@meric@nwom@n wrote:Do your research better Rubo, Indiana is not in the red, we are in the black due to serious belt tightening done by Mitch Daniels. Mich is a conservative rather than a neo con. Indiana did not have to lay off state workers, did not have to pare back there days working to make it through the recession.
Really you aren't about facts though are you, you are about spewing hate.
Liberal smiberals.
I see.
In your lexicon "Facts = Hate".
What were you saying about growing food for someone again?
Conservatives refuse to pay for education. They refused to sacrifice for their own children and they hated blacks so much they ruined what little public education they had after Brown vs Board of Education just to spite them.
...
yrs,
rubato
We saw this same pattern when we lived in Oregon. Liberal Portlanders (and Eugenian's &c) voted to raise their own taxes to keep education from getting worse while conservative rural areas all refused to pay for better education. White rural conservatives didn't want to pay taxes to educate poor Mexican farm workers kids while Liberals like us were happy to pay more to educate others children.
It is the world view of Liberals that sacrificing on behalf of a future that others will live in gives us meaning and dignity as a people.
"In principle, the level of civilization is exactly measureable by the amount people will give up in the present on behalf of the future." (paraph.) Bertrand Russell
I'm not sure about anyone's world view, but Conservatives have noted the fact that the explosion of spending on public "education" over the past five decades has brought no measurable improvement in "outcomes." Teachers in most venues are compensated admirably (salary and benefits) for a 3/4 time position with no real performance demands, lifetime tenure and retirement in the prime of life. School districts are populated with more and more non-instructional staff, complying with more and more arcane tangential mandates and requirements.
In short, the Education Establishment gets bigger and bigger, more and more expensive, year by year.
And yet...
A high school diploma means less than it ever did - virtually nothing. (During the Depression, only 1/4 of the student population graduated from HS, not only because times were tough and young people had to work to help support the family, but also because HS was academically challenging). SAT scores (not the best absolute measure to be sure, but worth considering) get worser and worser, even after a "re-norming" several years ago.
The value of college diplomas has been eroding for decades, starting with the Vietnam War and the Baby Boom, which combined to force millions of young males who theretofore would never have been considered "college material" into college, and to force colleges to water down their standards, accept them, and to constitute programs of sufficiently low rigor so that they could remain and - my heavens - actually graduate. Liberals like to crow about the increasing percentage of the population that is now "college graduates" but, oddly, they never want to talk about the majors we are seeing now - many of which are absurd and represent nothing but 4-5 years of wasted money and time (notice I didn't say "effort").
To equate support for more and more funding for public education with valuing real education is simply idiotic. Conservatives, who understand that little of lasting value can ever come out of Government, know that improvements in education come at the household level, and not in their neighborhood public schools. Public school grads who end up with a good education often do so in spite of what the school offered, not because of it. Indeed, the majority of Americans (of all political stripes) who can afford to do so OPT OUT completely from the public school system. Note the dozens of high-priced private schools in our Nations Capital, mainly catering to government employees and elected officials who must live there. In my area, almost half of all high school students employ private tutors because the highly paid teachers are so inadequate.
Sane people who have extra money to spend on education do not voluntarily commit that money to public education, which is, in the current vernacular, a Money Pit.
The disastrous decision by Democrat politicians to grant collective bargaining and the right to strike to teachers and public employees generally has resulted in a situation in which the Public Education establishment is positioned to suck ever-increasing billions of dollars from the tax-paying public, for no measurable improvement or even benefit whatsoever. Ironically, school taxes will be dramatically increased around the country in the coming years merely to keep the educational retirees in comfort as they retire in their early 50's to defined benefit heaven.
And rube wants to commit even more of his wife's money to "improve" public education.
@meric@nwom@n wrote:Do your research better Rubo, Indiana is not in the red, we are in the black due to serious belt tightening done by Mitch Daniels. Mich is a conservative rather than a neo con. Indiana did not have to lay off state workers, did not have to pare back there days working to make it through the recession.
Really you aren't about facts though are you, you are about spewing hate.
Liberal smiberals.
I see.
In your lexicon "Facts = Hate".
What were you saying about growing food for someone again?
yrs,
rubato
What were you saying about which states are in the red again Rubietoes?
The premise of this "subsidy" argument is flawed. There is not a subsidy by one state government to another. The subsidy is of people who receive government benefits by those who pay for those benefits. Far and away, the largest of these programs that benefit individuals is Social Security and Medicare. If a state has a disproportionate share of such recipients does not mean that state is being subsidized by states with relatively fewer of such persons. As a whole, these recipients are no longer net providers to society, and in fact, they are net users of services both on a local and federal level. They could all move to California and they would just increase California's problems, while reducing California's "subsidizing" percentage.
Further, if a state has lots of federal land in its borders that are actively managed by the federal government, or has lots of native Americans within its borders, it is not being subsidized because the federal government is taking care of the federal government's responsibility.
For this statistic to meaningful, the above type of federal expenditures would have to be removed. Then we could see the actual relative tax burden. That would take some work, which is why such numbers are not easy to come by.
Long Run wrote:They could all move to California and they would just increase California's problems, while reducing California's "subsidizing" percentage.
As I said, to a large degree this has already happened by the dregs of other states moving to California where they believed the grass would be greener, and swelling its social assistance rolls instead of those of their native states.
Further, if a state has lots of federal land in its borders that are actively managed by the federal government, or has lots of native Americans within its borders, it is not being subsidized because the federal government is taking care of the federal government's responsibility.
For this statistic to meaningful, the above type of federal expenditures would have to be removed.
Ridiculous. If the federal government did not exist, and every state were a completely independent entity, wouldn't Native Americans within each state have to be dealt with? Wouldn't public lands have to be managed and cared for? Of course they would, except that the burden would fall completely on the residents of that state, instead of being handed off to other states who pay for ALL expenditures that are made within their borders, plus their fair share of common expenses, and more besides in order to carry those states which aren't pulling their weight.
If the federal government didn't own the land, then someone else would. That someone else would take care of it and pay taxes on it.
Taking care of the welfare of native Americans is a federal obligation. The native Americans lived throughout the U.S. geography at one point. That there are very few Indians left in many states should not relieve residents of the states that effectively moved this problem elsewhere from having to share the cost of Indian welfare which all of our ancestors caused. I suppose you could ask the states to take on the entire burden, but I doubt we'd like the result.
Long Run wrote:If the federal government didn't own the land, then someone else would. That someone else would take care of it and pay taxes on it.
If the federal government did not own the land, the only logical assumption would be that the state gov't would own the land and be responsible for the cost of managing it.
Taking care of the welfare of native Americans is a federal obligation. The native Americans lived throughout the U.S. geography at one point. That there are very few Indians left in many states should not relieve residents of the states that effectively moved this problem elsewhere from having to share the cost of Indian welfare which all of our ancestors caused.
Do you mean much like California and other net contributing states have taken on the welfare burden of the net bloodsucking states by admitting their people generation after generation?
If the federal government did not own the land, the only logical assumption would be that the state gov't would own the land and be responsible for the cost of managing it.
Why would we assume that? It is not true in states that have little federal land ownership. Most land in most states is owned privately.
The other fallacy in this argument is that California was a liberal state when it ascended to being the first among states. For most of its history it was a moderately conservative state: http://www.270towin.com/states/California It is only recently that California became a solidly liberal state. This coincides with its growing financial problems.
In contrast, for most of the modern history of southern states, they voted almost universally for D's for local offices and for federal congressman. It was under this liberal leadership that the southern states became mired in poverty. Voting R is a recent development, which coincides with the growing wealth in these states. see e.g., http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080 ... ma-closing
If one were to come to a simplistic conclusion from these developments, it is that conservatives create wealth that liberals then squander. I don't think that is anywhere near a complete story since I think the issue is far more complicated than a simple look at a static table, or a simple look at any one statistic.
If the federal government did not own the land, the only logical assumption would be that the state gov't would own the land and be responsible for the cost of managing it.
Why would we assume that? It is not true in states that have little federal land ownership. Most land in most states is owned privately.
Because the federal gov't owns the land for a purpose (conservation, defence, etc.) and the only logical assumption is that the state would assume that purpose for itself and manage the land.
The other fallacy in this argument is that California was a liberal state when it ascended to being the first among states. For most of its history it was a moderately conservative state: http://www.270towin.com/states/California It is only recently that California became a solidly liberal state. This coincides with its growing financial problems.
In contrast, for most of the modern history of southern states, they voted almost universally for D's for local offices and for federal congressman. It was under this liberal leadership that the southern states became mired in poverty. Voting R is a recent development, which coincides with the growing wealth in these states. see e.g., http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20080 ... ma-closing
If one were to come to a simplistic conclusion from these developments, it is that conservatives create wealth that liberals then squander. I don't think that is anywhere near a complete story since I think the issue is far more complicated than a simple look at a static table, or a simple look at any one statistic.
I made no comments about conservatives or liberals, only contributors vs. bloodsuckers. In any event, your assumption of Democrat=liberal is conpletely fallacious, especially in the South, where Democrat meant reactionary and segregationist up until the last few decades, when Southern racists moved en masse to the Republican Party.
[quote="Scooter"][quote="liberty"]
I suppose that didn't occur to you, as you take swipes at California while sitting barefoot on the bank of your fishpond having a chaw.
[quote]
Well, we need to first work on your stereotypes. There was a time in the South when tobacco chewing and snuff dipping was common, even women participated in private. But those days long since pasted. I personally know no one that dips and very few people that chew. Even cigarette smokers are a minority.
And now foot wear: I have not gone bare footed since I was a child. The closes that I come to it is in the summer when I wear flip flops and sandals. Bare feet is not advisable in Louisiana’s humid subtropical climate” to many parasites *.
Lets try this analogy since you didn‘t like the others:
A man has a brother that he visits and finds that he has no food. He give his brother money for food but his brother uses the money to buy wine. He gets drunk and wrecks his car. The man give his brother more money to fix his car and buy food. But the brother again buys wine, gets drunk, wrecks his car and burns down his house. Is the man really helping his brother by subsidizing his brother’s irresponsible behavior.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
There was a time in the South when tobacco chewing and snuff dipping was common, even women participated in private. But those days long since pasted. I personally know no one that dips and very few people that chew. Even cigarette smokers are a minority.
My late bf, who was a native of North Carolina, once got very indignant about a comment I made about people from NC eating possum. He seemed to forget having told me about the freezer full of squirrel meat his parents kept.
Try thinking about what elements of the "stereotype" still fit.
Bare feet is not advisable in Louisiana’s humid subtropical climate” to many parasites *.
That explains a lot, particularly if they attack the brain.
And Lousiana fits the part of the hungry, drunk, car wrecking, house burning brother in your "analogy" far better than California. Not surprised you don't see that.
Well, we need to first work on your stereotypes. There was a time in the South when tobacco chewing and snuff dipping was common, even women participated in private. But those days long since pasted. I personally know no one that dips and very few people that chew. Even cigarette smokers are a minority.
Smoking rates in the deep south have barely changed in 30 years. In California and the other Liberal states they have gone down.
We believe in cause and effect.
Conservatives believe in ... doing what their pappy did and hoping it comes out better.
Well, we need to first work on your stereotypes. There was a time in the South when tobacco chewing and snuff dipping was common, even women participated in private. But those days long since pasted. I personally know no one that dips and very few people that chew. Even cigarette smokers are a minority.
Smoking rates in the deep south have barely changed in 30 years. In California and the other Liberal states they have gone down.
We believe in cause and effect.
Conservatives believe in ... doing what their pappy did and hoping it comes out better.
yrs,
rubato
Of the five technician on my team including myself only one, the team leader, smokes. That is twenty percent; I consider that a minority.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
