^Why do people shut off their ability to reason when discussing teachers? Could it be that right-wing think tanks have been at the throat of every social service that doesn't directly benefit the super-rich for 3 decades now? Probably, and apparently they've been successful, since it is generally acceptable to bash an entire profession without any empirical evidence or even basic logic.

So let me simplify:

More Experience > Less Experience
Professional > Non-Professional
More Competition > Less Competition

Do you disagree with this?

Logically, here is how teachers would be ranked in terms of general quality based on this (hopefully) uncontroversial logic.

1. High level Prep Schools
2. Public Schools/Charter Schools
3. Private Schools/Catholic Schools
4. Home-school

That's not to say that there aren't good home-school teachers and terrible prep school teachers, but generally, the more you pay a position, the more competitive that position becomes. Major League baseball players > minor league baseball players. No controversy there, right?

I have no doubt that swampgirl is a great teacher. She has all of the qualities that make a teacher great: smart, thoughtful, inquisitive, confident, principled, good with words, quirky and funny. I would guess that she has probably grown to respect teachers more, rather than less over the course of her own teaching. Teaching just a handful of kids poses plenty of challenges, let alone dealing with hundreds. I'm thankful to have read her writings on home-schooling, as I'd only been familiar with the 'religious shut in' variety before.

Anyway, I didn't really want to jump into this conversation until I saw the teacher bashing. It's a noble profession that is under assault from the same people that brought you the Iraq War, Wiretapping, torture and the biggest national debt in history. Whether they teach home-school or school-school, teachers are the good guys.

That would be true if Hamas solely sold terrorism and a fight against occupation, but Hamas also provide social services for the people of Palestine and has constructed schools and hospitals to achive this aim. From Wiki:

Hamas also runs extensive social programs and has gained popularity in Palestinian society by establishing hospitals, education systems, libraries and other services throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas' charter calls for the recapturing of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now named Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as political and not religious or antisemitic. However, its founding charter, writings, and many of its public statements reflect the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Hamas's political wing has won many local elections in Gaza, Qalqilya, and Nablus. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43. Many perceived the preceding Fatah government as corrupt and ineffective, and Hamas's supporters see it as an "armed resistance" movement defending Palestinians from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. However, since Hamas's election victory, particularly sharp infighting has occurred between Hamas and Fatah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

If we used that kind of judgement we could then also say the entire population of the US willingly supports unilateral military action and bombings of Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan and tactit support of undemocratic remiges in Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and other states.

While we're on the topic, it's worth mentioning that while lotteries are not a tax on the stupid, they are a tax on the poor. Of a low-income family, a middle income family and a high income family, who will get the most utility out of winning $1,000,000? Of course, the low-income family will. That's why low income families play the lottery more than people with more money.

Lotteries are designed to make money for whomever runs them, typically a government. So the government collects all this money, and in an ideal world, distributes it evenly in the form of social services for all. The end result is money being taken from the poor, and redistributed among the masses, regardless of income level. This is a tax on the poor.

I must say, I wish they would have allowed him to make a response to the last pundit's point that other nations pulled out of their depression much faster than the US did. That seems a point worth answering, if true, since other nations are much more willing to experiment with socialized services than the US.

I'm not sure if you're speculating whether i'm buying into the tabloid sensationalism Irish, but just to clarify, that isn't the case I never even watch the news, and I detest how they report it. Nonetheless, this did happen and more is going on as we speak, and as somebody who has been a part of the system and worked with Social Services closely, I absolutely know that a better service is only possible with more social workers and more funding. It won't happen though and that's what's shitty.

And yeah, the CGI pictures are way over the top, just listing the injuries is enough to make me sob

@Sniper007

You're talking shit mate, bottom line. That system that you are talking about is an ideal. It's all very well having your opinions on what would be better in society, but in the meantime we have to work with how things are now. And more staff for Social Services would make a difference, whether that suits your view or not

>> ^jwray:
Why not privatize the fire department while you're at it?

Garrison Keillor talks bout such a thing in the suburbs of St. Paul, Minnesota in his book, Homegrown Democrat. In it he talks about the response time for the private emergency services in the suburbs compared to that of the public ones within the city limits. The private companys sometimes take upwards of 20 minutes to respond, while the public ones are there within 4 minutes on average.

And the thing we have to remember, privatized services like security, fire, and emergency medical, provide the service prior to ever discussing pricing then charge you afterwards.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. the fire department functions in the same role as the police department: to protect against the destruction of private property and loss of life. you cannot compare the police force or fire department to a school. if i burn down your house, i am committing a criminal act. if i don't teach your son algebra, i am not doing anything wrong. it is an invalid comparison because one enforces law, while the other merely provides a service.

I think you've got your analogy mixed up there. Committing arson is quite a bit different than not teaching a child. Though, if we were to correct your analogy, and say that if you were to let someones house burn to the ground instead of doing your job as a firefighter to attempt to put it out, then you would be subject to the same punishment, that of being terminated from your job, as you would should you as a math teacher refuse to do your job.
>> ^imstellar28:
2. so if i find a cure to cancer, i'm guessing you are going to force me to sell it to you? by your logic, if i didn't sell it to you i would be using "coercion" if you were dying from cancer. inaction is not, and cannot be, a method of coercion unless you initially set into motion the cause of distress--at which point, it cannot be considered inaction.

How did you find your cure for cancer? Do you work for a medical research company Did you fund all your research privately or receive government subsidies? Did you alone do all the research, or did you base your research on the work of others? Did they receive and government funding? Do you have a degree? Was your education paid for with loans? Are you simply a greedy asshole? All questions that would need to answered in order to determine the ownership of your cure. Some people finding such a cure would be content to give it to the world.
>> ^imstellar28:
3. healthcare is a service. healthcare providers have to go to school to develop their skills. you don't have a right to healthcare if nobody is willing to sell it to you. it is a man-made product which means a man has to choose to share it. you don't walk into a supermarket and demand that you have a right to free (or cheap) food because you need it to survive, so why do you think its okay to walk into a clinic and demand free (or cheap) healthcare?

Do you know that the vast majority of doctors get their degrees through the used of federally funded loans, scholarships, and grants? Which is then reimbursed by the money they receive from their patients. Now if they are able to have their education paid for by tax payers and their patients, why isn't it fair to expect them to work as a service to their community? No one is saying they shouldn't receive compensation, but rather that their compensation far outweighs their investment.
>> ^imstellar28:
4. if a firefighter (legally contracted by the government or otherwise) fails to put out your house fire, that is a breech of contract (fraud) not coercion. if in uncontracted firefighter walks by, he has every right to charge you a million dollars or let your house burn to the ground. if you could force others to work for you, you would be a slaveowner.

Again, like your "cancer cure" argument, you're assuming that a person would only do something for monetary gain, firefighters don't eat smoke because they get paid well, many small communities only have volunteer fire departments, a firefighter walking by would do what they could to help, regardless of their reward. Now let's look at your "slaveowner" statement, if I own a business and employ a dozen people, in a job market where if any one of them were to lose their job it could be months before they are rehired, and I know that none of them can afford to live without the income they receive from me. I as their employer can insist they do what ever I choose, be it mow my lawn, wash my car, or empty my septic tank, certain in knowing that although they have the option to tell me to fuck off, they won't because they can't risk losing their job. I, in essence, am then able to force them to do my bidding, yet I am not technically a slave owner. We are all slaves so long as we cannot change jobs at will.

>> ^imstellar28:
5. free markets don't reward "cranks, liars, or frauds" they punish them with bankruptcy. that is, unless you attempt to intervene with a "bailout" or other regulation which keeps them in business. consumers don't lobby for regulation, corporations do because competition is not good for business, pure and simple. people don't buy products which aren't useful, and people are free to buy whatever products they chose, as are they free to seek legal compensation for fraudulent claims.

I beg to differ, free markets do what they can to discourage educated consumption, thereby rewarding those who can make sales through any and all means, including lies, and fraud. More over, a depressed economy encourages this behavior, advertising get rich quick scams, that only make the person selling the scam rich. Regulation is designed to prevent unfair business practices, such as oil speculation by people who own oil commodities that results in unrealistically inflated prices, or mortgage lenders offering mortgages at an affordable rate then jacking the interest up in order to force unreasonable payments or foreclosures. When you have massive corporate juggernauts like we have now, with a constant influx of advertising, and a culture based on ignorant consumerism, competition is an illusion, and the free market is a myth.

>> ^imstellar28:
6. central government is inherently more inefficient than local organization. the more hands you have to pass information through, the more confusing and costly it becomes. there is no escaping that. a third party who has never met you will never better understand your needs, especially when they are not compensated based on how well they serve you. a government official does not know what is best for your family, nor do they know the best way to achieve it--only you do.

Bureaucracy is present no matter if it be governmental or corporate. It's going to be inefficient regardless, nothing is dealt with on a local level. If you have surgery, your claim will go over the desk of a dozen people at your insurance company just as it would a federal agency. The difference, the insurance company is working for profit, they will do everything they can to deny your claim/service, where as the most a government agency might do would be delay your service.

Too many people in this country have been led to believe that centralized government is bad, that socialized services are bad, that the free market can solve everything. Well take a good look around, millions out of work, millions without health care, millions of families losing their homes due to predatory lenders, and an economy on the verge of becoming the next great depression.

And what do we have to thank for this? A history of corporate greed, government collusion, and a populace too stupid to realize they've been used.

Well, AC, I can't say how it is in the UK but here in the states, social services is absolutely overwhelmed with a caseload that would jam a wood-chipper. The surviving crack babies of the late 80s / early 90s are all parents of children in these cases. Can't wait for the meth baby boom in 2018.

Well said !

To me its horrible to see people trying to grab onto their money no matter what and complain about taxes. When I lived and worked in Sweden we had a lot of taxes, but we also reaped the fruits with free education and free medical care. I was proud to be able to give back to a system that had given me so much, I was proud to have my money guarantee the next generation got the same privelege as I did.

People think that taxes are taken and then just shot into the Sun, its like people dont realize the connection between taxes and healthcare and a good educational system and functioning social services. It all boils down to the 1 year old mentality of 'MIIIIIIIINE' with almost as much of the kicking and screaming.

Gun loans. Classy. OMG, he destroys the mayor 2 minutes in. "We don't do social services." WOW. Trainwreck. Awesome.

Devastating too.

Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

Look I think everyone is getting terrified about their personal taxes going up thats why the candidates and their opponents pushe forward this idea.

Yes the tax is unbalanced currently, the poor and middle class pay far more on average then those in the 10% and 1% of high income earners. Those in lower income brackets cannot afford personal accountants and safe heaven deposits to avoid their tax exposure. This is a imbalance that I think a more progressive tax system would make, however only if the taxes go back into improving the infrastructure of all citizens with the elimination of this stupid need to privatize what should be social services like road work, communications and most of all education up to the high school level.

At the same time the biggest gainer of low taxation is big business who has lobbied the government into creating some of the lowest taxation burdens in the world, however this has not translated directly into more business in the US rather it has allowed more companies to move their operations to cheaper places like China without translating at least some of the price reductions back to the consumers in the States, as well as incorporating in tax heavens outside the US.

All this low taxation and risk aversion has directly translated in mismanagement and gambling in the finance market leading to the current crisis where big business is forcing the American public to foot their bill for gambling with derivatives.

I know alot of people say that allowing these firms to fail would translate into system wide failures, this is simply Wall Street trying to make everyone panic to help them get off scott free. But it begs the question would a bail out mean risk taking on totally worthless derivatives stop? Would they allow government regulation post this? Or while they cash in and go back to business as usual?

It's the latter. The finical system works on punishing those who fail and rewarding those who are careful, not with bailing out huge firms that made foolish investments. I would rather the bailout be injected into secure banking firms now as a form of credit not as a direct bail out to those companies that have failed.

But who the fuck wants to listen to reason.

qm, Capitalism is not effective when it comes to providing social services such as education, health care and defense because profit motive drives up costs and provides no motive to give quality service.

For instance Iraq. The government has farmed much of the work out to the private sector which means there is no oversight or accountability. Blackwater mercenaries are allowed to operate outside of the law, murdering American troops and Iraqi civilians without any consequences. Halliburton was contracted to provide food for the troops, so to keep costs down, they served spoiled food and tainted water sending many troops to the hospital. The list of these abuses could fill a library.

It is in the interest of profit that the occupation continues for as long as possible with as little progress made as possible to ensure more profit in the future

Education would be the same way. Expensive high quality schools for the well healed and substandard crap for everyone else.

Same goes for healthcare. Sick people are good for profit, so there would be no logical reason to provide adequate service.

You drive on nanny roads every day, are protected by the nanny firemen, nanny police and nanny military, listen to propaganda on the radio via nanny signal.

Why don't you move to a capitalist paradise like Darfur where you will be unhindered by government regulation?

I found my bike there after two years. I know someone who found her bike after 18 years. No kidding.

The "social service" he was performing alluded to above was that if your bike was stolen, you knew exactly where to go to find it. Crap. I'd rather know where my bike was because it wasn't stolen. In the month before he was arrested, there were 49 bikes reported stolen in Toronto. Typical month. In the month after he was arrested, there was only one. One.

So kudos to the cops for performing the much higher social service of putting this waste of life out of business, and organizing the daunting task of reuniting nearly 3,000 bikes with their owners.

Economic tax theory has 3 concepts of taxation: flat, regressive and progressive.

Flat taxation is basically a fixed amount everyone pays, this is hardly if ever used.

Progressive taxation is where you tax the least to the lowest income earners and tax more on the highest income earners.

Regressive taxation is where you tax the lowest income earners the most and loosen the taxation as the income is higher. This is essentially what is in place right now in the US.

Income surveys shows that the largest amount of US wealth is centered in the top 1% of income earners, declining exponentially to the lowest income holders of which control far less wealth on a larger population base.

The theory dictates that economic growth is best with an emergent middle class, progressive taxation allows low income earners to move up the middle class. This is because this segment pays more of their income as a tax then the higher income earner. The middle class has been declining in the last 10 years.

20 dollars of tax on say a 100 dollar salary is a large percentage of your income. However 100 dollars of a 1000 dollar salary is less, the burden is far smaller, your standard of living does not get affected.

Remember that those who earn more already have access to alternative finical institutions and accounts that already circumvent the taxation scheme put forward, they can readily transfer income out of the nation into lower tax deposits internationally or even tax heavens. Leading to a rise of international companies basing their HQ in tax heavens, allowing them to escape corporate taxation.

The Bush idea of reducing taxation is fallacious as it only benefits those who are already rich, while still taxing more on those who are poor, pushing more people into low income segments of the economy.

Also cutting taxes has been possibly because of high taxation previously, we can afford to cut taxes on roads upkeep, sewage upkeep and other social services because the infrastructure has been heavily invested in by the government back in the 40s to 60s. Of course cutting those taxes leads to bridges collapsing and pipes exploding in the city.

Handing over upkeep to corporate sponsors, like selling pieces of road and social infrastructure is detrimental as companies seek profits not positive social externalities.

The economy under Obama is going to be higher unemployment, higher gas prices, and higher taxes.

This shows a totally misunderstanding of what the US economy is experiencing, US companies moved out the US because labor costs were higher, this is natural business activity, they manufacture in China because it allows them to pass the previous high labor costs as a cost to the consumer. Thats why even though your T-Shirt is not made in the US, but China you still pay a lot for it because you are not benefiting from the low cost of manufacture. The company is.

The ludicrous actions of the Fed over the last few years has seen a rise in complicated financial derivatives that created the credit crush and the bubble market in Real estate and IT markets (1999 - 2000). Without addressing the problems of creating bubble economies.

The cost of the war is slated to be 3 trillion dollars in the long term, this is a war that was initially budgeted for under billion, and with promises that concessions from the oil capture would repay the cost of incursion.

This is why the next year will be harder for the US economy as it has to balance this commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan while at the same time dealing with a huge deficit in its current account and national debt. Higher taxation is needed for this, higher unemployment is a symptom of lackadaisical economic policy while higher gas prices is based on uncertainty because of the wars and emergent economic powers like China and India. There are more consumer for a very finite resource.

Lower taxation is the wrong way to go right now. The surpluses of the Clinton administrations evaporated and sunk into huge deficits. The US was and is acting like a teenager with a credit card that is maxed out. The costs of these actions can only be addressed with increasing taxation not lowering it again as society will be burdened with the cost while big companies will be benefiting or will be rescued via government subsidization as they cannot compete in raw manufacturing with China.