|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Hey, with every temporary compromise comes another cliff. It happened with the debt ceiling. It continues to happen with the budget (they have been operating on short-term continuing resolutions instead of a passed budget for three years now). It will happen in the future, with different faces and names. I take issue with those who would say "it's really going over the cliff this time, and this guys" when it is daily business and the norm for measures in Congress. Significant spending cuts will affect somebody's pet program, losing them votes or clout, so you kick the can down the road. So the operating philosophy of Congress needs to change, and more than just one party is complicit in these recurring cliffs. The causes just aren't as widely publicized and are less interesting to the public at large.
The Plan B was tax increases, and my gut tells me it was Boehner hoping he could find more Republicans willing to cave without any real chance of success. I mean the ascent of the tea party running candidates unsupported by the party money (Rubio for instance) is no ancient event. You can be replaced in Congress today if you go on the record supporting tax increases. This is self-preservation and they know it, no matter how much Boehner is pushing. The heat isn't hot enough to sway House Republicans.
|
On December 21 2012 05:12 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 04:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 19 2012 14:25 BlueBird. wrote:On December 19 2012 13:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 19 2012 03:58 farvacola wrote:
Look at it this way. Metropolitan areas are already suffering from an increased disparity between quality of life in the suburbs and the city, and voucher programs only feed into that disparity. We cannot just say "let the bad schools fail" when that amounts to a total dismissal of urban and poor demographics, demographics unable to manipulate their own educational market entry and consequently left in the dust. If the bad school fails (goes away) that means students went to better schools or new (and again, better) schools were founded locally to take their place. So I don't see a problem here. Yes there's a risk that the system will suffer a botched execution but that's the risk with any reform or improvement effort. If you want change (and we all do) then at some point we have to take the risk that we'll only make things worse. I mean I understand the concern you are bringing up but as far as I know countries that have voucher systems (like Sweden) haven't suffered the ill effects you have described. So it seems like a concern over the execution of a voucher system rather than a concern over the voucher system itself. On December 19 2012 10:37 Souma wrote:On December 19 2012 03:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
As for school vouchers - what's the alternative? How do you fix a failed school in the current system? Organizational change is extremely difficult in the best of circumstances. Given how hard it is for administrators to purge bad personnel I can only think that fixing a failed school would be even harder. By realizing that it may not be the school that's failing the students? To give an example, in my city we can pick any public school in the district to go to. Naturally, people tend to pick the better schools (which are unsurprisingly located in the more affluent parts of the city). You'd think this would solve education for most students. However, that's generally not the case. The high school that I went to used to be a pretty good school. But by the time I got there, it was full of kids who just didn't give a crap. Parenting is the biggest problem facing schools at the moment, and the biggest problems facing parents are generally socioeconomic obstacles/the results of a vicious cycle thereof. Catch my drift? To give a picture of how low the school had fallen, our test scores were low enough to relegate us to the threat of No Child Left Behind (though in the end I believe we managed to overcome that barrier, barely). The teachers, coaches, and other faculty were all amazing and supportive (at least, all the ones I had and knew), but the problems facing the entire school (might I add that the students outnumbered staff by a significant margin) were really out of their control. If the student culture is an "I don't give a crap" one then it becomes all the more difficult to affect change. That sounds like all the better reason to let the bad schools be replaced. You've argued these same points before, but what happens in theory is that the "best" schools become swamped and can't take care of that many students, spreading their attention and making them a "bad" school over time, and then the parents who can afford to send their children to the new best school send them to the new best school and that school becomes swamped etc how do you solve this issue, classroom overcrowding is not a joke, one on one time with the teacher is essential for some students, sure some students don't need it or can teach themselves with the book etc. At some point there is a cut off for how many students the school can handle, they only have so much space/room, only so many teachers, and how do you decide who does/doesn't get in with their voucher, everyone in the school zoning area gets in, so outside of the zoning area how do you decide who gets in when you have 1000 spots, and 10000 students applying? Are we going to start deciding who gets in to elementary schools like we decide who gets in to colleges, based on academic achievements in kindergarten? Since all students can use a voucher in your system, that means you need to provide for a bus for students travelling far distances to get to the best schools, this costs gas, puts more miles and wear and tear on the bus fleet, meaning more repair costs, pay the bus drivers more for longer hours.. This means higher taxes, since it's unfair to charge more for the bus for students travelling long distances for obvious reasons. You can't treat schools as you treat businesses, you can't just let the strong schools survive, and the weak schools fail.(also the fact the best schools are in the most wealthy areas is kind of a hint its not always the school at fault here, parents with money have more time to be involved with their students lives, it's hard for a single mom with 2 jobs to come home and help tommy with his homework) . In some places, like Clark County, the schools get money based on property taxes. That means that schools in a richer area get more money(so hey a new baseball field, or brand new computers, or hey everyone lets go to Hawaii or Italy on a field trip)m since the property is worth more in that area, compare that to a school on the other side of the town that can't afford paper for the kids to write on. I know not all school districts/counties use property taxes to determine the school budget but it's pretty dumb. .We have invested money and time in to bad schools, and their faculty are not all clueless teachers and lazy administrators(although there are a lot of those) no matter what their test scores might say, their are good people in there, as well as the bad. There are awful, horrible, lazy, dumb freaking teachers at "great top of the line" schools, I've met some, I've been taught by some, I've worked with some, I have seen "bad"/"awful"/"worst in the county" schools work their asses off trying to keep their test scores up or move up a few percent because if they didn't they would all be fired, they worked one on one with the kids, put in unpaid overtime, talked to parents, tried to communicate, tried to get parents involved, learned a second language just so they could understand what their student was trying to tell them. That particular school was an elementary school, and 85 percent of the students did not have english as a first language, and did not speak english at home. It's not rocket science why their test scores were so low, but they were held to the same standards under NCLB as any other elementary school. We also expected mentally challenged kids too perform at the same level as their peers without challenges, making it so schools tried to get rid of their handicapped kids since it brought their test scores down. How messed up is that. Basically their is a underlying problem with schools, and I don't feel like your voucher problem would solve any of them, we need to isolate the problem, and go after it, making a voucher system doesn't seem to solve any problems with our education system, and I have yet to see a good argument for it, or what it would actually solve. You are making a lot of assumptions about a voucher system that just aren't true. Good schools won't be swamped - they will obviously have limits on how many students can enroll. Good schools will have more enrolling than get in - so what? -that's no worse than the current system! This isn't treating schools like a business. This is treating schools like universities. You have a choice in where you go to college and the funding follows the students. Is that a bad thing? Seems like choice is an illusion at that point. You overestimate the mobility of the individual and you seem to ignore the fact that if a good school is full, then the parents have no choice but to send the children to worse schools, those worse schools then get full but have the same funding as good schools. How does that help improve worse schools or the current system as a whole?
Some kids in bad schools get to go to good schools. That's a plus.
Bad schools have a new impetus for change - they must improve or more kids will leave. They would have fewer resources but fewer students to teach as well (neither a net positive or negative) so there's no reason to think that the bad schools would get worse.
Its not a panacea, but it would be an improvement.
|
On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS.
Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it.
|
On December 23 2012 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS. Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it.
Sad part is that it's only political posturing for the GOP leadership. I guarantee that half of them wouldn't take a deal 1/16th of an inch further to the left.
|
On December 23 2012 07:36 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS. Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it. Sad part is that it's only political posturing for the GOP leadership. I guarantee that half of them wouldn't take a deal 1/16th of an inch further to the left.
That's all that really matters. Get half the Reps to go along with the compromise and it passes.
|
On December 23 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 07:36 aksfjh wrote:On December 23 2012 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS. Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it. Sad part is that it's only political posturing for the GOP leadership. I guarantee that half of them wouldn't take a deal 1/16th of an inch further to the left. That's all that really matters. Get half the Reps to go along with the compromise and it passes.
Well, as a democratic president you can choose between walking over the cliff and thereby forcing the budget in more or less the direction you want or you can take a deal with some very unwanted concessions. It seems like a straight foreward choise to me!
Most Republicans have signed a deal with ATR and it has turned their opinion so far away from the target that they have more or less become irrelevant to the political process. The small contingent of 6 republican house representatives and 7 senators without the ATR oath and the ones willing to break the oath are the only people able to negotiate. If nobody breaks the oath there is already a majority against any kind of deal involving a tax increase, which probably makes the jump off the cliff an even easier choise!
|
What if you let the cliff "happen". Increased taxes and reduce spending. Instead of relying on economic growth to "quench" the debt (which hasn't worked so far), why not take care of it the "real" way? There is no quick fix, just arguing on how to cheat the numbers and how to get around the deficit and irresponsible economy that has been going around for the last 10 years.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the republicans carry their social policy through the rhetoric of debt, so being unable to rationally engage with the topic from the perspective of economic impact is not a surprise.
|
On December 23 2012 08:13 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 23 2012 07:36 aksfjh wrote:On December 23 2012 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS. Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it. Sad part is that it's only political posturing for the GOP leadership. I guarantee that half of them wouldn't take a deal 1/16th of an inch further to the left. That's all that really matters. Get half the Reps to go along with the compromise and it passes. Well, as a democratic president you can choose between walking over the cliff and thereby forcing the budget in more or less the direction you want or you can take a deal with some very unwanted concessions. It seems like a straight foreward choise to me! Most Republicans have signed a deal with ATR and it has turned their opinion so far away from the target that they have more or less become irrelevant to the political process. The small contingent of 6 republican house representatives and 7 senators without the ATR oath and the ones willing to break the oath are the only people able to negotiate. If nobody breaks the oath there is already a majority against any kind of deal involving a tax increase, which probably makes the jump off the cliff an even easier choise!
There are more then enough democrats that have signed or signaled their instance to not cut social programs in any way thereby creating the same destructive system from the other side. It doesn't really matter who the president is its the matter on who the public will blame for the country going off the cliff. That has resoundingly been that the republicans will be taking the blame. Why should a democrat even bother trying not to when they have such a surefire political win waiting for them?
|
Serma, did you really call Romney the fiscal conservative candidate? He certainly tried to be, but it was clear to everyone he was a RINO in that regard. How can you oppose Obamacare when your state passed the basic model for it? Fiscal conservative by the way does not mean cutting taxes for rich people, it means reducing expenditures.
|
On December 23 2012 09:27 Cutlery wrote:
What if you let the cliff "happen". Increased taxes and reduce spending. Instead of relying on economic growth to "quench" the debt (which hasn't worked so far), why not take care of it the "real" way? There is no quick fix, just arguing on how to cheat the numbers and how to get around the deficit and irresponsible economy that has been going around for the last 10 years.
We turn into Great Britain or France, with even worse unemployment and our middle and lower classes suffer. The economy shrinks, forcing unemployed to lose out on skills and wages that would boost the economy in the future. This compounds to decrease the expected reduction of the debt. Everybody suffers.
|
On December 23 2012 08:13 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 07:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 23 2012 07:36 aksfjh wrote:On December 23 2012 07:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 21 2012 18:04 paralleluniverse wrote:So the GOP has now put up their "Plan B" offer that does virtually nothing to stop the fiscal cliff, i.e. spending still gets cut, and tax hikes will still hit most people, but now they can't even get the votes from their own party to pass this "plan" that lets the Bush tax cuts expire only on millionaires. . CIRCUS. CLOWNS. Its just political posturing. Don't get worked up over it. Sad part is that it's only political posturing for the GOP leadership. I guarantee that half of them wouldn't take a deal 1/16th of an inch further to the left. That's all that really matters. Get half the Reps to go along with the compromise and it passes. Well, as a democratic president you can choose between walking over the cliff and thereby forcing the budget in more or less the direction you want or you can take a deal with some very unwanted concessions. It seems like a straight foreward choise to me! Most Republicans have signed a deal with ATR and it has turned their opinion so far away from the target that they have more or less become irrelevant to the political process. The small contingent of 6 republican house representatives and 7 senators without the ATR oath and the ones willing to break the oath are the only people able to negotiate. If nobody breaks the oath there is already a majority against any kind of deal involving a tax increase, which probably makes the jump off the cliff an even easier choise!
From what I read.. the Republicans can't agree.. If it's true it's because the recurring Republicans.. who want to stick to the guns, because they don't actually care if they get reelected.. they already have made their connections..they will still get paid..
There are loads of new blood.. these people aren't set to receive benefits for the rest of their lives like the old bloods.. I believe these newbies can't afford to do something to piss off their constituents.. I don't care if who I voted for breaks their oath.. I want them to help my country out and get something done..
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Merry Christmas!
![[image loading]](http://images.politico.com/global/2012/12/21/121221_favorite22_600_605.jpg)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So... it's looking like we're going over the cliff? It's not looking good atm anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Am i the only one reluctantly hoping we go over the cliff? I just want this to be over with and a full compromise to be done with. I hope that if we do go over the cliff that it's what ushers in an actual functioning compromise.
|
According to news reports, Obama has called congressional leaders to the White House for some sort of undisclosed discussion of the cliff, but Harry Reid and others are off the opinion that the chances for a deal are dim. This is where things get a bit foggy, because I am not entirely sure what sort of emergency executive actions are available to the White House, but it would certainly seem that they hold all the cards at this point. According to Timothy Geitner, "extraordinary measures" are at his and Obama's disposal should some financial wiggle room be needed come December 31st, and a Democrat-authored Senate bill that protects middle-class families is literally the only thing that can pass at this time; the only obstacle preventing this is John Boehner.
|
On December 28 2012 09:58 farvacola wrote:According to news reports, Obama has called congressional leaders to the White House for some sort of undisclosed discussion of the cliff, but Harry Reid and others are off the opinion that the chances for a deal are dim. This is where things get a bit foggy, because I am not entirely sure what sort of emergency executive actions are available to the White House, but it would certainly seem that they hold all the cards at this point. According to Timothy Geitner, "extraordinary measures" are at his and Obama's disposal should some financial wiggle room be needed come December 31st, and a Democrat-authored Senate bill that protects middle-class families is literally the only thing that can pass at this time; the only obstacle preventing this is John Boehner.
And Tea Party Republicans.
|
On December 28 2012 10:04 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 09:58 farvacola wrote:According to news reports, Obama has called congressional leaders to the White House for some sort of undisclosed discussion of the cliff, but Harry Reid and others are off the opinion that the chances for a deal are dim. This is where things get a bit foggy, because I am not entirely sure what sort of emergency executive actions are available to the White House, but it would certainly seem that they hold all the cards at this point. According to Timothy Geitner, "extraordinary measures" are at his and Obama's disposal should some financial wiggle room be needed come December 31st, and a Democrat-authored Senate bill that protects middle-class families is literally the only thing that can pass at this time; the only obstacle preventing this is John Boehner. And Tea Party Republicans.
Well in a sense most certainly, as it is their hard line that Boehner seems oh so careful to toe, as opposed to the moderate one. On the other hand, the middle class tax bill is projected to pass in the House if it comes to a vote, with every Democrat and a number of Republicans pledging their support. Unfortunately, Boehner is the only one that can initiate the vote.
|
On December 28 2012 09:51 BarackHusseinObama wrote:
Am i the only one reluctantly hoping we go over the cliff?
I'm praying for it every day. it's far past time the middle-class actually feels the consequences of their votes.
|
On December 28 2012 10:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 09:51 BarackHusseinObama wrote:
Am i the only one reluctantly hoping we go over the cliff? I'm praying for it every day. it's far past time the middle-class actually feels the consequences of their votes.
What exactly does 'feels the consequences of their votes" entail?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
