Equality?

[denuseri]

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.

[Kendal]

How interesting that you feel that way. I consider myself "middle class" and work very hard pushing 500 lb cages full of mail and parcels inside a Post Office the length and width of a football field. My husband works full time shoeing horses outside in the Florida heat. He works part time as a Police Officer. We do not complain about the rich, we see it as a goal to strive for rather than something to be vilified.

Have you understood my post correctly. My point was how the higher taxed upper middle classes complain they "work hard" for their money as if they are the only ones who do. I was saying the lower and middle class work just as hard, as you yourself confirm pisshing 500lb cages around. I would have thought you would resent the implication only the high earners work and not the lower paid.

As to the uber-rich being snakes who care nothing for the "little man", how about Jon HuntsmanSr who has donated billions to the poverty stricken and to cancer research? How about ...list of the uber-rich philanthropists?

You are talking about how they spend the money once they have it. I am talking about how they got it in the first place. It's a bit like the Godfather movie where Michael Corleone donates a million to the church - good man but how did he get the money. I am not suggesting every super rich is a gangster and dont have time to go through backgrounds of a list of philanthropists but I am sure a large number have been devious.

Yes, there are some rich folks who got there by slight of hand and ill gotten means, but to condemn them all is akin to saying all people who are poor are that way because they refuse to raise a finger to work.

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

General education (K-12) is free and available to ALL Americans.......

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

[DuncanONeil]

Fair point but I dont think I said "all" but the bad uber rich is the person most likely to use his money for bribes and lobbyist to control the law to keep the cards stacked in his favor. It is then not equal opportunity. Microsoft have been nailed countless times for this. The principle is well known. Once you have power you use that power to retain power by whatever means.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

Are you trying to say the poor kid with his free K12 has the same opportunity as the rich kid with the college degree. Yes there are some sponsorships but that is some. Until such time as money is not a barrier to education there will not be equal opportunity.

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[SadisticNature]

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

Like the members of Congress who see their job and the salary we pay them as merely there for the purpose of retaining said job??

I am afraid that this a bit of a mischaracterization. She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

[DuncanONeil]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

Firstly, the US offers far fewer bursaries (scholarships with a financial need component) than other countries. Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world. Lastly, many scholarships are flawed in that they are based on a broken GPA system. Good private schools offer the full set of AP courses which in many systems allows a 6.0 GPA on a 4 scale. Kids without access to those courses can only get at best a 4.0 on a 4 scale. Most scholarships have cutoffs above 5/4, so if a poor kid is in a neighborhood where they can't take the full set of AP courses they are cut off from many scholarships even if they have perfect grades.

Lastly, for scholarships to be a real solution kids need a real opportunity to learn in schools. The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.

Also poor is far from being a minority what about the white kid born to parents in a trailer park?

As for calling it a blessing, despite the advantages of affirmative action I suspect many of us would not want to be one.

[SadisticNature]

First you say that the cost of school is too high in the US and then say we need to spend more? Huh!?

Money will never solve the education problem in this country! The biggest problem is the kids are just shuffled through the schools like an assembly line. If the kid does not perform or learn the material, no matter, they need not learn. It would damage their poor fragile psyche to be held back to learn the material. No matter that not learning the first set of material deliberately dooms them to failure. With it being below 70% nationally and trending down in spite of in the neighborhood of $200,000 per classroom. Something is wrong that money can not solve.

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

You said; “Secondly, tuition in the US is higher than anywhere else in the world.”, and later; “The US doesn't spend nearly enough on education compared to other G(whatever it is these days) countries.”

Now you may want to say that you were speaking of University, but that you did not say. That little point aside grades below university still have a cost that averages approximately $10,000 per year. Our total expenditures in education are 3.6 times greater than the nearest country. Apparently no one spends more than we do, however, I do agree smarter is better than what is being done.

So as I said money is not the solution!

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[DuncanONeil]

First of all I referred to speed reading a specific message. This is not skimming! You were not skimmed!

Can we say personal attack?

I said that university education was the most expensive of any country. Then in a discussion of scholarships which come from high school I pointed out that the US doesn't spend enough on schools. So yes, both statements are true. Of course you were probably skimming them so you assumed a contradiction through misreading where none exists, you've done that a lot lately.

As for money never solving the problem, it can if you bother to spend it correctly. Higher standards/qualifications for teaching accompanied by a modest pay raise (Canada has much higher teacher salaries and much better education performance, Finland spends even more than us and is among the best in the world), more money on materials for classrooms. Stop dumping money into voucher systems and calling it education spending, because having a lottery for 1% or less to escape a broken system is no way to run education.

As for fail vs pass student who has grades to fail, countless studies over the last 30+ years have consistently shown that in lower grades if you pass the student on they are more likely to catch up. Convincing a young kid they are stupid is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think a lot of the problem is there is good scientific information on this topic and people choose to ignore it in order to apply their ideologies to the education system complete with all their mistakes.

[Kendal]

She very clearly indicated that there are scholarships available. In fact it is easier for a minority to get a scholarship than those not "blessed" with minority status!

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

[Kendal]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[steelish]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

Of course education plays a very large role in being a doctor, lawyer or other such profession - but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now. Our current problem is unemployment across the board, but those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors, working at MacDonalds, etc. pass up those jobs in the hopes that the perfect job for them will fall in their lap. I see "Help Wanted" and "Now Hiring" signs everywhere.

As to your second statement; therein lies the misconception. We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else". This is the attack that is being used by people who want a nanny state. Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be? There are a select few who will still be responsible, independent people, but that will be rare. Most of them will hold out their hand every time they need something. A strong nation is a nation full of people who can stand up for themselves. People who are not only independent, but caring. America has always been a nation of such in the past. I hate that we are turning into a nation of dependency.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

"Balancing" the workforce through use of regulations and legislation in my opinion was not the route to take. The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs. Remember, we're talking about legislation that started in the 60s. The problems faced then are hardly comparable to what life is like now. Education is more readily accessible to all ethnic groups whereas in the 60s, such was not the case.

[Kendal]

but those were not spoken of...CEO of a corporation was spoken of.

To refresh your memory - I was talking about equal opportunity and how critically important it is that all should have equal opportunity when it comes to education. Class was mention and I loosely defined how I see class with CEOs in the top band and professionals in upper middle. You pointed out that people with poor education can be CEOs ( actually I dont think this is true for 95% iof top CEOs) and I acknowledge that but pointed out it does not hold true for the upper middle class bracket. That's a fair summary yes. So from my point of view the professional classes have been talked about and even if they were not., what are you saying... you cannot talk about them because they have not been spoken of before. Can we not introduce new points or what?

I don't know how you could get any more "equal" than it is now.

I guess no answer to that one is there. You achieved perfection.

those at the so called "bottom" do have jobs available to them because out of work executives and other such people who might think themselves "above" bagging groceries or sweeping floors

If i was a CEO and my HR manager hired an executive to bag groceries I would fire him for incompetence. I want a stable workforce not a revolving door. The executive will be looking in the jobs vacant column from day one. Come on, you are being over simplistic and unrealisitic here. And in any case, I don't think it's asking too much for a person to have a job at same similar level. Drop a rung or two on the ladder okay but crash dive to the basement no.

We are not (I am not) advocating "look out for yourself and to hell with everyone else".

No - you are advocating executives sweep florr and if they dont then no sympathy for them.

Instead of creating programs that create dependency, why can't we create programs that create independence?

being foreigner I dont know what you mean here but the point of government schemes, benefits, programs is to provide a safety net for those at the bottom or most in danger of falling. The goal is to increase wealth and standards such that nobody needs the net. The Harvard graduate does not need employment programs and high paid do not need free medical care. They are not dependant but if you do not help the less fortunate then you are condemning them to their fate.

Think of it this way - If you are raising a child, and give them everything...they never have to earn anything for themselves - no chores, no jobs, nothing. Everything gets handed to them. What kind of person do you think they will turn out to be?

You lost me here. What do you do in America..put the children to work making Nike shoes as soon as they are old enough to walk. The child is at school and presumably working doing school work. I never had chores and see no reason with they will not turn out like me.

The route to take would have been through more extensive and readily available education programs.

Yes I agree education is the way. The problem is if you have the man who is 30 with the 3 year old son if you wait for the education route you are basically skipping a generation and condemning that man. And as I understand it education for the poor mans son would be dependant on scholarships and we know how you hate dependency don't we

[DuncanONeil]

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

The concept you present of a company head and professionals is apples and oranges. Comparisons are not possible in this example.

[DuncanONeil]

About that standard of living! There again we have to get into definitions. As I said before 46% of the official poor in the US own their own home.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Yes steelish - there is more chance of the person without a degree climbing the corporate ladder in american than england but broadly speaking education-profession-salary go hand in hand. The CEOs who climbed the ladder invariably come from sales or a field where education(training) is not so critical as it is for a doctor, lawyer or one of the professional classes.

The question for me still remains - do we believe in equal (or fairer) opportunity and higher minimum standards of living for those at the bottom. For me they are goals to aim for but others seem to have the harsh attitude that people should only look out for themselves and are not under any obligation to help others.

As regards "racist" I sense dangerous waters so will tread carefully. I do not know USA so may well be wrong but I think there is a flaw in what you say. You are talking on the individual level - (ie forcing to hire somebody) but the laws are aimed at the group level. The problem is the game did not start with all players equal (ie segregation etc) so when you suddenly say from now on we play on even playing field it is not equal until you correct the imbalances from before. This is the aim. Whether it has succeeded or not I dont know but I would say the principle on which it is based is sound. If we want a fair horse race we handicap horses with more or less weight. Nobody complaines the race is unfair - far from it - that is seen to make it a more even match. Perhaps not the perfect analagy but to say why should I carry more weight than the other does not negate the principle of fairness and equality. In short - you started unequal so to make it equal now we need to give a boost to the other. If you've ever played poker against a man who started with a lot more money you will know what I am talking about,.

[Kendal]

Now you've offended me.
It was not my intension. My point was there is a parental school of thought that seeks to teach children from a very early age the importance of work by saying if you dont do this work you dont get that material reward. There's no argument about the work-reward relationship but personally I dont think there's anything wrong with letting children be children and letting them learn values slowly as they grow. There are many people who work in this world for principles higher than personal gain and the reason you should do that chore may be because mom does not have time rather than because the kids earns some candy money.

What are you advocating Kendal? Blindly paying them to sit around and do nothing,
First I would define who "them" are and not tar all unemployed with the same brush. I would then take different approaches with the different types of "them". Yes there are some that do not
want to work but I think there are more options than continue paying or stop paying. In UK a lot of "them" are working in the black economy and welfare payments is extra money. That type of "them" are clearly criminals.

while they create future generations who will live the same way?
I am sure there are many who would be offended by that remark. What makes you say this. Will the son of the wife beater grow up to be a wife beater. There are plenty of cases where children want to be the exact opposite and parents serve as cautionary tales rather than role models.

I've seen this hundreds of times, and it is so true; Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.
Care to explain how the man you taught to fish lives if you dont give him a fishing rod or there are no fish (jobs) in the (employment) river. These maxims are all very good but they are rather simplistic.

What I got allowance for was the hard jobs that were considered something "above and beyond".
The lesson is still the same - material reward for hard work. I used to enjoy (hard) work because it meant I was doing my bit in the family team and to show I was a big boy even though I wasn't. I enjoyed making a difference and leaving my mark .... ie I come yard dirty... I go yard clean.

When I speak of allowance for the other "jobs" I did I am saying I simply learned the value of a dollar..........whereas those who grow up on welfare or get things handed to them rarely learn the lesson.
Nothing wrong with that but there are values higher than the almighty dollar that motivate some people to work without needing personal material gain. In my life people have given (handed) me "things". I repay those people by giving to others in return. And again I dispute the claim that children follow in the footsteps of the parents.

[DuncanONeil]

In my view education should not depend on getting or not getting a scholarship. Money should not play a part .. everybody should have the chance to go as far as their ability allows.

Of course in reality we are hampered by cost and this is not possible but the fact it is not feasable today does not mean it is not the goal for tommorow. I went to university and my government paid uni fees and my personal expenses. I did not have to win a scholarship or pay a dime. All I had to do was meet the entrance requirements. If the UK could do it.. then USA could. (note - it has changed now in UK but the point is valid).

I am unable to agree with you. That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued. I have seen this personally. There exist scholarships that are available without biased requirements. More a reward for service rendered. More along the lines of deferred compensation. But you did work for it!

[DuncanONeil]

I do remember you presenting this idea earlier. I confess that the details of that message must have become lost in time.

As for the essential services argument. I must say that all levels of government can not be lumped together into a single entity. Each level of government operates on different sets of rules.
The Federal Government, that we all must care about has a very specific set of rules that are, largely, designed to limit their ability to "stick it to us". Too many of the people in Washington are what can kindly be called "bleeding hearts" and believe that being a parent to the people of the nation qualifies as "promote the general welfare". But in doing so they tend to ignore the very next section; "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Washington is promoting the first at the expense of the second!

If you really read previous posts I wouldnt have to point out that I purposed a way for elections to be held that removed campaign donations from the loop without turing the thing into a "only the rich" can run affair Duncan.

And I dont care if its federal, state or local...its still government provided services and ones that many consider to be essential at that.