistribute the wealth should be forbidden

Agreed....and irrelevant to this topic.
There is no redistribution of wealth among the population.
Consider education to be a part of the infrastructure of our society and you can easily see why Federal oversight and involvement is justified when Constitutional issues arise.
If the States were playing their part correctly, there would be no need or justification for that involvement.

That's libertarian the adjective, small 'l'.

What is the difference?
Not being a party member?

You don't see the logic

Let me correct that......I see no logic to your argument.

And liberty is not repressive or unconstitutional. Federal intervention in public education is both.

The little I've seen of your version of liberty.... it allows for both discrimination and religious indoctrination.
And that's a contradiction.
With out equal rights......there is no liberty.

 

[Accountable]

That's called avoidance.

It's called an invitation to have another conversation. You do realize that it's possible to converse to share ideas, right? It doesn't have to be a competition to be won or lost.

In your opinion, you mean.

Just as nearly every word you've typed has been your opinion. Just refer back to this all the other times you had to type this when you didn't have a rebuttal.

Nope....and my comments on it were very clear.

In communication, it is not enough that the sender knows what was meant to be sent.

Regionalization of standards allows lower standards, it does not guarantee a higher standard.

Now who's talking nonsense. Nationalization doesn't guarantee a higher standard, either, but it does guarantee that it will be one-size-fits all, which has proven time and again to be a loser in this diverse country.

The issue of regionalization is pertinent in the methods used to achieve a baseline however.
This is where locals have an advantage of addressing cultural and economic variations.
Your position ignores this completely.

What you seem to ignore is that Washington standards seldom allow deviation, especially in education. NCLB

That does happen and is something that needs correction.
But you aren't calling for correction.

Of course I am. Holding Washington to its constitutional limits and keeping it out of state & local affairs IS the correction. And it's needed in far more areas than just education.

You are trying to confuse bureaucratic control with your argument for ending a program.
Separate issues and problems.

Bureaucratic control is the primary argument. The agency (not the program, get it straight) is the bureaucratic control that must be ended.

Indeed......but your argument is one of eliminating what is inefficient rather than arguing for efficiency.

Eliminating the unecessary & redundant is the hallmark of efficiency.

And if those at that lowest level have impediments in the educational process, they are not going to have the knowledge, as tools, to achieve true ownership of their destinies.
Your argument, while not intentional, does shackle an element of a population to the will of others. The exception being a 'perfect world' where a defacto scenario wouldn't exist.
ie....your argument is neither logical nor practical.

It's kinda funy & kinda tiresome, the sheer number of times you simultaneously accuse illogic and make illogical leaps.

my question:
"What reason can you give that allows for the possibility of violating the civil rights that are spelled out in the Constitution? "
your reply:

For whom?
As shown, your argument is a mechanism for what is essentially defacto slavery by way of legislating ignorance.
You have a strange sense of the concept.

Your arguments against regionalization in favor of nationalization naturally support globalization as the ultimate goal. The larger the bureaucracy, the less liberty. It's just that simple.

I gave you real life examples of how ignorance is leveraged against the public on the State and local level.

You gave me anecdotes and tried to justify punishing crimes before they occur.

Ohio also takes from those with the ability to pay and disperses it according to need.
So do our counties.
State income and county property taxes are what they're called.
Those with out children are even required to pay.

Doesn't follow. Washington takes cash and gives cash. Ohio takes cash and provides services. Big difference.

Your argument now calls for the disbanding of most of our public educational system because you see the mechanism as Marxist.

Why do you lie?

But with your present argument, you now also tag the Constitution as Marxist as you claim civil rights and freedom of religion are not legal Constitutional issues and forces Marxism upon us.

Another leap of complete fantasy. The constitution doesn't call for taxing the states to provide the states funds to run state programs. I never said or implied that it did. Not even remotely.

Like claiming that setting a baseline for the quality of education across the US is Marxism?

If you go back and check, you'll find that I called the taxation Marxist.

As shown, the Federal involvement is a carrot and stick approach to that attempts to bring universal quality education to the general public in cases where State activity is lacking and generates situations of defacto discrimination and repulsive issues of religious indoctrination.....factors that do adversely affect the educational process.
Your argument is merely one of constantly denying that these are Constitutional issues.
You have no argument. Reality betrays you.

The truth is the truth. The practice is unconstitutional. No further argument is needed except for those who don't respect our Constitution.

When reasonable standards aren't being achieved, and Constitutional issues are involved as shown, there is good reason for the Feds as a governing body to be involved.

If there is good reason for the Feds to be involved then there's good reason to amend the constitution so that they may do so legally.

Congress did enact the 'No Child left Behind' legislation to provide funding for it's intended purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind
It's up to someone to prove that it's un-Constitutional before the Supreme Court.
Paraphrasing one of your comments in another thread....'That ain't gonna happen'

I know. Nobody in Washington wants to lose any of their political power. Here's a good book, if you have the time. It's probably in your local library. It's in mine. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Constitution-American-Liberty/dp/0307405753

Agreed....and irrelevant to this topic.
There is no redistribution of wealth among the population.

This was already discussed. Just because the cash doesn't make it to individual pockets doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

What is the difference?
Not being a party member?

I take it you don't see a difference. I do.

I think we understand each other. I'm done with this conversation.

 

[Stone]

It's called an invitation to have another conversation. You do realize that it's possible to converse to share ideas, right? It doesn't have to be a competition to be won or lost.

Just as nearly every word you've typed has been your opinion. Just refer back to this all the other times you had to type this when you didn't have a rebuttal.

In communication, it is not enough that the sender knows what was meant to be sent.

Now who's talking nonsense. Nationalization doesn't guarantee a higher standard, either, but it does guarantee that it will be one-size-fits all, which has proven time and again to be a loser in this diverse country.

What you seem to ignore is that Washington standards seldom allow deviation, especially in education. NCLB

Of course I am. Holding Washington to its constitutional limits and keeping it out of state & local affairs IS the correction. And it's needed in far more areas than just education.

Bureaucratic control is the primary argument. The agency (not the program, get it straight) is the bureaucratic control that must be ended.

Eliminating the unecessary & redundant is the hallmark of efficiency.

It's kinda funy & kinda tiresome, the sheer number of times you simultaneously accuse illogic and make illogical leaps.

Your arguments against regionalization in favor of nationalization naturally support globalization as the ultimate goal. The larger the bureaucracy, the less liberty. It's just that simple.

You gave me anecdotes and tried to justify punishing crimes before they occur.

Doesn't follow. Washington takes cash and gives cash. Ohio takes cash and provides services. Big difference.

Why do you lie?

Another leap of complete fantasy. The constitution doesn't call for taxing the states to provide the states funds to run state programs. I never said or implied that it did. Not even remotely.

If you go back and check, you'll find that I called the taxation Marxist.

The truth is the truth. The practice is unconstitutional. No further argument is needed except for those who don't respect our Constitution.


If there is good reason for the Feds to be involved then there's good reason to amend the constitution so that they may do so legally.

I know. Nobody in Washington wants to lose any of their political power. Here's a good book, if you have the time. It's probably in your local library. It's in mine. http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-Constitution-American-Liberty/dp/0307405753

This was already discussed. Just because the cash doesn't make it to individual pockets doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I take it you don't see a difference. I do.

I think we understand each other. I'm done with this conversation.

It's called an invitation to have another conversation.You do realize that it's possible to converse to share ideas, right? It doesn't have to be a competition to be won or lost.

It's still avoidance in regards to relevance to the present topic.

Just as nearly every word you've typed has been your opinion. Just refer back to this all the other times you had to type this when you didn't have a rebuttal.

Unbelievable.....I've been giving you reasons for my opinion all along. I've been giving you a constant line of rebuttal to your replies.

In communication, it is not enough that the sender knows what was meant to be sent.

I can not help you with your issues of reading comprehension.
You have not challenged clarity as much as you challenge logic ......and it's your logic I question.

Now who's talking nonsense. Nationalization doesn't guarantee a higher standard, either, but it does guarantee that it will be one-size-fits all, which has proven time and again to be a loser in this diverse country.

Again, comprehension issues......I presented the concept of a baseline of standards, not an ultimate standard to achieve nor the method used to achieve it.
Your arguments continue to underline the acceptance of, at a minimum, defacto discrimination and you even use the concept of liberty to promote unequal rights.
And any attempt to distribute knowledge (education ) using taxpayer's dollars in such a manner that certain elements of a society are precluded because of ethnicity, religion ( preference or abstinence ) social/economic status ...is discrimination.
You have not addressed this in any part of your libertarian diatribe and give the appearance
of avoiding it.
I've given you Kansas as an example of a State getting itself into trouble on it's own and you've completely ignored it.
I've shown how the infusion of religious dogma ( the fundamentalist scientific concept--creation science ) is destructive to education and you've ignored it.

And you claim I give no reasons for a need of a baseline standard. :cool

What you seem to ignore is that Washington standards seldom allow deviation, especially in education. NCLB

Not only do you have reading issues, a short memory, too.
I've posted that reform is needed because of NCLB and been quite clear about my disapproval of it.
I haven't ignored anything you've brought up.
And your issue with what you call 'deviation' can easily be avoided by......refusing the Federal funds......another element of this discussion you don't respond to.

Of course I am. Holding Washington to its constitutional limits and keeping it out of state & local affairs IS the correction. And it's needed in far more areas than just education.

It seems rather obvious that civil rights and the freedom of religion aren't on your list of Constitutional Rights.
You are one of the first Libertarians that I've had the pleasure of debating to any great degree and I'm learning a lot about how deep the concept of Liberty runs.
It appears only as much as one can afford or take from another.

Bureaucratic control is the primary argument. The agency (not the program, get it straight) is the bureaucratic control that must be ended.

Non sequitur.
Except for the men in Congress and the President, all of government is one massive collection of nonelective officials.
Your argument now calls for essentially disbanding the Federal Government.

hmmm......Libertarianism. Interesting when we get right down to the nitty gritty.

Eliminating the unecessary & redundant is the hallmark of efficiency.

Yes, it is

It's kinda funy & kinda tiresome, the sheer number of times you simultaneously accuse illogic and make illogical leaps.

You aren't proof reading what you post, are you?

Your arguments against regionalization in favor of nationalization naturally support globalization as the ultimate goal. The larger the bureaucracy, the less liberty. It's just that simple.

You've got it backwards, again.....(your logic )
A pressing issue to maintain quality education is globalization and it's effects upon our ability to compete within it.
Your concept of 'simple' is all catywompas.

You gave me anecdotes and tried to justify punishing crimes before they occur.

That's merely denial of reality.
I've given you issues, I've shown several on a large scale.
You are merely in a state of denial, likely because they conflict deeply with your political dogma and you have no way to logically rationalize them....so you ignore the issues by calling them anecdotes. An anecdote would relate to the telling of personal experience.....I give you examples on a national scale......you can't even get the semantics correct.

Doesn't follow. Washington takes cash and gives cash. Ohio takes cash and provides services. Big difference.

Sophistry.
Still not Marxism.

Why do you lie?

Why are you so intent on destroying educational standards?
(That's why I posted the comment. And I think it fits you well )

Another leap of complete fantasy. The constitution doesn't call for taxing the states to provide the states funds to run state programs. I never said or implied that it did. Not even remotely.

You logic is bizarre.
Of course you implied it.
But your response was to this comment I made:
"But with your present argument, you now also tag the Constitution as Marxist as you claim civil rights and freedom of religion are not legal Constitutional issues and forces Marxism upon us."
Bizarre, indeed.
I've never seen such loopy logic.

If you go back and check, you'll find that I called the taxation Marxist.

To call the taxation 'Marxist' is an argument calling the need and reasoning for the taxation .....'Marxist'.
It's called critical thinking.
You just tagged addressing civil rights and freedom of religion issues as being Marxist issues within the US Constitution.........utter nonsense.

The truth is the truth.

So is reality.

The practice is unconstitutional.

In your opinion which you haven't provided one iota of evidence.
I have provided reasoning and issues contrary to your position.

No further argument is needed except for those who don't respect our Constitution.

Lame.
More avoidance.

If there is good reason for the Feds to be involved then there's good reason to amend the constitution so that they may do so legally.

That was a response to my post:
When: ".... Constitutional issues are involved as shown, there is good reason for the Feds as a governing body to be involved. "
Your rebuttal is the best of the best non sequiturs posted yet :thumbup

This was already discussed. Just because the cash doesn't make it to individual pockets doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Now you are presenting an 'If' argument without the slightest hesitation of immediately exiting the debate.

I'm done with this conversation.

IMO, you were done a long time ago.

 

[Alien Allen]

you can have standards though without having a huge department

 

[Stone]

you can have standards though without having a huge department

That I can agree with.
It's reasonable and logical.

What we do have is bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency.... a general condition of the Federal government.

 

[Minor Axis]

you can have standards though without having a huge department

I'm not disagreeing except to say standards without enforcement mean nothing.

 

[Stone]

I'm not disagreeing except to say standards without enforcement mean nothing.

Solution, in this case......don't take the Feds money.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm pondering why would Bill Gates say such a darn fool thing? Obviously he's lost his marbles. You conservatives can agree with the premise, lol.

 

[Stone]

I'm pondering why would Bill Gates say such a darn fool thing? Obviously he's lost his marbles. You conservatives can agree with the premise, lol.

I'm pondering why would Bill Gates say such a darn fool thing?

The link in the opening post doesn't work for me so I viewed it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMGXR5hkcxM

His argument isn't to only increase taxes on the wealthy, his argument is for people like himself, one of extreme wealth, to pay his fair share..................a greater tax increase........ along with increases on the rest of tax payers.

But it needs considerations.....too great an increase on the wealthy and it drives investment off shore ......and increasing taxes on the general population too much stifles the necessary consumerism needed to drive a healthy economy.

Lowering taxes rates under the Bush administration would have been better targeted at the consumer ( middle class ) in order to generate consumerism rather than expanding personal debt to achieve it.. He generated profits for the wealthy that didn't invest in expansion as he claimed they would. Demand for consumer products simply didn't increase enough to create the need for manufacturing expansion. The financial condition of the consumer remained under pressure and there were too few growing markets because of it, the economy didn't rebound as projected.

You conservatives can agree with the premise, lol.

And yet none of the liberals/socialists responding in this thread seem to have seen and heard that Gates actually called for tax increases all around.
Some people only hear what they want to?

 

[Minor Axis]

And yet none of the liberals/socialists responding in this thread seem to have seen and heard that Gates actually called for tax increases all around. Some people only hear what they want to?

Huh? Is this what you meant to say? What do you think they heard?
Thanks for sharing btw.

 

[Stone]

Huh? Is this what you meant to say? What do you think they heard?
Thanks for sharing btw.

This is exactly what I got out of the Bill Gates video:

His argument isn't to only increase taxes on the wealthy, his argument is for people like himself, one of extreme wealth, to pay his fair share..................a greater tax increase........ along with increases on the rest of tax payers.

What I hear in the forum is mostly partisan politics.

 

[Minor Axis]

In this particular thread although I'm too lazy to scan every replay, I imagine all the liberals/socialists agree with Mr. Gates. Anytime anyone mentions raising taxes it's the fiscal conservatives who have a partisan cow. "We don't wanna!!!!"

 

[Stone]

In this particular thread although I'm too lazy to scan every replay, I imagine all the liberals/socialists agree with Mr. Gates. Anytime anyone mentions raising taxes it's the fiscal conservatives who have a partisan cow. "We don't wanna!!!!"

I imagine all the liberals/socialists agree with Mr. Gates.

On the wealthy being taxed more, indeed.

But Gates is arguing for a general tax hike also....pay attention to his comments ..... 'taxes are going to have to go up' and 'shared sacrifice'. Gates is not eliminating the increase of taxation on the middle class.....he is saying that increases should be greater on the wealthy.......... Going back to the issue of increased taxation on the middle class reducing consumerism, how do you rationalize reducing the purchasing power of the middle class while at the same time attempting economic recovery during a period of bloated consumer debt?


That is what liberals/socialists are blind to.

Reality.......Gates can afford a tax increase, the middle class not so much, perhaps not at all if consumerism is considered critical in rejuvenating the economy.

Anytime anyone mentions raising taxes it's the fiscal conservatives who have a partisan cow. "We don't wanna!!!!"

And Tax and Spend Liberal/socialists are also having partisan cows anytime there are talks on spending cuts of their pet projects (entitlements)...... "We don't wanna!!!!"


That's a lot of cows

 

[Minor Axis]

On the wealthy being taxed more, indeed.

But Gates is arguing for a general tax hike also....pay attention to his comments ..... 'taxes are going to have to go up' and 'shared sacrifice'. Gates is not eliminating the increase of taxation on the middle class.....he is saying that increases should be greater on the wealthy.......... Going back to the issue of increased taxation on the middle class reducing consumerism, how do you rationalize reducing the purchasing power of the middle class while at the same time attempting economic recovery during a period of bloated consumer debt?


That is what liberals/socialists are blind to.

Reality.......Gates can afford a tax increase, the middle class not so much, perhaps not at all if consumerism is considered critical in rejuvenating the economy.



And Tax and Spend Liberal/socialists are also having partisan cows anytime there are talks on spending cuts of their pet projects (entitlements)...... "We don't wanna!!!!"


That's a lot of cows

I think you've made several sweeping generalizations in your reply. The most glaring is that it's the liberals/socialist are the blind ones. There is more than enough blindness to go around. I admit there is not black and white, conservatives are not all bad and liberals not all good.