Tax Returns: Bama pays the military, Biden still a cheap fuck

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Tax Returns: Bama pays the military, Biden still a cheap fuck

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324240804578418842282798284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

I always find it interesting to take a gander at the tax returns of the President and Vice President. This year, Bama payed an effective rate of 18.4% on an income of $608,611 which is a lower than average for someone with his income, but that is mostly due to an impressive $150k donated to charity. The Obama's donated to a wide range of charities from medical research to educational to homeless shelters. It seems like their standard donation is $1,000 with a few charities getting a bit more. The big standout is just under $104k to The Fisher House Foundation which provides lodging and rehabilitation services for wounded veterans and their families; a pretty logical choice for a President during wartime, but politics aside I think it should be noticed. The Obama's pocket only about 52% of their income, the rest goes to taxes and charity. 

What always cracks me up is Joe Biden. That man has to be the cheapest fuck around, donating a mere $7,190 of his $386k to charity almost a third of which was in clothing, furniture and other goods donated to Goodwill. The charities he actually gave money to included $3,400 to churches and $1,200 to Northern Virginia Community College. It amazes me that someone who knows their tax return is going to be public is so stingy, especially when they go out there and bitch about the top 1% not doing enough to help the poor. Guess what Mr. Biden, you ARE the top 1% dipshit.    

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond...

 

 

                 .... call this the theory of relativity;  D.C. economics version. Biden has a senator was always listed has haveing the least wealth (i.e. poorist), the same when he was just a rep.  In relationship  to other  Washington bigwigs ;  Biden ,  even though he is number 2 bigwig in town, his personal wealth is eather dead last or pretty damn close to it.

 

 

                 Biden, who is from Deleware has been socializing with folks named  DuPont, Kennedy, Bush and Kerry for decades (all Billionaires) he gave up competeing with them decades   ago.  I think I'm generous with charity, others agree but I don't hang out with billionaires and the public doesn't scrutinize my tax returns.  Give Joe the Veep a brake.

 

 

         

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Why should I give Joe a

 Why should I give Joe a break? Is he going to give me a break and let me keep my money? No. He has been out there talking about how greedy people like me are and it is time for us to do our "patriotic" duty and pay more taxes. I think it is completely appropriate for me to point out his hypocrisy. I think it is hypocritical for someone to call for raising my taxes 5-10% and call me greedy when I object, when he clings on to his money and refuses to give it away.  

Interesting that you bring up the names Kerry and Kennedy. Both are also notoriously cheap when it comes to donating to charity. During the 1980 election it was revealed that Kennedy donated less than 1% of his $400,000+ income (an income he made from his trust fund) to charity despite being worth tens of millions. In the early 90's Kerry came under fire for donating a mere few hundred dollars and in 1995, not giving a penny. After the media attention, he started donating roughly 10%; fortunately, the same year he married Teresa so it was probably her money he started donating anyway. So yeah, he is probably a cheapskate because he has been hanging out with other cheapskates.

Liberals are always very generous when it comes to giving away other peoples money. At least Obama is very generous in giving away his own money as well. I think more of our illustrious leaders should lead by example.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15763
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blah blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah blah

 

Liberals bad, Ann Rand good.

 

Got it.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15763
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Oh and why do you keep

Oh and why do you keep calling him Bama? His full name and title is President Barack Hussein Obama. Or is that hard for you because he won and fuck elections when you don't get what you want?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15763
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Blah blah blah

Brian37 wrote:

Blah blah blah blah blah

 

Liberals bad, Ayn Rand good.

 

Got it.

Damned typos!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Recursion, Whoah

And with these posts Brian37 has officially become a Caricature of Himself.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Oh and why do

Brian37 wrote:

Oh and why do you keep calling him Bama? His full name and title is President Barack Hussein Obama. Or is that hard for you because he won and fuck elections when you don't get what you want?

 

Perhaps you should read my post, I was actually praising Bama for his generosity. I call him Bama because I have pet names for all my favorite politicians. No disrespect intended.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Get Ready to Barack!

I Call him "The Barack-Star".


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
So people that give a

So people that give a lot to charity are not paying their 'fair share' of the tax bill. All the greedy people are funding the government. Why isn't Obama as bad Romney? Maybe Uncle Joe is such a commitied socialist that he think giving his money to the Feds is the best place for his money to go.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Liberals bad, Ann Rand good.

But of course like most people you're a socialist when it benefits you, then a libertarian when it benefits you. Just depends upon what is good for No. 1.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian... a libertarian? LOL

Brian... a libertarian? LOL

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian... a

Vastet wrote:
Brian... a libertarian? LOL

People are free to do whatever the fuck they want when it comes to creating the massive tax bills that others must pay off. Same as your politics. The only social responsibility that must be forced is when someone has money that can be confiscated to pay for other people's 'freedom'. Politics of whatever is convenient for yourselves. Not socialist or libertairian, just looking out for No. 1, same as any greedy capitalist.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Always putting words and

Always putting words and ideas in other people's heads.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Always putting

Vastet wrote:
Always putting words and ideas in other people's heads.

OK let's go down the list you and Brian can tell us where I'm wrong: Here are your libertarian positions:

Can the government prevent people from having babies?

        No. Under absolutely no circumstances is this freedom restricted, even if they've proven they can take care of their current children without assistance. In fact they get more benefits for having more. 

Can people drop out of school and decide not to work at all?

         You can do whatever the fuck you want. You get free benefits such as pensions and health care for not working and taxed a lot more for working.

Can people study whatever they want?

          The government can't force you to train for the available jobs and then take them. You can study what you please and the government pays for this, if no one hires you after following your heart and getting an art degree, just go on the government dole.

Can you be prevented from spending your money on vices while receiving government benefits?

     Benefits are passed out like cash, enabling people to spend the benefits on drugs, cigarettes, booze, etc..

You're only for socialist when it comes to people other than you paying the bills for these freedoms.

If these aren't your positions, then you ought to be attacking the political left and not the political right all the time. You've gone beyond the libertarian postion, such that the government must pay for peoples' freedoms.

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Can the government

EXC wrote:
Can the government prevent people from having babies?

See you've already started with a strawman. My answer is yes, not no. Obviously a government can do this. China's been doing it for decades. Even most Western countries have done this indirectly. It's why they all, or most, have aging populations.

I'm not going to quote each of your strawman responses, I'll just answer the questions, since you couldn't.

EXC wrote:
Can people drop out of school and decide not to work at all?

Sure. They're also entitled to be exiled in the process. That's how I'd work it.

EXC wrote:
Can people study whatever they want?

Sure. After they've studied required courses including, but not limited to: English, Math, History, and Science.

EXC wrote:
Can you be prevented from spending your money on vices while receiving government benefits?

I don't see why not. However this particular scenario will see multiple legal challenges unless you define vices far more specifically.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Junk food, for example,

Junk food, for example, might be considered a vice by some, yet it is all some can afford for sustenance, so it clearly isn't a vice under all circumstances.

EXC wrote:
If these aren't your positions, then you ought to be attacking the political left and not the political right all the time. You've gone beyond the libertarian postion, such that the government must pay for peoples' freedoms.

Ridiculous. Neither the right nor the left is dealing with any of this. And I can't support the right, because there isn't a right anymore. Conservatives have abandoned the fiscal responsibility that made them worth electing. Now all I'd get is stupid theist retards that want to destroy the country. No thanks.

At least the left is still the left, though slightly more right than it once was. They may often be misguided but they aren't generally willfully destructive and idiotic 99% of the time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
there is no right or left in

there is no right or left in american politics and anybody who can't see that is a fucking moron.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:  My answer is

Vastet wrote:
  My answer is yes, not no. Even most Western countries have done this indirectly.

But you believe under no circumstances should a government interfere with the right to breed and in fact they get more benefits for more babies. So you are libertarian plus the government should subsidize freedoms. Your other responses show the same position.

You're only for social responsibility when it comes to responsible and successful people paying high taxes to pay for the bill run up by the irresponsible.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:there is no

iwbiek wrote:

there is no right or left in american politics and anybody who can't see that is a fucking moron.

I agree. They are the same, they only disagree on what free stuff they should have that everyone else should pay for. The political left wants free healthcare, food stamps, pensions, entertainment(aka education) and susidized wages. The right wants free land, natural resources, tax expempt churches, defense contracts, cheap illegal immigrant workers and other government spending for business.

What do you call these two groups? The free stuff for the lower class and free stuff for the upper class. I'm in the 'bend over and take it in the ass from all of 'em' group.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But you believe

EXC wrote:
But you believe under no circumstances should a government interfere with the right to breed and in fact they get more benefits for more babies.

This is why I make a fool out of you so easy and often. You simply can't resist making shit up. I don't believe this. I do know why there are such entitlements today, and if you had any sense you'd support them. Increasing the birth rate or increasing immigration are the only legal ways to reduce the aging population problem.

But if I were in charge that wouldn't happen.

EXC wrote:
So you are libertarian

Nope. Social Democrat or Communist maybe. Definitely not Libertarian. It's completely unsustainable and completely unworkable. I'd never support it.

The rest of your post was simply more fabrication, and easily dismissed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This is why I

Vastet wrote:
This is why I make a fool out of you so easy and often. You simply can't resist making shit up. I don't believe this.

OK then. When are people cut off from benefits? When does the government let people go hungry and without healtcare? When are they cut off from the right to breed?

If you don't believe this, why do you only attack the politcal right/libertarian view? Since the left are the ones that put the present system in place.

 

Vastet wrote:
I do know why there are such entitlements today, and if you had any sense you'd support them. Increasing the birth rate or increasing immigration are the only legal ways to reduce the aging population problem. But if I were in charge that wouldn't happen.

There are not enough jobs to go around, food shortages, schools and jails are overcrowded, too much traffic, too much environmental damage from too many people. Are you insane, why do you want more people?

The aging poplulation is only a problem because of all the unfunded social security and pensions. With modern medicine, people over 65 can continue to work. But we shouldn't want them competing with immigrants or young people for jobs.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:OK then. When are

EXC wrote:
OK then. When are people cut off from benefits? When does the government let people go hungry and without healtcare?

The moment those people refuse to work despite the availability of work.

EXC wrote:
When are they cut off from the right to breed?

I'm not convinced it is necessary to limit breeding through government regulation.

EXC wrote:
If you don't believe this, why do you only attack the politcal right/libertarian view? Since the left are the ones that put the present system in place.

I've attacked both sides. It just so happens the people on the right are slightly more vocal and incorrect in their assumptions. But I've still nailed plenty of left wing nutters to the wall.

And the present system is the fault of all sides. No single party, individual, or ideology can take all the credit.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:There are not

EXC wrote:
There are not enough jobs to go around, food shortages, schools and jails are overcrowded, too much traffic, too much environmental damage from too many people. Are you insane, why do you want more people?

That's a managerial, not population, driven scenario. There'd be plenty of jobs if the rich were investing instead of hoarding, and giving fair wages instead of cutting corners.

EXC wrote:
The aging poplulation is only a problem because of all the unfunded social security and pensions.

No. The programmes are unfunded because the working population is shrinking and previous generations are living longer. If there were population growth or even stability it wouldn't be an issue.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: That's a

Vastet wrote:
That's a managerial, not population, driven scenario. There'd be plenty of jobs if the rich were investing instead of hoarding, and giving fair wages instead of cutting corners.

Yes of course, the rich are going to invest when they are forced to pay high minimum wages to unskilled workers and if they are lucky to make a profit, they are taxed at a high rate to fund massive government spending.

Vastet wrote:
No. The programmes are unfunded because the working population is shrinking and previous generations are living longer. If there were population growth or even stability it wouldn't be an issue.

So it was set up as a pyramid scam. The money I put in now is not being invested, it's going to those at the top of the pyramid.

It takes someone like you to spin an obvious pyramid scam as social security.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The moment

Vastet wrote:
The moment those people refuse to work despite the availability of work.

There is always work available. So why do we need any social welfare? There are people that would rather eat from a trash dumpster, sleep on the street and never see a doctor than work. Why should society accomodate these people? Especially considering the moral hazard it creates, people that don't work that otherwise would.

 

Vastet wrote:
I've attacked both sides. It just so happens the people on the right are slightly more vocal and incorrect in their assumptions. But I've still nailed plenty of left wing nutters to the wall. And the present system is the fault of all sides. No single party, individual, or ideology can take all the credit.

So why do you jump all over me? It sounds like we're not that far apart on what exactly government policy should be.

I think the problem is you've been indoctrinated with the ideology of the left, which is that government has some sort of magic wand that can make poverty and problems go away. All government can do is use deadly force people to make people do or not do something. So it would be good it you could define your politics not in terms of what you want governement to do, but in terms of when do they use deadly force. So there is no misunderstanding, agree.

For example, you say want the government to provide healthcare for all. But then you don't want the government to force students to study medicine. So you're really not in favor of goverment provided healthcare. You only want to use deadly force to make the rich pay for the healthcare of the poor. So your politics is Robin Hood. Understand? Your political view is when to use deadly force, not some magical wish.

It is just like the abortion debate. When you question most pro-lifers about how they want to punish women that have had abortions, few of them want to throw their asses in jail. So essetially they have the same political postion as pro-choicers. So the entire abortion debate is just ridiculous.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Yes of course, the

EXC wrote:

Yes of course, the rich are going to invest when they are forced to pay high minimum wages to unskilled workers and if they are lucky to make a profit, they are taxed at a high rate to fund massive government spending.

I would hope most businesses would voluntarily pay their workers enough to live off of...

 

EXC wrote:

There is always work available.

I'm going to need some evidence for this.

 

EXC wrote:

All government can do is use deadly force to make people do or not do something. So it would be good it you could define your politics not in terms of what you want government to do, but in terms of when do they use deadly force.

Understand? It's when to use deadly force, not some magical wish.

You know, I'm really not into threatening people to get them to do what I want...

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote: I

blacklight915 wrote:

 

I would hope most businesses would voluntarily pay their workers enough to live off of...

If one business does not, they have a competitive advantage and would eventually drive the others out of business.

If they all paid enough, they would all pass along the cost to consumers. So how would the workers have any net gain?

blacklight915 wrote:

I'm going to need some evidence for this.

Are there products and services you want right now? Do you want someone to clean your house, fix you car, give you a health checkup? If the answer is yes, there is work available. If you could pay someone 1 cent to clean you whole house, you could give someone a job. The problem is that no one is willing to work for such a low wage(and its illegal).

There are pleanty of jobs people want done. So the problem is consumers lack of money, not a shortage of jobs to be done.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If one business

EXC wrote:

If one business does not, they have a competitive advantage and would eventually drive the others out of business.

If they all paid enough, they would all pass along the cost to consumers. So how would the workers have any net gain?

I am quite happy to pay extra if it means I can do business with a company which treats/values its employees (and customers) as individual human beings.

 

EXC wrote:

Do you want someone to clean your house, fix you car, give you a health checkup?

The vast majority of those without jobs do not possess the special skills necessary to fix a car or give someone a health checkup. Cleaning and general household chores would work, but they'd have to prove themselves trustworthy before anyone would hire them.

 

EXC wrote:

Are there products and services you want right now?

The only one I can think of at the moment happens to be illegal. Well...there is another, but it'd be highly irregular... I'd also need to have my own place and a high-paying job.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I am

blacklight915 wrote:

I am quite happy to pay extra if it means I can do business with a company which treats/values its employees (and customers) as individual human beings.

OK great. So why do you rarely know that much about a product or service? Apperently a lot of other people don't really put their money mouth is. And what do you expect the poor to do? Buy the cheapest product so they can feed their family or only buy based on some moral principle?

And if you pay more based on morals, you also buy less things. This means you provide fewer employment opprotunities. So is it better to hire 1 person at a good wage and let the other go unemployed. Or hire 2 people at lower wages? Live is full of moral dilemas like this. If you succumb to the mindless brainwashing of the political left(al la Vastet), you fool yourself into thinking economics and morality is all so simple.

A lot of people hate how Walmart treats its employees and won't shop there. But do the elightented liberals give money to the poor to shop somewhere else? Hell no.

blacklight915 wrote:

The vast majority of those without jobs do not possess the special skills necessary to fix a car or give someone a health checkup. Cleaning and general household chores would work, but they'd have to prove themselves trustworthy before anyone would hire them.

So the problem is not that there are not enough jobs, it's the quality of the people available to fill them. So if government is to fix the problem of unemployment they must fix this and not just pass out cash-like benefits. 

blacklight915 wrote:

The only one I can think of at the moment happens to be illegal. Well...there is another, but it'd be highly irregular... I'd also need to have my own place and a high-paying job.

And isn't the welfare state in it's present for the biggest obstacle to get there? Little money is available to get you trained for a high paying job. If you pay to train yourself, you will pay massive amounts in loan repayments and income taxes. So good luck with pursuing your own pleasures. We all need to chip in so irresponsible people can breed a new generation.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So why do you

EXC wrote:

So why do you rarely know that much about a product or service?

Depending on what you mean by "that much", your assumption may or may not be correct.

 

EXC wrote:

So is it better to hire 1 person at a good wage and let the other go unemployed. Or hire 2 people at lower wages?

In the United States, at least, the money for a person's survival is going to come from somewhere. It could be from wages, charities, government programs, stealing, or some combination. I think the ideal solution would be to hire both at lower wages and find a charity willing to make up the difference.

 

EXC wrote:

So the problem is not that there are not enough jobs, it's the quality of the people available to fill them.

I don't know enough to say what the problem is. I imagine, however, that it's a bit of both.

 

EXC wrote:

And isn't the welfare state in it's present for the biggest obstacle to get there?

No. My depression is.

 

EXC wrote:

So good luck with pursuing your own pleasures.

Thank you. My pleasures are not terribly expensive, thankfully.

 

EXC wrote:

We all need to chip in so irresponsible people can breed a new generation.

For the record, I think people on welfare should lose it if they decide to have more children.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:

Depending on what you mean by "that much", your assumption may or may not be correct.

How often do you know if a product or service you buy is 100% from companies that treat employees well all through the production chain?

blacklight915 wrote:

In the United States, at least, the money for a person's survival is going to come from somewhere. It could be from wages, charities, government programs, stealing, or some combination. I think the ideal solution would be to hire both at lower wages and find a charity willing to make up the difference.

 

I agree, but then you wouldn't be violating your rule to only buy from companies that pay a good wage.

blacklight915 wrote:

I don't know enough to say what the problem is. I imagine, however, that it's a bit of both.

But if you listen to the Vastets of the world, you would think that the problem is just that people like me are too selfish. If we could only deny our selfishness and greed as he does, our problems would all disappear.

blacklight915 wrote:

No. My depression is.

From my own experience, my depression was caused by the denial of the pursuit of my own pleasure, living up the expectations of others and society. Being raising in a religious background and being a Christian as a young adult, I denied my own pleasures(especially sexual) for the hope of some later imaginary future good that turned out not to be true. I would put on the act of pretending to care about others and repress my own desires.

One would think atheists would be different, but if you listen to some atheists, you would still think self-denial for the good of all is some type of great pursuit. My advise is pursue you own pleasures(unless you're a Sadist, in which case you'll end up in jail). There is no reason to think that a hedonistic life is any worse for society than any other. So be unashamedly hedonistic. You're not anyone's keeper.

blacklight915 wrote:

Thank you. My pleasures are not terribly expensive, thankfully.

But you will get a lot of resistance from moral crusaders(atheist and religious) if you live for yourself.

Getting back to the tax topic. The reason taxes are so high is that society and government impose this morality of denial of self-pleasure some supposed benefit of all. I think the best society of all would be unabashed hedonists working in cooperation to find their own pleasure. Not this slavish morality that I'm every loser and irresponsible persons' funder and enabler.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:How often do you

EXC wrote:

How often do you know if a product or service you buy is 100% from companies that treat employees well all through the production chain?

Almost every product or service I buy likely had some mistreatment/exploitation somewhere along the production chain. However, my claim was that I'm happy to pay extra if it means I get a product or service involving LESS mistreatment and exploitation.

 

EXC wrote:

I agree, but then you wouldn't be violating your rule to only buy from companies that pay a good wage.

I did not say "pay good wages"; I said "treats/values its employees (and customers) as individual human beings". Lets say there is a company that will go out of business if it pays its employees a high enough wage to live off of. If that company were to make an effort to find charities willing to make up the difference, I'd say it definitely fulfills my preference.

 

EXC wrote:

I would put on the act of pretending to care about others and repress my own desires.

Do you not genuinely care for at least one other person?

 

EXC wrote:

you would still think self-denial for the good of all is some type of great pursuit

It can be if it actually does lead to the betterment of all.

 

EXC wrote:

My advise is pursue you own pleasures

Somewhat ironically, I derive great pleasure from making a positive impact on people's lives.

 

EXC wrote:

You're not anyone's keeper.

I choose to be the helper of those who desire it.

 

EXC wrote:

I think the best society of all would be unabashed hedonists working in cooperation to find their own pleasure.

Would any of the people in this society actually care about anyone else?

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I did

blacklight915 wrote:

I did not say "pay good wages"; I said "treats/values its employees (and customers) as individual human beings". Lets say there is a company that will go out of business if it pays its employees a high enough wage to live off of. If that company were to make an effort to find charities willing to make up the difference, I'd say it definitely fulfills my preference.

But if it pays high wages, it has less money available for charity. If you pay more for product, you have less money to help others.

Charity is for the benefit of the person giving, not so much the recipient. People that claim their moral sacrifice choices produce superior outcomes for others are wrong. Economic and social interactions are complex, so there is no reason to think self-centeredness is any worse.

blacklight915 wrote:
Do you not genuinely care for at least one other person?

It is conditonal about them caring about me or at least not harming me. I don't know if you would call that caring. It is willingness to cooperate for mutual benefit after I carefully examine other peoples' motives and actions. But protecting my own interests and pusuit of pleasue is number 1 priority.

If you examine the people that claim to care a lot, I think you'll see they really don't. It is generally a scam. A way to get something from people for free.

blacklight915 wrote:

It can be if it actually does lead to the betterment of all.

In a very complex world, how can you know the net effect of any decision on all. And what do you mean by all? If you benefit humans, usualy that means screwing over wild animals and nature, doesn't it. If your actions could cure cancer, that just means more humans more compettion for resourses, environmental damage, etc... So how can you decision have a net benefit?

So live for yourself. People that tell you otherwise are scammers that want to steal your live.

blacklight915 wrote:

Somewhat ironically, I derive great pleasure from making a positive impact on people's lives.

But how do you know the net effect of anything you've done has been positive? Is it something you think critically about. For instance maybe you give a dollar to a homeless guy, how do you know he doesn't spend it on cigarettes. Maybe the cigarette helps him today but harms him years later, so how do you know if the net effect is good? So isn't the motivation for you to feel good and not to help others?

blacklight915 wrote:

I choose to be the helper of those who desire it.

??? There are 6 billion people and billions of animals that desire help. How do you decide which ones are worthy of your help?

blacklight915 wrote:

Would any of the people in this society actually care about anyone else?

If it brought them pleasure. And you could define 'caring' anyway you please. I think the big change is there should be no shame about the pursuit of one's own pleasure. Seems to me that telling people to be unselfish means you don't care about them. What I'd like to see end is all the phony compassion and scammers that steal your life in the name of 'caring'.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
I am unsure of what to write

I am unsure of what to write in response; so I'll try to get to it later. However, a few of the claims you make seem impossible to support.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Nope. Social

Vastet wrote:
Nope. Social Democrat or Communist maybe. Definitely not Libertarian. It's completely unsustainable and completely unworkable. I'd never support it.

Yet you espouse libertarian values so frequently here. You even came within inches as openly identifying as a libertarian in Clockcat's "Why Libertarianism FAILS" thread -you opted for a "Somalian pirates we" response in a thread where libertarians were equated to being Somalians, instead. Something else to consider is that social democracies and libertarianism does not run counter to each other as you seem to believe. Here's one last thing to consider before you consider dismissing what I say with another passive-aggressive 'yawn' response; Noam Chomsky identifies as a social libertarian. That's the problem with dismissing libertarian politics as "unworkable" and "unsustainable" -which version are you referring to?

You must be thinking of the Libertarian Party platform here in the states or of the brand of libertarian values espoused by Glenn Beck and company. As far as I'm concerned, they're both pretty whack in terms of policy-making. They're also unfortunate stereotypes.

As near as I can tell, 'libertarian' simply means a love of maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. What, exactly, is so unworkable and unsustainable about that?

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Yet you espouse

Kapkao wrote:

Yet you espouse libertarian values so frequently here. You even came within inches as openly identifying as a libertarian in Clockcat's "Why Libertarianism FAILS" thread -you opted for a "Somalian pirates we" response in a thread where libertarians were equated to being Somalians, instead.

A political system should be defined by how deadly force is used. If you went to Somolia to start a business or retire, you'd have a war lord show up and tell you 'I'm in charge, you need to pay me for protection" or you'd be kidnapped at gunpoint. So the political system in Somilia is whatever the guy with the gun to your head tells you it is.

Vastet seems to only believe in using deadly force to make the rich and middle class pay for the liberties of irresponsible people. He'll say he's for government provided healtcare, but then don't force people to study medicine. Seems he is only for wealth redistribution toward irresponsible and lazy people. In his own mind this is not the case, but if you only want the government to force a highly progressive tax code, this is your politics.

Kapkao wrote:

As near as I can tell, 'libertarian' simply means a love of maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. What, exactly, is so unworkable and unsustainable about that?

The more rights you have, the greater the role the government must take in defending them or providing them.

Most libertarians set land ownership as a right, the right to keep others from having the liberty to go on your land. So the state must play a big role in defending this right.

Many leftists define food, shelter, healthcare, a pension, transportation, a cell phone, etc.. as a right. Then claim if you oppose them you're against liberty.

Seems that one person's right is usually anothers burden.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'll wait for Vastet to

I'll wait for Vastet to reply, if/when he does. Thanks in advance...

edit; I read vastet's replies to clockcat's thread, but they don't answer everything for me.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Yes of course, the

EXC wrote:
Yes of course, the rich are going to invest when they are forced to pay high minimum wages to unskilled workers and if they are lucky to make a profit, they are taxed at a high rate to fund massive government spending.

Minimum wages are low, not high. That's a bullshit copout. Wages have not kept up with inflation. Companies make more $ today than in the last hundred years. Someone on minimum wage today cannot afford to pay rent and get food and pay the bills. Which is why theres been a sharp increase in the age at which a person leaves home, and also a sharp increase in the number of people living with roommates.

EXC wrote:
So it was set up as a pyramid scam. The money I put in now is not being invested, it's going to those at the top of the pyramid.

It may have turned into one, but it was not set up as one. When these programmes were instituted the population was growing significantly. It's only in the last 20-30 years that its started going the other way.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:There is always

EXC wrote:
There is always work available

BULLSHIT! I don't know the cureent stats for the US off by heart, but in Canada I recently read that there are currently 6.5 people for every single full time job in the country. That means 5.5 people are out of luck for everyone who works full time.

You just never stop making things up.

EXC wrote:
So why do you jump all over me?

Because you represent the extremist right wing lunacy. If there were a corresponding extremist left winger here I'd be all over them too. But there isn't.

I haven't been successfully indoctrinated into any ideology. I came up with solutions on my own. And I have yet to see a single person who ever made my arguments, so my solutions can be classified as unique.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:For example, you

EXC wrote:
For example, you say want the government to provide healthcare for all. But then you don't want the government to force students to study medicine. So you're really not in favor of goverment provided healthcare. You only want to use deadly force to make the rich pay for the healthcare of the poor. So your politics is Robin Hood. Understand? Your political view is when to use deadly force, not some magical wish.

More strawmen. I specifically pointed out already that not all courses would be voluntary.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:there is no

iwbiek wrote:

there is no right or left in american politics and anybody who can't see that is a fucking moron.

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there.

I don't see much difference in either one of them, except one tells a set of lies to pander to one group, the other tells a set of lies to pander to another group, all the while both are just fucking everyone over.

I think if I vote in the next election, I am going to vote for candidate Nobody.

Nobody will tell you the truth.

Nobody will keep their promises

Nobody will ensure a better future

Nobody will work for the people

Nobody will do something about education.

etc.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: BULLSHIT! I

Vastet wrote:
BULLSHIT! I don't know the cureent stats for the US off by heart, but in Canada I recently read that there are currently 6.5 people for every single full time job in the country. That means 5.5 people are out of luck for everyone who works full time. You just never stop making things up.

The people looking for work are unqualified for the available jobs. Due to policies you support such as not forcing people to study for a job and allowing them to stay on welfare, not cutting off schools that don't perform and not cutting of welfare kings and queens from having more babies.

Many jobs are not listed because the employer can't pay minimum wage, deal with unions and employment rules.

Vastet wrote:
Because you represent the extremist right wing lunacy.

Hardly. My philosophy is simple that government should force personal responsibility such as getting job training, not committing crimes and not having babies until you can adequately take care of them. They should prevent the rich from exploiting or monopolizing natural resources. If they do that job, they don't need to do much else. Everything else could be privatized because people could manage their own affairs. You only need government provided health care, police, fire, etc... because the poor can't afford it or must be rationed because students don't study.

I don't know how you find lunacy in that.

You've been caught up in the left wing lunacy the government's primary function is to bail out individuals that have made(or their parents) bad choices when it comes to personal responsibility. You can't seem to understand that creating moral hazards does not fix the sourse of the problem.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The people looking

EXC wrote:
The people looking for work are unqualified for the available jobs. Due to policies you support such as not forcing people to study for a job and allowing them to stay on welfare,

Your bullshitting is obvious for all to see. Your constant and consistent lies and strawmen shut you down. I don't even have to bother. Unions are dead and ineffective. The education system is in shambles because idiots like you want to shut it down completely and replace the schools with private institutions. Look in the mirror when you bitch about how bad the education system is, because people like you are directly and wholly responsible.

You can't see the lunacy because you're a lunatic. A psychopathic lunatic at that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The education

Vastet wrote:
The education system is in shambles because idiots like you want to shut it down completely and replace the schools with private institutions. Look in the mirror when you bitch about how bad the education system is, because people like you are directly and wholly responsible.

How can people who have never won a vote be responsible? Hell, we can't even stop the levy votes which have made American public schools the most expensive in the world per pupil while still getting shit for results. There have been a handful of states where us "idiots" have been successful in promoting private schools or charter schools over public schools through voucher programs and for the most part, those programs have been huge successes. However, no program has been attempted large scale and none have accepted more than a few thousand students. (For example, New York City has a small program that gives out 1,000 vouchers but every year they have more than 20,000 applicants and they only accept people well below the poverty level)

Saying that those of us trying to privatize public schools are somehow to blame for the sorry state of our public schools is absurd. We haven't won any significant victories and have only redirected a completely insignificant amount of funding (especially considering that most voucher programs give the private schools approximately half the cost it would be to send the same kid to a public school). The only state that currently has a wide scale voucher program is Indiana, and that has only been in place for a couple of years. (and by wide scale I mean they give vouchers to roughly 10,000 students) 

Every study done of children who participated in voucher programs have shown that they have significantly higher chances of going to and completing college compared to average kids in their demographic. The ironic thing is that voucher programs tend to be pushed for by middle class republican whites and the beneficiaries of the programs are mostly urban blacks below the poverty line- the demographic in the US with the lowest performance in public schools. Of course the success claims of voucher programs is hardly proof because the numbers are too low to mitigate other variables For example, parents who go through the effort to get a voucher probably care more about their children's education than average and more parental involvement correlates with better performance in school, especially since voucher programs currently in place require significant effort to apply for and you have to win a lottery to get one.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No private school is a

No private school is a success. Its very existence wears on the public system and helps create the very economic disparity and intellectual bankruptcy rampant in your country.

Only an idiot would support private schools.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No private

Vastet wrote:
No private school is a success. Its very existence wears on the public system and helps create the very economic disparity and intellectual bankruptcy rampant in your country. Only an idiot would support private schools.

So private schools are bad because they are so much better than public? lol. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Some private schools

Some private schools outperform public schools.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
and some public schools

and some public schools outperform other public schools, etc., etc.  having been an english teacher for five years and having worked both in the private and state systems, i can tell you there are a whirlwind of factors.  nobody can say, "oh, it's because it's private" or "oh, it's because it's public" or even "oh, it's because they have so much more money."  shitty schools are generally shitty because the teachers and/or administrators are shitty and throwing money at that never changes a damn thing.  same goes for great schools: they're great because their staff are great and even if they're poorly equipped or poorly funded, the children will learn.

to give an example, the main school where i teach has these interactive boards in almost every room.  i fucking hate them and i refuse to touch them.  i use a whiteboard and a marker, that's it.  i don't believe in handouts either, because taking notes is way more effective than just receiving a handout.  handouts (at the secondary school level, anyhow) get stuffed into backpacks and the bottoms of lockers and forgotten about, and they're a waste of paper. 

so what do i do?  i get up, i move around, i explain, and i force the children to talk.  i don't use a single kilowatt of electricity except the lights (when needed) and showing an occasional film.  i rarely make a single copy.  i probably give one of the cheapest lessons in the school, and both my boss and my students have said, to me and to others, that i'm one of the best english teachers there, and better than many with twice or three times my experience.  i don't say this to brag, i say it because it's all about the teachers.  if a teacher wants to be good, he can.  the system has very little to do with it.

most schools are just mediocre because they have a mix of positive and negative factors.  great schools are usually great because they have a dedicated, talented principal who actually cares more about educating students than his career and scours the countryside to find the best, most dedicated teachers.  i will admit, such a principal is more possible under the private system, but, in slovakia at least, still very rare, because private schools bring the possibility of the principal actually getting rich, so many times everything else takes a backseat to his bottom-line.  terrible schools are terrible because they're just a shit-storm of incompetence and corruption, and i honestly don't think they're any rarer in the private system than the public system.

the last thing i will say is, as a teacher, one thing i've learned to distrust is a school's rating in publications.  schools can manipulate that in all kinds of ways.  several times in my career i've been encouraged to be strict in the classroom (and i am naturally), but then chewed out for being "too strict" when marking exams or essays, especially those from the graduating students.  what does "too strict" mean?  apparently, it means following the grading guide strictly and objectively.  there is so much politics involved with grading, it's ridiculous.  many times administrators already have it in their minds what grade certain students "should" get and they expect you to make it happen.  why?  because each grade affects their published figures.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:and some public

iwbiek wrote:

and some public schools outperform other public schools, etc., etc.  having been an english teacher for five years and having worked both in the private and state systems, i can tell you there are a whirlwind of factors.  nobody can say, "oh, it's because it's private" or "oh, it's because it's public" or even "oh, it's because they have so much more money."  shitty schools are generally shitty because the teachers and/or administrators are shitty and throwing money at that never changes a damn thing.  same goes for great schools: they're great because their staff are great and even if they're poorly equipped or poorly funded, the children will learn.

to give an example, the main school where i teach has these interactive boards in almost every room.  i fucking hate them and i refuse to touch them.  i use a whiteboard and a marker, that's it.  i don't believe in handouts either, because taking notes is way more effective than just receiving a handout.  handouts (at the secondary school level, anyhow) get stuffed into backpacks and the bottoms of lockers and forgotten about, and they're a waste of paper. 

so what do i do?  i get up, i move around, i explain, and i force the children to talk.  i don't use a single kilowatt of electricity except the lights (when needed) and showing an occasional film.  i rarely make a single copy.  i probably give one of the cheapest lessons in the school, and both my boss and my students have said, to me and to others, that i'm one of the best english teachers there, and better than many with twice or three times my experience.  i don't say this to brag, i say it because it's all about the teachers.  if a teacher wants to be good, he can.  the system has very little to do with it.

most schools are just mediocre because they have a mix of positive and negative factors.  great schools are usually great because they have a dedicated, talented principal who actually cares more about educating students than his career and scours the countryside to find the best, most dedicated teachers.  i will admit, such a principal is more possible under the private system, but, in slovakia at least, still very rare, because private schools bring the possibility of the principal actually getting rich, so many times everything else takes a backseat to his bottom-line.  terrible schools are terrible because they're just a shit-storm of incompetence and corruption, and i honestly don't think they're any rarer in the private system than the public system.

the last thing i will say is, as a teacher, one thing i've learned to distrust is a school's rating in publications.  schools can manipulate that in all kinds of ways.  several times in my career i've been encouraged to be strict in the classroom (and i am naturally), but then chewed out for being "too strict" when marking exams or essays, especially those from the graduating students.  what does "too strict" mean?  apparently, it means following the grading guide strictly and objectively.  there is so much politics involved with grading, it's ridiculous.  many times administrators already have it in their minds what grade certain students "should" get and they expect you to make it happen.  why?  because each grade affects their published figures.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
No private school is a success. Its very existence wears on the public system and helps create the very economic disparity and intellectual bankruptcy rampant in your country. Only an idiot would support private schools.

So private schools are bad because they are so much better than public? lol. 

Not because they are better, but because they are elitist and exclusionary. Because they drain resources from the systems available to everyone in order to give resources to systems that are specifically designed for a vast minority. It dumbs down the general population. Why would anyone want to be surrounded by idiots just so a few people get the opportunity and education to be successful?

Yes a poorly funded school is capable of delivering a good education, but when the best teachers are lured to rich private schools by bigger paycheques the result is dumber teachers on average in the public system.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Incidentally, I apologise

Incidentally, I apologise for the idiot remark. I was on EXC bashing mode when you stepped in and I haven't had the mental flexibility recently to switch gears on the fly. I prefer to reserve my insults for counter attacks, not provocations, and you didn't say anything to warrant that response.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.