|
|
On September 29 2012 03:39 Souma wrote:
Major problems with education are socioeconomic. Parents of low-income families can't afford to be as attentive to their child's studies when they're working hard just to make ends meet. Likewise, parents who were born into poverty and had kids while in poverty are highly uneducated themselves, causing an endless cycle. Then factor in other environmental factors like high-crime rates, gangs, etc. and it's no wonder kids are doing bad in school. One of the major factors of a kid's education is not just schools/teachers but parents. When social mobility is so low and poverty is high, families suffer and consequentially education suffers. Of course, not only low-income families suffer, but even parents of middle-class families pay less attention to their kids' studies these days. When mom and dad are not teaching you, you learn from other sources: television, peers, the internet, etc.
Of course, we still need good education reform. But there's a limit as to how effective reform can be without addressing other underlying causes.
Careful, someone is going to quote you and call you an idiot for trying too look at it from a sociological view and then come in and spout nonsense about the 'American Dream'.
One of the most interesting ways to understand the difficulty of trying to move up in socio-economic status is to play a stratified version of monopoly. The monopoly we typically play(dirty dirty evil communist equality version lol) is fair for all; however, when we set starting money and income status based on class and afford certain rights and privileges to those based on their class, you begin to understand that it's really fucking hard to move up as you're getting consistently fucked by the lack of resources to afford you the ability to move up.
It's common to play stratified monopoly in sociology classes and there are plenty of resources to try and play it. Just imagine playing starcraft with one player starting with only one worker and another starting with a full saturated base. You'd have to hope for a miracle of some sort to overcome the odds.
|
On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2012 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 00:00 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2012 23:49 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending. Yes this is very amusing  It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well. As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make. While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs. I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently. I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated. Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending...(which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice)
Can you show me how you reached that conclusion?
|
On September 29 2012 03:07 Jason S wrote:Samuel L. Jackson In Obama Ad: ‘Wake The F**k Up’ Obama AdIs it appropriate, or is it too vulgar?
Just dropping S-bombs and F-bombs is not really interesting in itself. The original story was interesting enough to keep it flowing, though.
But, it could use a little more variety in the profanity to really get to be a masterpiece.
The commercial is not as well rimed and dimed as the original bedtime story. Guess I am pretty immune to profanity so it did not strike me at all when watching it.
|
On September 29 2012 03:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2012 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 00:00 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2012 23:49 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending. Yes this is very amusing It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well. As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make. While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs. I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently. I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated. Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending...(which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice) Can you show me how you reached that conclusion?
Sure. You just listen to the rhetoric. Military spending is good, and if you cut it people will lose jobs. All other spending is bad, and if you cut it people will lose jobs but that's all dandy and capitalistic.
the point is that romney has no room to stand on pointing out that cutting military spending destroys jobs when he explicitly wants to cut all other forms of spending, which would also destroy jobs...
|
On September 29 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2012 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 00:00 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 28 2012 23:49 Signet wrote:On September 28 2012 23:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
Romney is saying government spending on defense creates jobs. But government spending on infrastructure, research, and stimulus in general doesn't.
He's a Keynesian on defense spending. Yes this is very amusing It's clear that he's just parroting right-wing talking points as a deliberate part of his strategy. Hence the 47% thing as well. As everyone knows, Romney is not a natural conservative. That is what's hold him back more than anything. He is incapable of making the sharp distinction with Obama that he should make. While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs. I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently. I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated. Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending...(which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice) Can you show me how you reached that conclusion? Sure. You just listen to the rhetoric. Military spending is good, and if you cut it people will lose jobs. All other spending is bad, and if you cut it people will lose jobs but that's all dandy and capitalistic. the point is that romney has no room to stand on pointing out that cutting military spending destroys jobs when he explicitly wants to cut all other forms of spending, which would also destroy jobs...
Isn't he prioritizing SS, Medicare and defense? And I think his argument is that defense spending should have a floor of 4% (too high IMO) - not that defense spending trumps all other spending, or that all other spending is bad. Keep in mind those three things are the main spending priorities of the federal government already.
|
On September 29 2012 04:01 sam!zdat wrote:
Sure. You just listen to the rhetoric. Military spending is good, and if you cut it people will lose jobs. All other spending is bad, and if you cut it people will lose jobs but that's all dandy and capitalistic.
the point is that romney has no room to stand on pointing out that cutting military spending destroys jobs when he explicitly wants to cut all other forms of spending, which would also destroy jobs...
For me, if they admitted that both defense and non-defense cuts would destroy jobs (or alternatively claimed that neither would destroy jobs as both are offset by the reaction of the private sector), I'd be fine with that. You can make an argument that defense jobs are "good" while civil service jobs are "bad." I don't agree with the criticisms of civil service jobs, certainly not to the extent that they're often taken, but that argument can be made.
The issue I have, from a consistency perspective, is with the idea that military spending creates net employment/GDP while other spending takes away net employment/GDP.
|
Jonny, my point has more to do with rhetoric and ideology (these being my particular area of expertise, rather than numbers which I'm not qualified to interpret and therefore don't).
My point is just what Signet is saying above.
|
Politico has a fascinating article, where a Romney official finally admits that Romney is simply a bad politician. The same official goes on to explain that many of his people believe he'd be an excellent executive and president -- but when it comes to 'auditioning' for the job, he absolutely stinks.
Slowly and reluctantly, Republicans who love and work for Romney are concluding that for all his gifts as a leader, businessman and role model, he’s just not a good political candidate in this era.
(PHOTOS: Mitt Romney through the years)
It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president.
“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,” said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”
Romney himself has been a tough self-critic, telling “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley he has only himself to blame for missteps such as the secret video of him writing off 47 percent of Americans as ungovernable and out of reach to him politically. “[T]hat’s not the campaign. That was me, right?” He made a similar remark when questions were raised about his campaign during the primaries, telling reporters: “The candidate sometimes makes some mistakes, and so I’m trying to do better and work harder.”
That comment captures precisely why his closest confidants think he is a much better, bigger and more qualified man than often comes through on the trail. He treats his staff with respect, works hard on his weaknesses and does all of it because he possesses supreme confidence in his capacity to lead effectively.
“He’s a great leader, but he’s not a great politician,” said a top member of Romney’s organization. “As much as we complain about politicians, we like a good politician. He doesn’t have the hand-on-the-shoulder thing. He’s not quick-witted. He’s an analytical, data-driven businessperson.”
And that’s the problem: His résumé and his personal style seem ill-suited for the moment. He’s a son of privilege who made hundreds of millions in private equity who is running in the first election since the 2008 economic meltdown — a meltdown many blame on rich, Wall Street tycoons. And he’s a socially stiff relic of a pre-ironic America, who struggles with improvisation and personal connections when the constant lens of the Web demands both.
Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81772.html#ixzz27nFLc62z
To be honest though, in this day and age, I don't think it's possible to be an effective leader on the national and world stage without having political chops. Running a government is not like running a private equity business ... where you can succeed in spite of -- and often because of -- your ability to downsize people, ignore other people's agenda's and political motivations, and continuously alienate people.
|
On September 29 2012 04:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny, my point has more to do with rhetoric and ideology (these being my particular area of expertise, rather than numbers which I'm not qualified to interpret and therefore don't).
My point is just what Signet is saying above.
Fair enough Sam
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 29 2012 03:54 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:39 Souma wrote:
Major problems with education are socioeconomic. Parents of low-income families can't afford to be as attentive to their child's studies when they're working hard just to make ends meet. Likewise, parents who were born into poverty and had kids while in poverty are highly uneducated themselves, causing an endless cycle. Then factor in other environmental factors like high-crime rates, gangs, etc. and it's no wonder kids are doing bad in school. One of the major factors of a kid's education is not just schools/teachers but parents. When social mobility is so low and poverty is high, families suffer and consequentially education suffers. Of course, not only low-income families suffer, but even parents of middle-class families pay less attention to their kids' studies these days. When mom and dad are not teaching you, you learn from other sources: television, peers, the internet, etc.
Of course, we still need good education reform. But there's a limit as to how effective reform can be without addressing other underlying causes. Careful, someone is going to quote you and call you an idiot for trying too look at it from a sociological view and then come in and spout nonsense about the 'American Dream'.
Damn the American Dream. Gets me every time. 
|
On September 29 2012 04:22 Defacer wrote:Politico has a fascinating article, where a Romney official finally admits that Romney is simply a bad politician. The same official goes on to explain that many of his people believe he'd be an excellent executive and president -- but when it comes to 'auditioning' for the job, he absolutely stinks. Show nested quote +
Slowly and reluctantly, Republicans who love and work for Romney are concluding that for all his gifts as a leader, businessman and role model, he’s just not a good political candidate in this era.
(PHOTOS: Mitt Romney through the years)
It kills his admirers to say it because they know him to be a far more generous and approachable man than people realize — far from the caricature of him being awkward or distant — and they feel certain he would be a very good president.
“Lousy candidate; highly qualified to be president,” said a top Romney official. “The candidate suit fits him unnaturally. He is naturally an executive.”
Romney himself has been a tough self-critic, telling “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley he has only himself to blame for missteps such as the secret video of him writing off 47 percent of Americans as ungovernable and out of reach to him politically. “[T]hat’s not the campaign. That was me, right?” He made a similar remark when questions were raised about his campaign during the primaries, telling reporters: “The candidate sometimes makes some mistakes, and so I’m trying to do better and work harder.”
That comment captures precisely why his closest confidants think he is a much better, bigger and more qualified man than often comes through on the trail. He treats his staff with respect, works hard on his weaknesses and does all of it because he possesses supreme confidence in his capacity to lead effectively.
“He’s a great leader, but he’s not a great politician,” said a top member of Romney’s organization. “As much as we complain about politicians, we like a good politician. He doesn’t have the hand-on-the-shoulder thing. He’s not quick-witted. He’s an analytical, data-driven businessperson.”
And that’s the problem: His résumé and his personal style seem ill-suited for the moment. He’s a son of privilege who made hundreds of millions in private equity who is running in the first election since the 2008 economic meltdown — a meltdown many blame on rich, Wall Street tycoons. And he’s a socially stiff relic of a pre-ironic America, who struggles with improvisation and personal connections when the constant lens of the Web demands both.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81772.html#ixzz27nFLc62zTo be honest though, in this day and age, I don't think it's possible to be an effective leader on the national and world stage without having political chops. Running a government is not like running a private equity business ... where you can succeed in spite of -- and often because of -- your ability to downsize people, ignore other people's agenda's and political motivations, and continuously alienate people.
That's where a lot of people disagree. People see the ability to manage a large business as a similar endeavor - businesses have internal factions, external parties with conflicting incentives and they all need to come together to make everything work.
|
On September 29 2012 03:07 Jason S wrote:Samuel L. Jackson In Obama Ad: ‘Wake The F**k Up’ Obama AdIs it appropriate, or is it too vulgar?
Idk if it is appropriate or vulgar but snot flew out of my nose when he was talkin to the girls about planned parenthood getting cut and he goes "STOP BULLSHITTIN".
I disagree with the message of the video, because I oppose Obama, but this gave me a great laugh.
|
On September 29 2012 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:27 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2012 00:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 00:00 Signet wrote:
[quote]
While that's true about Romney, it the conservative think tanks and Super PACs are also claiming that defense cuts will end up costing thousands of jobs.
I don't think that that many people in politics really believe in Austrian or even neoliberal economics. They're just helpful frameworks to use to argue against specific things that people don't like. But I rarely see politicians who look at things from these perspectives consistently. I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated. Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending... (which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice) It's true though, America's big dick *oh sorry cough*, I mean, America's ability to destroy all the armies all the rest of the world put together (and also the fucking planet, just in case), is much more important than educating young people, make sure that the old lady of the house at the corner of the street that is dying from cancer can get to hospital or sponsoring science (after all these people are even saying that dinosaurs really existed while our 3000 years old book says the opposite. Shocking) This campaign is sickening. We spend a retarded amount of money on education already. Money's not the issue with regards to why our schools suck. What could be a more important thing to spend money on than education? I'll agree that our system is structured badly from the ground up. (edit: but one main problem is that being a teacher is an entirely unrewarding career and our society doesn't value it - in fact, we scorn teachers. Why would talented people want to become teachers? Only idiots like me who are basically sociopaths and don't care about what society thinks, that's who) (and we can derive a general principle from this, which is that if you want any organization to work well - business, government, education - you need to make it attractive for talented people. Currently, only business is this way - and people wonder why government and education are dysfunctional organizations. well fuck me I don't know why...) I don't mind spending a lot of money on education as long as it works. We spend more money per child for education than any other country in the world other than Switzerland, and we get shit results for it. Before we spend any additional funds on education, we need to figure out and fix what is wrong with the current system. You spend 5,7% of your GPD. Cuba is at 14% and countrie such as Norway are around 8. Where did you get that figure?
He said per capita and is 100% correct. ---> http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecd
Also picking countries randomly does not make a lot of sense...
I think a great compromise (in theory at least) would be to have like a "coalition of the willing" after the election, which consists of Reps and Dems alike, and they actually start doing PRODUCTIVE stuff for the American people.
For example, and to stay on the topic of education, Dems give in and do their best to tame the teachers union to reform education, while Republicans go out of their way of "no new taxes - we just got a spending problem". Something along those lines, but in this hyper partisan environment... wishful thinking I am afraid.
Having a concrete and rather achieveable goal and agenda for the next couple of years instead of "hope and change" "and restoring America's greatness" hogwash.
That could resonate with the people and give some trust back to Congress, something this chamber is in dire need of having.
|
On September 28 2012 16:31 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2012 15:46 Silidons wrote:
defense cuts is the #1 thing we need in reality lol. no. User was warned for this post
who reported me? you're a twerp. don't report people because you're too lazy to read the stuff i've posted previously.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 29 2012 04:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:07 Jason S wrote:Samuel L. Jackson In Obama Ad: ‘Wake The F**k Up’ Obama AdIs it appropriate, or is it too vulgar? Idk if it is appropriate or vulgar but snot flew out of my nose when he was talkin to the girls about planned parenthood getting cut and he goes "STOP BULLSHITTIN". I disagree with the message of the video, because I oppose Obama, but this gave me a great laugh.
lol yea. political message aside, that was hilarious. I'm hoping the romney camp can one up it by getting Dave Chappelle to do an ad as his version of Samuel L Jackon.
|
On September 29 2012 05:01 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2012 03:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:27 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:On September 29 2012 00:35 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't think anyone would argue that taking money out of the defense industry will not reduce defense industry employment. The real issue is where should the money go instead to promote employment. Conservatives generally argue that tax money maximizes employment when it is left in the private sector (ie not taxed). Funding the defense industry is justified as the government fulfilling one of its core obligations to the nation and that having a strong national defense is central to American interests. Thus, the "hypocrisy" that liberals are bitching about here is grossly overstated. Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending... (which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice) It's true though, America's big dick *oh sorry cough*, I mean, America's ability to destroy all the armies all the rest of the world put together (and also the fucking planet, just in case), is much more important than educating young people, make sure that the old lady of the house at the corner of the street that is dying from cancer can get to hospital or sponsoring science (after all these people are even saying that dinosaurs really existed while our 3000 years old book says the opposite. Shocking) This campaign is sickening. We spend a retarded amount of money on education already. Money's not the issue with regards to why our schools suck. What could be a more important thing to spend money on than education? I'll agree that our system is structured badly from the ground up. (edit: but one main problem is that being a teacher is an entirely unrewarding career and our society doesn't value it - in fact, we scorn teachers. Why would talented people want to become teachers? Only idiots like me who are basically sociopaths and don't care about what society thinks, that's who) (and we can derive a general principle from this, which is that if you want any organization to work well - business, government, education - you need to make it attractive for talented people. Currently, only business is this way - and people wonder why government and education are dysfunctional organizations. well fuck me I don't know why...) I don't mind spending a lot of money on education as long as it works. We spend more money per child for education than any other country in the world other than Switzerland, and we get shit results for it. Before we spend any additional funds on education, we need to figure out and fix what is wrong with the current system. You spend 5,7% of your GPD. Cuba is at 14% and countrie such as Norway are around 8. Where did you get that figure? He said per capita and is 100% correct. ---> http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecdAlso picking countries randomly does not make a lot of sense... I think a great compromise (in theory at least) would be to have like a "coalition of the willing" after the election, which consists of Reps and Dems alike, and they actually start doing PRODUCTIVE stuff for the American people. For example, and to stay on the topic of education, Dems give in and do their best to tame the teachers union to reform education, while Republicans go out of their way of "no new taxes - we just got a spending problem". Something along those lines, but in this hyper partisan environment... wishful thinking I am afraid. Having a concrete and rather achieveable goal and agenda for the next couple of years instead of "hope and change" "and restoring America's greatness" hogwash. That could resonate with the people and give some trust back to Congress, something this chamber is in dire need of having.
Education spending is similar to healthcare spending. We put a lot of money in but don't get everything we should out of it.
Edit: Part of it is culture. Some groups of people just don't value education and no matter how much money you throw at the problem nothing will change until you change that culture.
For example: in some urban areas if a black kid picks up a book he'll be ridiculed for 'acting white.'
|
I think it's weird that they try to write him off as this person that is analytical and business driven. I just don't feel his gaffes match that, why is he talking about the 47% then? I mean it's behind closed doors, so maybe, just maybe it's a calculated business decision to appeal to these rich guys at the dinner table and lie your ass off and say stuff you don't believe. Yet when he goes up for his emergency press conference, he stands by his ridiculous comments.. How can someone defend that, he is throwing some of his own supporters under the bus.
He just doesn't seem too me like he is who the campaign guy is trying to spin him as, If he is such a great "leader" for a country, you think he could at least lead his own party and rally the GOP. It seems a great businessman would not say/do something without calculating it, what is the risk/benefit of me doing this/saying this, but then they say he is not a quick thinker, which is fine, but then don't talk without having something planned.. don't respond to questions if it will make you look bad... It might make him look bad by not responding to some things, or avoiding some questions, but it's obvious his dumb ass responses are making him look worse.
|
On September 29 2012 05:07 BlueBird. wrote:
I think it's weird that they try to write him off as this person that is analytical and business driven. I just don't feel his gaffes match that, why is he talking about the 47% then? I mean it's behind closed doors, so maybe, just maybe it's a calculated business decision to appeal to these rich guys at the dinner table and lie your ass off and say stuff you don't believe. Yet when he goes up for his emergency press conference, he stands by his ridiculous comments.. How can someone defend that, he is throwing some of his own supporters under the bus.
He just doesn't seem too me like he is who the campaign guy is trying to spin him as, If he is such a great "leader" for a country, you think he could at least lead his own party and rally the GOP. It seems a great businessman would not say/do something without calculating it, what is the risk/benefit of me doing this/saying this, but then they say he is not a quick thinker, which is fine, but then don't talk without having something planned.. don't respond to questions if it will make you look bad... It might make him look bad by not responding to some things, or avoiding some questions, but it's obvious his dumb ass responses are making him look worse.
“I’m not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was,” Romney said.
I think this quote might answer your question about why he might stand behind his horrible statement that was caught on tape.
|
On September 29 2012 05:15 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 05:07 BlueBird. wrote:
I think it's weird that they try to write him off as this person that is analytical and business driven. I just don't feel his gaffes match that, why is he talking about the 47% then? I mean it's behind closed doors, so maybe, just maybe it's a calculated business decision to appeal to these rich guys at the dinner table and lie your ass off and say stuff you don't believe. Yet when he goes up for his emergency press conference, he stands by his ridiculous comments.. How can someone defend that, he is throwing some of his own supporters under the bus.
He just doesn't seem too me like he is who the campaign guy is trying to spin him as, If he is such a great "leader" for a country, you think he could at least lead his own party and rally the GOP. It seems a great businessman would not say/do something without calculating it, what is the risk/benefit of me doing this/saying this, but then they say he is not a quick thinker, which is fine, but then don't talk without having something planned.. don't respond to questions if it will make you look bad... It might make him look bad by not responding to some things, or avoiding some questions, but it's obvious his dumb ass responses are making him look worse.
“I’m not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was,” Romney said. I think this quote might answer your question about why he might stand behind his horrible statement that was caught on tape.
Sounds mighty familiar...
"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." - Dan Quayle
|
On September 29 2012 05:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 05:01 Doublemint wrote:On September 29 2012 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2012 03:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:27 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 29 2012 03:20 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 29 2012 03:14 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 01:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 29 2012 01:42 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Uh, no, you didn't cover that hypocrisy at all. The "strong national defense" argument has nothing to do with it. What IS hypocritical is defending the idea that the private sector is necessarily better at creating jobs than the government (both directly and indirectly), that to create jobs money taken in and spent by the government therefore does a worse job than money staying in the private sector and therefore that the smaller the government is the better, while simultaneously claiming that reducing government size (for defense matters) is bad for the economy because it will result in job losses. Is someone doing that specifically? All I've seen so far from Romney is him pointing out that if you cut defense spending some people will lose jobs over it. That's a different argument from military spending > private sector spending. But the argument romney is making is that military spending > all other government spending... (which is to say, for the right, only military spending has keynesian virtue, and all other government spending has keynesian vice) It's true though, America's big dick *oh sorry cough*, I mean, America's ability to destroy all the armies all the rest of the world put together (and also the fucking planet, just in case), is much more important than educating young people, make sure that the old lady of the house at the corner of the street that is dying from cancer can get to hospital or sponsoring science (after all these people are even saying that dinosaurs really existed while our 3000 years old book says the opposite. Shocking) This campaign is sickening. We spend a retarded amount of money on education already. Money's not the issue with regards to why our schools suck. What could be a more important thing to spend money on than education? I'll agree that our system is structured badly from the ground up. (edit: but one main problem is that being a teacher is an entirely unrewarding career and our society doesn't value it - in fact, we scorn teachers. Why would talented people want to become teachers? Only idiots like me who are basically sociopaths and don't care about what society thinks, that's who) (and we can derive a general principle from this, which is that if you want any organization to work well - business, government, education - you need to make it attractive for talented people. Currently, only business is this way - and people wonder why government and education are dysfunctional organizations. well fuck me I don't know why...) I don't mind spending a lot of money on education as long as it works. We spend more money per child for education than any other country in the world other than Switzerland, and we get shit results for it. Before we spend any additional funds on education, we need to figure out and fix what is wrong with the current system. You spend 5,7% of your GPD. Cuba is at 14% and countrie such as Norway are around 8. Where did you get that figure? He said per capita and is 100% correct. ---> http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecdAlso picking countries randomly does not make a lot of sense... I think a great compromise (in theory at least) would be to have like a "coalition of the willing" after the election, which consists of Reps and Dems alike, and they actually start doing PRODUCTIVE stuff for the American people. For example, and to stay on the topic of education, Dems give in and do their best to tame the teachers union to reform education, while Republicans go out of their way of "no new taxes - we just got a spending problem". Something along those lines, but in this hyper partisan environment... wishful thinking I am afraid. Having a concrete and rather achieveable goal and agenda for the next couple of years instead of "hope and change" "and restoring America's greatness" hogwash. That could resonate with the people and give some trust back to Congress, something this chamber is in dire need of having. Education spending is similar to healthcare spending. We put a lot of money in but don't get everything we should out of it.
Indeed, and for a country generally in love with the idea of small(=smart?) government that should be high on the to-do list. As said before, if the results are good the high spending is at least meaningful.
We got a pretty similar situation here in Austria, even though our system is arguably better there is still a lot of room for improvement.
//edit: lol, or maybe not.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
