|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,863
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Capitalism at work [Re: bennylava] 1
#22307233 - 09/29/15 09:30 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bennylava said: All schools being private, with state inspectors to check in once in awhile just to make sure standards are being upheld, is the answer to all our education woes. When it comes to pre-college. Private schools are proven to offer a far better education than the pitiful public school system, and on top of that, no one who didn't have any kids would pay. Because everyone who had kids, would pay the private school. Its all very simple.
1- Who's gonna pay for the state inspectors?
2- Will poor people be exempt from compulsory education under this system?
3- will we apply this system to other forms of public services? For instance, maybe only people whose homes catch fire should have to pay for Fire Depts. or maybe a surcharge for anyone who calls the police? We could get rid of Public Defenders in the Justice system. After all, why should i pay for some criminal's lawyer? Let the criminals pay for it. less gov't waste that way. Maybe we should fund the military this way. Like, why should i have to pay for weapons and equipment for some soldier i don't know. Let his/her family buy that stuff.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Capitalism at work [Re: ballsalsa]
#22307466 - 09/29/15 10:33 AM (8 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
My original post on the subject matter posed the question, why should someone who makes $30,000 per year pay the same rate as someone who makes $20,000,000 per year.
Why should someone who makes 400,000 a year have to give up half his income, while someone who makes 20,000 pays nothing? Especially considering that the lower income brackets typically use more govt services?
Everyone should have to pay in to taxes, there should be no exemptions, otherwise, when politicians start yapping about raising taxes, there's a portion of the populace who really doesn't care because they pay nothing to begin with. With a flat tax, it would effect everyone equally. That's "equal protection under the law". IMO
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
My original post on the subject matter posed the question, why should someone who makes $30,000 per year pay the same rate as someone who makes $20,000,000 per year.
Why should someone who makes 400,000 a year have to give up half his income, while someone who makes 20,000 pays nothing? Especially considering that the lower income brackets typically use more govt services?
Everyone should have to pay in to taxes, there should be no exemptions, otherwise, when politicians start yapping about raising taxes, there's a portion of the populace who really doesn't care because they pay nothing to begin with. With a flat tax, it would effect everyone equally. That's "equal protection under the law". IMO
"Why should someone who makes $400,000 a year have to give up half his income"
This is where is gets interesting, the working professional or small business owner absolutely gets screwed when it comes to taxes, making $400,000 per year in certain areas of the country is NOT rich at all, yet they pay a ridiculous amount in taxes. Once again, do you know who pays a much lower real tax rate? It's not the guy that puts in a full day of work as he counts his millions. 
"Everyone should have to pay into taxes"
They do whether they pay Federal income taxes are not, SS, Medicare, State, property, and sales taxes are all considerable when it comes political debate.
|
Turtletotem
Dutch Delight



Registered: 09/02/13
Posts: 3,763
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Why should someone who makes 400,000 a year have to give up half his income, while someone who makes 20,000 pays nothing? Especially considering that the lower income brackets typically use more govt services?
He talked about multi-millionairs, but sure, your distortion is fun too...
--------------------
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Turtletotem said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Why should someone who makes 400,000 a year have to give up half his income, while someone who makes 20,000 pays nothing? Especially considering that the lower income brackets typically use more govt services?
He talked about multi-millionairs, but sure, your distortion is fun too...
Sure bud, I don't really care what the millionaires pay, and neither should you, unless you're one of them... I'm not, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want a tax of up to 90% like BS is calling for... Look what happened to France when they raised their top rate to 70%, those who could leave, did.
That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich, because most of us aren't, it's called class warfare, and it's just another way liberals pit constituents against each other.
Quote:
They do whether they pay Federal income taxes are not, SS, Medicare, State, property, and sales taxes are all considerable when it comes political debate.
That's a great idea, let's do away with federal income tax altogether, because multi millionaires also pay those taxes, sounds fair to me...
|
Turtletotem
Dutch Delight



Registered: 09/02/13
Posts: 3,763
Last seen: 4 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Sure bud, I don't really care what the millionaires pay, and neither should you, unless you're one of them... I'm not, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want a tax of up to 90% like BS is calling for... Look what happened to France when they raised their top rate to 70%, those who could leave, did.
That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich, because most of us aren't, it's called class warfare, and it's just another way liberals pit constituents against each other.
Bullcrap! Those who could leave did, you say? GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE! Fucking traitors and privateers! Let's tax 'em wherever they go, what are they gonna do, cry about it? I bet there's plenty of people working in their sweatshops that would just LOVE IT to get their hands on their masters.
Class warfare... they drew first blood! They keep on drawing our blood while we sit down and take it like bitches, or worse, pretend it is not happening like good little quislings!
I REALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE QUIT SMOKING!
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Quote:
Turtletotem said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: Why should someone who makes 400,000 a year have to give up half his income, while someone who makes 20,000 pays nothing? Especially considering that the lower income brackets typically use more govt services?
He talked about multi-millionairs, but sure, your distortion is fun too...
Sure bud, I don't really care what the millionaires pay, and neither should you, unless you're one of them... I'm not, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want a tax of up to 90% like BS is calling for... Look what happened to France when they raised their top rate to 70%, those who could leave, did.
That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich, because most of us aren't, it's called class warfare, and it's just another way liberals pit constituents against each other.
Quote:
"I really don't care what millionaires pay"
Why should anyone care who makes the most money pays in taxes? Are you fucking joking. 
"That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich"
When everyone is enjoying economic prosperity, there's NO reason to demonize the rich, when we have the largest wealth and income inequality in 80 years like today, that's when it comes out.
"it's called class warfare"
This is what happens when you send good manufacturing jobs out of the US and bring in a bunch of cheap labor, who started this war? It wasn't Joe Six-Pack!
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
So they pay more fed taxes than Alaska? Wow!! something to be proud of!
yes, contributing to everybody's welfare(what a perfect word for this situation), rather than sponging off of supposed liberal california scumsuckers is something to be proud of i think.
LOL do you give more to the IRS each year because you enjoy it? HAHAHAHAHAH
THE WELFARE STATES - 2008 is the most recent data compilation out there. http://ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2008/WelfareSpending2008.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310
1 New York - LIBERAL 2 Alaska - "The people in Alaska get money from the oil that belongs to them." 3 Rhode Island - LIBERAL 4 Vermont - LIBERAL 5 Massachusetts- LIBERAL 6 Maine - LIBERAL 7 New Mexico - LIBERAL 8 Minnesota - LIBERAL 9 Delaware - LIBERAL 10 California - LIBERAL
lol This is priceless. California and New York are the 'welfare states', hmm? Let's look at this from a per-capita standpoint, and also factor in contributions to the federal welfare system. As you will see, Liberal states put in far more than they receive, and conservative states suck their titties:
Quote:
As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
New Mexico: $2.03 Mississippi: $2.02 Alaska: $1.84 Louisiana: $1.78 West Virginia: $1.76 North Dakota: $1.68 Alabama: $1.66 South Dakota: $1.53 Kentucky: $1.51 Virginia: $1.51 Montana: $1.47 Hawaii: $1.44 Maine: $1.41 Arkansas: $1.41 Oklahoma: $1.36 South Carolina: $1.35 Missouri: $1.32 Maryland: $1.30 Tennessee: $1.27 Idaho: $1.21
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
So, if they received $1.00 for every tax dollar put in, they would be breaking even. If they receive over $1.00, they're the 'leaches' (though I don't see it that way anyways).
Quote:
Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8
Again, how does your fuckin foot taste, kid?
He posted per capita. You posted something else. NY is the highest in per capita welfare spending. The reason they don't show on your list is because the federal government sucks the life out of a few of us in taxes. New York is, after all, the financial capital of the world. They pay sick taxes. Same for California. There are the few who pay huge federal taxes which skews your list..
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Turtletotem said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Sure bud, I don't really care what the millionaires pay, and neither should you, unless you're one of them... I'm not, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want a tax of up to 90% like BS is calling for... Look what happened to France when they raised their top rate to 70%, those who could leave, did.
That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich, because most of us aren't, it's called class warfare, and it's just another way liberals pit constituents against each other.
Bullcrap! Those who could leave did, you say? GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE! Fucking traitors and privateers! Let's tax 'em wherever they go, what are they gonna do, cry about it? I bet there's plenty of people working in their sweatshops that would just LOVE IT to get their hands on their masters.
Class warfare... they drew first blood! They keep on drawing our blood while we sit down and take it like bitches, or worse, pretend it is not happening like good little quislings!
I REALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE QUIT SMOKING!
Or sniffng glue, for that matter.
--------------------
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Turtletotem said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said:
Sure bud, I don't really care what the millionaires pay, and neither should you, unless you're one of them... I'm not, but if I was, I sure as hell wouldn't want a tax of up to 90% like BS is calling for... Look what happened to France when they raised their top rate to 70%, those who could leave, did.
That's why it's so easy to demonize the rich, because most of us aren't, it's called class warfare, and it's just another way liberals pit constituents against each other.
Bullcrap! Those who could leave did, you say? GOOD FUCKING RIDDANCE! Fucking traitors and privateers! Let's tax 'em wherever they go, what are they gonna do, cry about it? I bet there's plenty of people working in their sweatshops that would just LOVE IT to get their hands on their masters.
Class warfare... they drew first blood! They keep on drawing our blood while we sit down and take it like bitches, or worse, pretend it is not happening like good little quislings!
good riddance? who do you think pays for all those socialist programs leftists love so much, so yeah, kill the goose that's laying your golden eggs...
they drew first blood? good god man! grow a set of balls and look at what the gov has done!
here's a better analogy, the oil companies make approximately 1-2 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in this country, the govt, depending on what state you are in, 32-70 cents go to taxes, now you tell me, whose the bloodsuckers in this country???
|
paperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
|
|
If income was more equal we'd need fewer social programs and everyone could contribute more in taxes without being crippled by the burden.
-------------------- Why should we strive with cynic frown To knock their fairy castles down? ~ Eliza Cook It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,863
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: here's a better analogy, the oil companies make approximately 1-2 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in this country, the govt, depending on what state you are in, 32-70 cents go to taxes, now you tell me, whose the bloodsuckers in this country???
prove this statement to be true please.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 2 hours, 47 minutes
|
Re: Capitalism at work [Re: ballsalsa]
#22311154 - 09/29/15 09:47 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: here's a better analogy, the oil companies make approximately 1-2 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in this country, the govt, depending on what state you are in, 32-70 cents go to taxes, now you tell me, whose the bloodsuckers in this country???
prove this statement to be true please.
I think he's confusing oil companies with gasoline retailers, but that's hardly surprising.
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 35 minutes, 39 seconds
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:
burgerbrain said:
Quote:
Balls: So they pay more fed taxes than Alaska? Wow!! something to be proud of!
yes, contributing to everybody's welfare(what a perfect word for this situation), rather than sponging off of supposed liberal california scumsuckers is something to be proud of i think.
LOL do you give more to the IRS each year because you enjoy it? HAHAHAHAHAH
THE WELFARE STATES - 2008 is the most recent data compilation out there. http://ppinys.org/reports/jtf/2008/WelfareSpending2008.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31910310
1 New York - LIBERAL 2 Alaska - "The people in Alaska get money from the oil that belongs to them." 3 Rhode Island - LIBERAL 4 Vermont - LIBERAL 5 Massachusetts- LIBERAL 6 Maine - LIBERAL 7 New Mexico - LIBERAL 8 Minnesota - LIBERAL 9 Delaware - LIBERAL 10 California - LIBERAL
lol This is priceless. California and New York are the 'welfare states', hmm? Let's look at this from a per-capita standpoint, and also factor in contributions to the federal welfare system. As you will see, Liberal states put in far more than they receive, and conservative states suck their titties:
Quote:
As it turns out, it is red states that are overwhelmingly the Welfare Queen States. Yes, that's right. Red States — the ones governed by folks who think government is too big and spending needs to be cut — are a net drain on the economy, taking in more federal spending than they pay out in federal taxes. They talk a good game, but stick Blue States with the bill.
Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.
Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.
New Mexico: $2.03 Mississippi: $2.02 Alaska: $1.84 Louisiana: $1.78 West Virginia: $1.76 North Dakota: $1.68 Alabama: $1.66 South Dakota: $1.53 Kentucky: $1.51 Virginia: $1.51 Montana: $1.47 Hawaii: $1.44 Maine: $1.41 Arkansas: $1.41 Oklahoma: $1.36 South Carolina: $1.35 Missouri: $1.32 Maryland: $1.30 Tennessee: $1.27 Idaho: $1.21
Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.
So, if they received $1.00 for every tax dollar put in, they would be breaking even. If they receive over $1.00, they're the 'leaches' (though I don't see it that way anyways).
Quote:
Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8
Again, how does your fuckin foot taste, kid?
He posted per capita. You posted something else. NY is the highest in per capita welfare spending. The reason they don't show on your list is because the federal government sucks the life out of a few of us in taxes. New York is, after all, the financial capital of the world. They pay sick taxes. Same for California. There are the few who pay huge federal taxes which skews your list..
My list isn't skewed. Even if it was only one single person paying all of those taxes, my point would be valid. The blue states pay more in than they receive, plain and simple.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
 
|
Bigbadwooof
Trumps Bone Spurs



Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 13,347
Last seen: 35 minutes, 39 seconds
|
|
Quote:
paperbackwriter said: If income was more equal we'd need fewer social programs and everyone could contribute more in taxes without being crippled by the burden.
Not only that, but crowdfunding for important research and community projects would be easier to accomplish. Our campaign finance system wouldn't be as big of a problem. Crime rates would go down significantly. Debt bubbles would be less frequent. We'd see more startup businesses because people would have expendible income to build something of their own. The list is really quite enormous.
Income inequality had been linked to many many MANY social ills, for both the rich, and the poor. It hurts everyone. Even in poor societies, if income inequality is relatively low, mental illness rates are lower, crime rates are lower, and there is much more social cohesion. The benefits of rectifying this situation are innumerable.
There is nothing admirable about a society that creates enormous wealth gaps. It is a symptom of a dysfunctional structure, plain and simple. If you disagree, then there really is nothing wrong with society, and you should be quite content. Research and evidence stands contrary to that position, but some prefer their delusions.
-------------------- "It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti FARTS "There is no need for conspiracy where interests converge" - George Carlin Every one of you should see this video. "If you bombard the earth with photons for a while, it can emit a roadster" - Andrej Kerpathy
 
Edited by Bigbadwooof (09/29/15 11:13 PM)
|
bennylava
Bad example


Registered: 05/29/15
Posts: 587
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
paperbackwriter said: The post office is efficient.
Charter schools have been ruled unconstitutional in Washington. Public funds going to entities the public has no say in.
This post is hilarious. The level of ignorance: Staggering.
No surprise that private schools were ruled "unconstitutional" in Washington, a libtard bastion. No surprise at all. Libs all get really scared when the government might lose some power over their lives. Its like they need it, as to feel somehow taken care of, like they're some kind of baby and its their safety blanket. Which is, in reality, all just an illusion anyway, needed only be the weak minded. They can never take care of you. You are on your own.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that public funds, are going into a private school. That's literally WHY it exists at all, because its private. It needs no public funds. The parents paying for the kids to attend, are the ones funding it. If this was going on, then it was a dysfunction that needed to be dismantled. Its not how its supposed to be, and doesn't reflect the idea of a private school.
As for the post office, well, a simple google search will reveal just how wrong you are. Its a zombie, staggering forth only because a law upholds it. That's it. Its dead, and just doesn't know it yet.
|
paperbackwriter
Edward Lear


Registered: 03/31/14
Posts: 1,888
|
Re: Capitalism at work [Re: bennylava]
#22312659 - 09/30/15 07:00 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
bennylava said:
Quote:
paperbackwriter said: The post office is efficient.
Charter schools have been ruled unconstitutional in Washington. Public funds going to entities the public has no say in.
This post is hilarious. The level of ignorance: Staggering.
No surprise that private schools were ruled "unconstitutional" in Washington, a libtard bastion. No surprise at all. Libs all get really scared when the government might lose some power over their lives. Its like they need it, as to feel somehow taken care of, like they're some kind of baby and its their safety blanket. Which is, in reality, all just an illusion anyway, needed only be the weak minded. They can never take care of you. You are on your own.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that public funds, are going into a private school. That's literally WHY it exists at all, because its private. It needs no public funds. The parents paying for the kids to attend, are the ones funding it. If this was going on, then it was a dysfunction that needed to be dismantled. Its not how its supposed to be, and doesn't reflect the idea of a private school.
As for the post office, well, a simple google search will reveal just how wrong you are. Its a zombie, staggering forth only because a law upholds it. That's it. Its dead, and just doesn't know it yet.
I did google and backed up my post with links when starfire tried to laugh it off too. More than any other institution the post office runs like a private business. What's funny is you keep saying to privatize it but it was actually legislation passed in 2006 that's led to a lot of their financial issues.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/
As far as actual efficiency as a customer, I love the post office. I don't ever use UPS or FedEx. I find the rates more affordable at the post office and the times work just fine for me. I've also been quite pleased with my letter carriers. I've also never had a package lost in the mail which I think says a lot about 'efficiency'.
Charter schools are you take the money it would cost for your kid to go to public school, taxpayer money (the charter), and give it to a private school.
Do you not know what charter schools are?
I have nothing against private schools. As long as they're not paid for with tax-payer money. But no one is stopping anyone from doing that now. So when someone mentions private schools I assume they're talking about Charter schools and I assume you where rather you meant to be or not. Otherwise why bring it up?
-------------------- Why should we strive with cynic frown To knock their fairy castles down? ~ Eliza Cook It's rather embarrassing to have given one's entire life to pondering the human predicament and to find that in the end one has little more to say than, 'Try to be a little kinder.' ~Aldous Huxley
Edited by paperbackwriter (09/30/15 07:09 AM)
|
hostileuniverse
Stranger



Registered: 05/14/15
Posts: 8,602
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
|
Re: Capitalism at work [Re: ballsalsa]
#22313277 - 09/30/15 10:19 AM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: here's a better analogy, the oil companies make approximately 1-2 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in this country, the govt, depending on what state you are in, 32-70 cents go to taxes, now you tell me, whose the bloodsuckers in this country???
prove this statement to be true please.
My bad, the oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon, compared with the 32-70 cents the govt pilfers off it, does that really make it any better?
http://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html
|
bennylava
Bad example


Registered: 05/29/15
Posts: 587
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
paperbackwriter said:
Quote:
bennylava said:
Quote:
paperbackwriter said: The post office is efficient.
Charter schools have been ruled unconstitutional in Washington. Public funds going to entities the public has no say in.
This post is hilarious. The level of ignorance: Staggering.
No surprise that private schools were ruled "unconstitutional" in Washington, a libtard bastion. No surprise at all. Libs all get really scared when the government might lose some power over their lives. Its like they need it, as to feel somehow taken care of, like they're some kind of baby and its their safety blanket. Which is, in reality, all just an illusion anyway, needed only be the weak minded. They can never take care of you. You are on your own.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting that public funds, are going into a private school. That's literally WHY it exists at all, because its private. It needs no public funds. The parents paying for the kids to attend, are the ones funding it. If this was going on, then it was a dysfunction that needed to be dismantled. Its not how its supposed to be, and doesn't reflect the idea of a private school.
As for the post office, well, a simple google search will reveal just how wrong you are. Its a zombie, staggering forth only because a law upholds it. That's it. Its dead, and just doesn't know it yet.
I did google and backed up my post with links when starfire tried to laugh it off too. More than any other institution the post office runs like a private business. What's funny is you keep saying to privatize it but it was actually legislation passed in 2006 that's led to a lot of their financial issues.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/
As far as actual efficiency as a customer, I love the post office. I don't ever use UPS or FedEx. I find the rates more affordable at the post office and the times work just fine for me. I've also been quite pleased with my letter carriers. I've also never had a package lost in the mail which I think says a lot about 'efficiency'.
Charter schools are you take the money it would cost for your kid to go to public school, taxpayer money (the charter), and give it to a private school.
Do you not know what charter schools are?
I have nothing against private schools. As long as they're not paid for with tax-payer money. But no one is stopping anyone from doing that now. So when someone mentions private schools I assume they're talking about Charter schools and I assume you where rather you meant to be or not. Otherwise why bring it up?
The post office was utterly bankrupt in 2010. It was brought up that they should look at dismantling it... I can't remember the details. I could be wrong about the person, but I think it was Rand Paul who was saying to go ahead and let the private sector take over. There were talks, but it was eventually decided that they would just pump more money into the post office. The employees went ape shit over their undeserved high wages and over inflated pensions. It was a big ordeal at the time. I thought this was common knowledge.
Now back to the Private schools. Why bring it up? I would think that the answer to that would be quite obvious, just like the woes of the post office. You have to pay the high "school tax" even if your kid/s go to a private school. So you're basically paying the tax, AND you're paying the private school for your kids to be going there. If I'm sending my kid/s to a private school, then in typical government fashion, they still tax me anyway, for a service I'll never need. The whole reason for the tax is only for my kids education right? Right? Then they need to fuck off, and quit taxing me if I'm not using their education system.
Wanna know why this is? Wanna know why they've never changed it? Fear of the loss of power. Period. They get to say, what is "acceptable" to teach the kids, and what isn't. They want their hand to be able to hover over the indoctrination button, if the need arises. And frankly they push the button fairly regularly. If private schools become the norm rather than a rarity for most children, they lose that ability. I'm telling you people, the government DOES NOT let go of any form or fashion of power, without a fight. The sooner you learn this, the better off you'll be.
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,369
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
paperbackwriter said: If income was more equal we'd need fewer social programs and everyone could contribute more in taxes without being crippled by the burden.
Exactly. But half the country thinks the only reason for our unemployment and poverty rates is laziness.
--------------------
|
|