NationStates Jolt Archive

The 3 major government sponsor programs:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare & Medicaid
3) Public School

They all sound good, but the government seems to have problems funding those programs. Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Medicare is unable to provide for millions of people who needs medicine. Public school in US is not that great compare to other countries. Do you think the private or the corporate sector run these programs instead of the government?

lol

The 3 major government sponsor programs:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare & Medicaid
3) Public School

They all sound good, but the government seems to have problems funding those programs. Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Medicare is unable to provide for millions of people who needs medicine. Public school in US is not that great compare to other countries. Do you think the private or the corporate sector run these programs instead of the government?

No.

You can't make money when running those three programs. If you did nonetheless, someone is getting screwed over big time.
Now take a wild guess what would happen if you privatized those three...

It's not about funding them (with a defense budget as big as the U.S.') it's about getting the priorities straight.
Instead of pumping billions of dollars into warfare, put the money where it actually helps the American people and those programs will do fine!

About the public schools - did you watch that ABC special 'Stupid in America' last Friday? The main point Stossel kept making was that if we allow parents choice in terms of what high school they go to as opposed to districting (be it public, private, paraochial) and where, our school system will improve out of the sake of competition. What do you think of that?

I think that Social Security and Medicare need to be re-worked... but not necessarily the public school system.

The reason all these things are failing in America is because they are done in such a half assed way. If you're going to adopt programs like these, make sure you fund them properly or just don't bother.

It's not as if you would have to pay much more tax in America if you were determined to fix them up - just don't spend such an excessive amount of money on the military. If you halved your annual military budget, you'd still have the best military in the world (Far more than half as good - thanks to the law of diminising returns) and probably a great education and health system.

You can't make money when running those three programs.Well, with public schools, certainly, there's the opportunity of free advertising and brand indoctrination.

Question 2.13 from the Coca Cola math book
"If you have 15 cans of Coca Cola, and you're with 4 friends, how many delicious cold Cokes can each of you drink? If you can't get the answer, ask your parents to buy you a few cans and try it out."

Social Security could be improved dramatically if money put in to the program was invested in 30-year Treasury bonds. They pay 4% a year minimum (even when the Fed Rate was 1% they paid 4+%) and are indexed to inflation, which means they are a lot better than the 1.9% return of Social Security. If we really wanted to make money, we could skim 1% off of the bonds' yield and deposit it in to the trust fund and still accrue more for people than they get now.

The reason all these things are failing in America is because they are done in such a half assed way. If you're going to adopt programs like these, make sure you fund them properly or just don't bother.

It's not as if you would have to pay much more tax in America if you were determined to fix them up - just don't spend such an excessive amount of money on the military. If you halved your annual military budget, you'd still have the best military in the world (Far more than half as good - thanks to the law of diminising returns) and probably a great education and health system.

Of course they'd probably just blow that off as socialist propaganda. :)

He's right though, funding for public goods needs to be done properly otherwise in a country the size of yours it's not going to help everyone it needs to - the funding is spread too thin. Raising the salaries of teachers is probably the best thing you can do to help the school system.

The problem is government provides money, but no substance. They provide the money and bureaucratic hoops and red tape then let other people run the show. That is the major problem with education and effects the other two as well.

Not to mention alot of Americans believe people should be on their own and responsible for themselves and the government shouldn't be helping anyone. Self-righteous twats.

.
It's not as if you would have to pay much more tax in America if you were determined to fix them up - just don't spend such an excessive amount of money on the military. If you halved your annual military budget, you'd still have the best military in the world (Far more than half as good - thanks to the law of diminising returns) and probably a great education and health system.

That would hurt economically; a lot of people are employed by defense-related industries, and axing the budget by 50% would incur a 200 billion dollar/year hit to those industries costing us tens or even hundreds of thousands of jobs which decreases payments in to social security.

Just invest SS funds in to T-bills and skim 1% off for the trust fund. We'll have plenty of money and the system will generate better returns.

Do you believe government programs suck?

The one with all the vacuum cleaners for the poor certainly did.

Yes, all three should be privatised. It is not the government's place.

the new privatized medicare perscription drug plans seem to be working so well. old folks spending days trying to get their meds as pharmacists are driven slowly insane by muzak as they spend hours on hold on insurance company "help" lines. yay free enterprise!

how can privatized governmenmt programs actually do better since the companies ultimate goal is to turn as much of the governments money into profit and as little into services as possible, at least when that happens in a normal government program its a crime not the highest ideal.

how can privatized governmenmt programs actually do better since the companies ultimate goal is to turn as much of the governments money into profit and as little into services as possible, at least when that happens in a normal government program its a crime not the highest ideal.

Compare the service quality of the US Post Office and Federal Express/UPS to get an idea of the merits of competition. The only problem with privatizing SS/Medicare is the cost and the way they want to do it which incurs gigantic risk for the people paying in to the system.

Yes, all three should be privatised. It is not the government's place.
well the governments still paying for them, they are just allowing their corperate buddies to loot that money when they privatize social programs.

That would hurt economically; a lot of people are employed by defense-related industries, and axing the budget by 50% would incur a 200 billion dollar/year hit to those industries costing us tens or even hundreds of thousands of jobs which decreases payments in to social security.

Ah, but if the money is spent elsewhere then you're not losing anything. Presumably you'd be paying people in other related industries instead, or even (shock, horror) cutting taxes.

Ah, but if the money is spent elsewhere then you're not losing anything. Presumably you'd be paying people in other related industries instead, or even (shock, horror) cutting taxes.

Medicare would help the pharmaceutical/healthcare industries and Social Security would help financial services, so it's a question of which sectors are more valuable economically.

Personally, I'd privatize them, but since that's a political impossiblity I try to go for the next best thing.

Personally, I'd privatize them, but since that's a political impossiblity I try to go for the next best thing.
What would that be? Killing them? Because that's what I would probably do.

Compare the service quality of the US Post Office and Federal Express/UPS to get an idea of the merits of competition. The only problem with privatizing SS/Medicare is the cost and the way they want to do it which incurs gigantic risk for the people paying in to the system.
federal express/ups are providing a service to individuals for pay more efficiently that the posatal sevice yes, but that's not what is happening in these other programs. in the medicare/school/ social security programs the government is still paying the money in they are just allowing the companies to scam profits out of the middle inorder to provide the services. its based on the strange hope that companies will take less money if profits than they save in increased efficiency. i just don't believe this will be true,it is more analogous to the profiteering and waste of military contractors than a comparison between a national vs. private company.

Medicare would help the pharmaceutical/healthcare industries and Social Security would help financial services, so it's a question of which sectors are more valuable economically.

Personally, I'd privatize them, but since that's a political impossiblity I try to go for the next best thing.

I agree with you there, and I'm sure economists over there can figure out exactly which is most deserving. Personally I believe that the government should only step into sectors where the private sector is underperforming in terms of providing merit goods. Arguably you (and every other country) should privatise but it would be difficult to judge how successful that would be.

You forgot other major government programs, like enforcing property ownership, fighting wars, and so on, all much worse programs if you ask me.

I saw a bumper sticker here in King County, Washington State, that said, "It's easier to get on welfare, than it is to get a building permit"

That about sums up government programs. They are designed to slow down the economy, which they think is a good thing to do, like raising taxes is always a good thing to liberals. While at the same time make the "nanny state" bigger, which is a good thing to do, in their minds anyway.

Martin Luther King County is about 80% liberal democrat. Bagdad Jim McDermit is from here too.

Well, with public schools, certainly, there's the opportunity of free advertising and brand indoctrination.

Question 2.13 from the Coca Cola math book
"If you have 15 cans of Coca Cola, and you're with 4 friends, how many delicious cold Cokes can each of you drink? If you can't get the answer, ask your parents to buy you a few cans and try it out."

And then the kid gets his book mixed up with one owned by a kid from the Drano school, and it's a real big mess.

I'm far more inclined to accept State programs than Federal programs. Uncle Sam has a bit of a reverse Midas touch.

No.

You can't make money when running those three programs. If you did nonetheless, someone is getting screwed over big time.
Now take a wild guess what would happen if you privatized those three...

It's not about funding them (with a defense budget as big as the U.S.') it's about getting the priorities straight.
Instead of pumping billions of dollars into warfare, put the money where it actually helps the American people and those programs will do fine!


Umm...ok, I agree that neither Social Security nore Medicare are programs where money can be effectively made, but schools? Are you Joking? Do you have any idea how many successful private schools there are in the world? People make money teaching, just look at the Catholic Church in Chicago.

Lets be clear when we talk about how much money is being spent in America on education in public schools:

In 1999–2000, the 50 states and the District of Columbia spent an average of $6,911 in current expenditures for every pupil in membership. This represents a 6.2 percent increase in current expenditures per pupil from the previous school year ($6,508 in unadjusted dollars). Three states—New Jersey ($10,337), New York ($9,846), and Connecticut ($9,753)—expended more than $9,000 per pupil. The District of Columbia, which comprises a single urban district, spent $10,107 per pupil. Only one state, Utah, had expenditures of less than $4,500 for each pupil in membership ($4,378). The median per pupil expenditure was $6,530, indicating that one-half of all states educated students at a cost of less than $6,530 per pupil.

In 1999–2000, on average, about $4,267 per pupil was spent for instructional services, $2,350 for support services, and $293 for noninstructional purposes. Source: http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/doe_education_spending.shtml

That is A LOT of money floating around. Far too much money to justify the low levels performance in American schools. There is a problem with the system, and it isn't the kids. The problem is that schools have no real incentive to do well. They get the same amount of money if children do well or if children fail. If the school gets bad enough it gets shut down, but no one loses their job, they just get moved to another school so they can start failing to serve students there. Offering a private alternative would force public schools to compete, failing schools wouldn't have very many students, and they wouldn't have much in the way of budgets either.

There is also the issue of waste. Take New York, for example. New York City spends close to twenty million dollars warehousing teachers that it will never allow near students because it is too difficult to fire a teacher in that jurisdiction. Hell, it took 6 years of litigation to fire a teacher in New York who had been sending sexual e-mails to one of his students. (Source: http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306.shtml)

(1) Everyone pays a flat tax of 20% to the federal govt and 5% to the state govt on anything they earn over $20K per year. No loopholes, no exceptions, no kidding.

(2) The above also applies to businesses.

(3) Social security's "trust fund" gets locked, and the key gets thrown away. No one ever gets to "borrow" from it again, ever.

(4) We do whatever it takes to institute basic universal health care coverage. Medicare and medicaid become a thing of the past. Routine, emergency, preventative and common treatments are all free. Elective non-emergency surgeries and elective non-standard treatments are on the patient dime.

There you go.

federal express/ups are providing a service to individuals for pay more efficiently that the posatal sevice yes, but that's not what is happening in these other programs. in the medicare/school/ social security programs the government is still paying the money in they are just allowing the companies to scam profits out of the middle inorder to provide the services. its based on the strange hope that companies will take less money if profits than they save in increased efficiency. i just don't believe this will be true,it is more analogous to the profiteering and waste of military contractors than a comparison between a national vs. private company.


I think you're missing how privatization works. If you privatize schools, you don't just hand the monopoly over to a company and have them run it. You had the money to parents who then shop around and use that money to "buy" the best school. Privatizing social security would work in a similar fashion, allowing individuals to invest the big chunk of their paycheck rather than just flush it down the toilet. I'm 24 years old, I pay as much in social security and medicade taxes as I do in federal and state income taxes, and I'll likely never see a penny of that money. I'd be much happier throwing a portion of that huge chunk into a nice 18 month CD, treasury bonds, even a conservative mutual fund.

Instead of pumping billions of dollars into warfare, put the money where it actually helps the American people and those programs will do fine!
America already spends 15% of its budget on health care. Money isn't the problem.

I think you're missing how privatization works. If you privatize schools, you don't just hand the monopoly over to a company and have them run it. You had the money to parents who then shop around and use that money to "buy" the best school.
Since you appear to not be familiar with the public education system, I will let you in on a little secret: public schools are already run by parents' money. The best schools with the best facilities, best teachers, and best materials are in rich neighborhoods. The schoolboards prioritise the wants of schools with kids of richer parents over the needs of schools with kids of poorer parents.

Like I already said, the problem is not that the government is involved; the problem is that the government throws money at the problem without setting or enforcing any sort of concrete rules.

The 3 major government sponsor programs:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare & Medicaid
3) Public School

They all sound good, but the government seems to have problems funding those programs. Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Medicare is unable to provide for millions of people who needs medicine. Public school in US is not that great compare to other countries. Do you think the private or the corporate sector run these programs instead of the government?
Speaking from a Canadian perspective, I think that the three things you mentioned must never be privatised. Social Security (Canadian Pension Plan) is universal. Chile has had a private social security plan for decades, and few people manage to save even the bare minimum for retirement. I've yet to see a good private program in ANY country for social security. With the US's semi-private system of healthcare, that country ends up spending more on healthcare than any other nation. Why would we want to emulate a failed system? And as for education? Private education? Hell no.

Other than that, the government should bugger off.

The 3 major government sponsor programs:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare & Medicaid
3) Public School

They all sound good, but the government seems to have problems funding those programs. Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Medicare is unable to provide for millions of people who needs medicine. Public school in US is not that great compare to other countries. Do you think the private or the corporate sector run these programs instead of the government?
My solution:

1) For social security, raise the eligibility age for reduced benefits to 70 and for full benefits to 75. Keep it government funded.
2) Use the European two-tier health care model.
3) Set up a school system similar to that in the UK for primary and secondary school.

I happen to British, since such things are of relevence herein, and, whilst advocating a reversion to a traditional, pre-labour grammar school system of public education, I would dispense with any form of universal medical care by state provision, and drastically curtail social security, welfare I surmise, compelling those degenerate parasites who life off the state to work, irrespective of patental obligations.

I happen to British, since such things are of relevence herein, and, whilst advocating a reversion to a traditional, pre-labour grammar school system of public education, I would dispense with any form of universal medical care by state provision, and drastically curtail social security, welfare I surmise, compelling those degenerate parasites who life off the state to work, irrespective of patental obligations.

LOL! :D

I happen to British, since such things are of relevence herein, and, whilst advocating a reversion to a traditional, pre-labour grammar school system of public education, I would dispense with any form of universal medical care by state provision, and drastically curtail social security, welfare I surmise, compelling those degenerate parasites who life off the state to work, irrespective of patental obligations.
How very humane of you. Clearly, anyone who accesses universal healthcare, social security or welfare is a degenerate parasite. How could I have missed this fact?

How very humane of you. Clearly, anyone who accesses universal healthcare, social security or welfare is a degenerate parasite. How could I have missed this fact?

No. Anyone who abuses the welfare system, neglects to work whilst being entirely capable of doing so is a parasite. Ever heard of the deserving and undeserving poor?

As for universal, state funded healthcare, I merely consider the private sector to be inherently more efficient and capable, and, if appropriate measures were taken, namely a sliding scale of costs for those less affluent, more tenable.

How very humane of you. Clearly, anyone who accesses universal healthcare, social security or welfare is a degenerate parasite. How could I have missed this fact?
I think he's right to an extent. Canada's so-called universal health care encourages people to go to the doctor with a cold just because it's free, putting pointless pressure on the system. Social Security was not intended to provide entirely for people's livelihoods, but rather to be a supplement to help them get by; it has become much bigger than it was ever envisioned, which is why the age of eligibility should be much higher (as life expectancy has gone up a great deal since 1935). And most people on welfare are parasites leeching off the system; people who have genuine disabilities or are honestly trying hard to find work are excluded, naturally.

Quite a few people seem to think that by cutting military spending the U.S. will have tons of money for social programs. Last I checked (which I'll admit was a couple of years ago), the U.S. federal government spent about 20% of its budget on all the branches of the military and about 50% of its budget on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security. Also, a lot of the money for public schools comes from state and local taxes, which the federal government has little control over. It's probably a good idea to check my facts, but I don't see how cutting 10% from the military and adding it to social programs will suddenly fix them all. (And if I'm wrong about the numbers, someone please correct me.)

Quite a few people seem to think that by cutting military spending the U.S. will have tons of money for social programs. Last I checked (which I'll admit was a couple of years ago), the U.S. federal government spent about 20% of its budget on all the branches of the military and about 50% of its budget on social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security. Also, a lot of the money for public schools comes from state and local taxes, which the federal government has little control over. It's probably a good idea to check my facts, but I don't see how cutting 10% from the military and adding it to social programs will suddenly fix them all. (And if I'm wrong about the numbers, someone please correct me.)
And let us not forget the vast amount of good the US military does in the world. Remember the tsunami? I know people love to harp on and on about Iraq, but the US military has been put to great use in other places.

I happen to British, since such things are of relevence herein, and, whilst advocating a reversion to a traditional, pre-labour grammar school system of public education, I would dispense with any form of universal medical care by state provision, and drastically curtail social security, welfare I surmise, compelling those degenerate parasites who life off the state to work, irrespective of patental obligations.

Social Security is money that is taken out of our income and set aside to be redistributed to us once we reach age 65.

No. Anyone who abuses the welfare system, neglects to work whilst being entirely capable of doing so is a parasite. Ever heard of the deserving and undeserving poor? Tossing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Just because an extreme minority abuse a certain system, does not mean that you should cut off the majority who genuinely need and benefit from that system.

As for universal, state funded healthcare, I merely consider the private sector to be inherently more efficient and capable, and, if appropriate measures were taken, namely a sliding scale of costs for those less affluent, more tenable.Instead, what we'd get would be a copy of someone else's system...the US perhaps, which doesn't work well and is extremely expensive.

I think he's right to an extent. Canada's so-called universal health care encourages people to go to the doctor with a cold just because it's free, putting pointless pressure on the system. And private health care encourages people to avoid seeing the doctor, regardless of the severity of their ailment, because they can not afford it. Which is more likely to ensure the general good health of your citizens? As well, education programs focussed on teaching people that 'bugs don't need drugs', and community guides on when to access healthcare, and when to heal up on your own, have done wonders for cutting down unecessary medical visits.


And most people on welfare are parasites leeching off the system; people who have genuine disabilities or are honestly trying hard to find work are excluded, naturally.This is the kind of bullshit that I'm talking about. No stats back you up on this one. Welfare abusers are in the minority.

As for life expectancy having risen...that doesn't mean quality of life or ability to work has risen with it. Sixty-five is a good cut-off age. You've worked the majority of your life by then. People deserve a bloody rest.

Tossing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Just because an extreme minority abuse a certain system, does not mean that you should cut off the majority who genuinely need and benefit from that system.
Instead, what we'd get would be a copy of someone else's system...the US perhaps, which doesn't work well and is extremely expensive.

I never, never advocated the US medical system, however, it is founded upon more teneble and socially responsible principles than a national health service.

And private health care encourages people to avoid seeing the doctor, regardless of the severity of their ailment, because they can not afford it. Which is more likely to ensure the general good health of your citizens? As well, education programs focussed on teaching people that 'bugs don't need drugs', and community guides on when to access healthcare, and when to heal up on your own, have done wonders for cutting down unecessary medical visits.

This is the kind of bullshit that I'm talking about. No stats back you up on this one. Welfare abusers are in the minority.

As for life expectancy having risen...that doesn't mean quality of life or ability to work has risen with it. Sixty-five is a good cut-off age. You've worked the majority of your life by then. People deserve a bloody rest.

Sinuhue
Honorary Spam Forum Owner

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Female, Canada
Posts: 14,430,254,001



Female.

Canada.



Certainly as I would expect. :)


-Iakeo

I never, never advocated the US medical system, however, it is founded upon more teneble and socially responsible principles than a national health service.
Which is why it spends more money on health care than anyone else with less actual helping of people. I would say government and fiscal responsibility are more important than social responsibility.

I would say government and fiscal responsibility are more important than social responsibility.

:confused:

Since you appear to not be familiar with the public education system, I will let you in on a little secret: public schools are already run by parents' money. The best schools with the best facilities, best teachers, and best materials are in rich neighborhoods. The schoolboards prioritise the wants of schools with kids of richer parents over the needs of schools with kids of poorer parents.

Like I already said, the problem is not that the government is involved; the problem is that the government throws money at the problem without setting or enforcing any sort of concrete rules.


Not the point I was making. I'm more than familiar with the ways in which public schools work and are funded. I'm not exactly a big fan of the property tax by district system that is in use in most of this country, both because I don't like the idea of my property being held hostage to finance someone else's child's education and because funding by property tax by district only entrenches the rich/poor devide.

That said, even schools in fairly affluent areas have a tendancy to fail. I grew up in Chicago, and there is a reason that there are nearly as many Catholic schools as public schools in this city. I attended a selective-entry public high-school with about 1600 total students. We had two full-time engineers and four full-time janitors, each paid a teacher's salary. We had eight full-time gym teachers, one of whom continued to teach after he had an affair with an underage student. Thats nearly as many gym teachers as math and science teachers combined for a school that was billed as a "Math and Science Academy." We had five full-time secretaries, six full-time hall monitors for four single hall floors. We had a four man full-time security staff for a school with very little crime or violence. At any given time we had a Dean of Students and at least two Vice Principals each drawing a six figure salary. Does any of that seem like a waste of resources to you?

Each of those unecessary expenditures was because of some uniform policy over at the CPS headquarters. So you spent two years getting straight A's in AP level classes? Doesn't matter, you can't graduate if you don't have four years of gym class (two years now, though that was a fight with the teacher's union because gym teachers would be let go). Have no interest in being an architect? Too bad, drafting is a required class, can't graduate without it. Small school? The board says you have to have a minimum of one engineer and two janitors per floor.

If all that money collected for education went into one central fund and parents were allowed to take a uniform amount out (regardless of their property value) to spend on whatever school they wanted, do you really think many schools would keep eight gym teachers on staff? Do you think you'd have more secretaries than history teachers? Do you think that schools just "wouldn't be able to find the money" to keep halls painted unless the goddamn Prime Minister of England was visiting and then you only paint the first floor and half way up the staircases....ok...rant...sorry about that one.

I'm skeptical of voucher schools. Milwaukee started a voucher program in 1990. The results have been mixed at best. Check the results here http://www.jsonline.com/news/choice/

On social security I'm not sure what is the best way to improve it. Moving the age where a person is eligible to receive benefits should be moved from 65yrs to 70yrs or 75yrs. That is only a bit of breathing room though.

And private health care encourages people to avoid seeing the doctor, regardless of the severity of their ailment, because they can not afford it. Which is more likely to ensure the general good health of your citizens? As well, education programs focussed on teaching people that 'bugs don't need drugs', and community guides on when to access healthcare, and when to heal up on your own, have done wonders for cutting down unecessary medical visits.

This is the kind of bullshit that I'm talking about. No stats back you up on this one. Welfare abusers are in the minority.

As for life expectancy having risen...that doesn't mean quality of life or ability to work has risen with it. Sixty-five is a good cut-off age. You've worked the majority of your life by then. People deserve a bloody rest.
Thankfully, I'm not advocating purely private health care as a solution, but rather a two-tier system, so your point is irrelevant.

Allow me to rephrase: a significant chunk of those on welfare are abusing it. Possibly not a majority, but enough people that it is a concern. And I would point out that you haven't presented statistics for any of the claims you have made in this topic, so this is something of a pot calling the kettle black moment.

I think it's safe to say that quality of life after 65 has risen since 1935... personally, I'd rather be alive than dead ;) I don't think people do deserve a rest for free at 65. If a 65-year-old has saved up for it, great, but I don't see why working people should provide for anyone able-bodied. If they are not able-bodied, then they can go on welfare/disability anyway.

let me put this as simply as i can:

keeping people from starving, freezen, and beating each other over the head, along with providing for the existence of, if not providing directly themselves, the tangible infrasturctures everyone's comfort zones depend upon, is the ONLY legitimate justification for the existence of ANY government in ANY form.

period

=^^=
.../\...

I don't think people do deserve a rest for free at 65. If a 65-year-old has saved up for it, great, but I don't see why working people should provide for anyone able-bodied. If they are not able-bodied, then they can go on welfare/disability anyway.
These lazy 65 year olds have been providing for society and the state all their working lifes, more than 40 years - we owe them.

I love how you imagine it's possible for people living on the margins to always afford - as well as the cost of living, a roof over their heads, their families, and god help them if their kids want to go to college - to earn enough to set aside money to pay for when their working lives are over.

edit: on reflection, I do think it's possible to raise the age of retirement to reflect our better health... but you have to be careful. Take the UK - life and health expectancies vary geographically and economically, the poor having a much lower life expectancy, for example (as low as 58 in parts of Glasgow!) than the better off. Given that health varies so much as people approach 60, raising the bar further is... troublesome.

Trans-human']I'm skeptical of voucher schools. Milwaukee started a voucher program in 1990. The results have been mixed at best. Check the results here http://www.jsonline.com/news/choice/.

Yeah, but even so, it was an improvement over what existed before. Anything would be an improvement over the current situation of inner-city schools...all they do is throw money at them and it doesn't do a thing.

Not the point I was making. I'm more than familiar with the ways in which public schools work and are funded. I'm not exactly a big fan of the property tax by district system that is in use in most of this country, both because I don't like the idea of my property being held hostage to finance someone else's child's education and because funding by property tax by district only entrenches the rich/poor devide.

The best part was when my father was sending my brother to private school because of the terrible school system in Ontario and he still had to pay for public school out of his property tax (he got a discount, but I say he shouldn't have had to pay a single cent if he was already paying about as much for his kid's primary education as my university education costs).

That said, even schools in fairly affluent areas have a tendancy to fail. I grew up in Chicago, and there is a reason that there are nearly as many Catholic schools as public schools in this city. I attended a selective-entry public high-school with about 1600 total students. We had two full-time engineers and four full-time janitors, each paid a teacher's salary. We had eight full-time gym teachers, one of whom continued to teach after he had an affair with an underage student. Thats nearly as many gym teachers as math and science teachers combined for a school that was billed as a "Math and Science Academy." We had five full-time secretaries, six full-time hall monitors for four single hall floors. We had a four man full-time security staff for a school with very little crime or violence. At any given time we had a Dean of Students and at least two Vice Principals each drawing a six figure salary. Does any of that seem like a waste of resources to you?

Up here in Canada, we have similar problems. Teacher's unions are militant. The teachers in BC, for instance, recently went on an illegal strike despite their average salary being $60,000 for ten month's work. The North American pure-government system sucks in general. It needs to be completely eradicated... too bad the unions are so damn powerful.

Elgesh']These lazy 65 year olds have been providing for society and the state all their working lifes, more than 40 years - we owe them.

Nope, I don't owe them jack shit, sorry. I think at 75, sure, then maybe, since that is pretty old by today's standards.

Elgesh']I love how you imagine it's possible for people living on the margins to always afford - as well as the cost of living, a roof over their heads, their families, and god help them if their kids want to go to college - to earn enough to set aside money to pay for when their working lives are over.

I'm not assuming that it's possible for everyone to save up for retirement. I'm saying that if you can't provide for yourself comfortably without working, you keep working until you are no longer physically able to or you are of old age by the standards of today's society, not the society of the early 20th century.

Elgesh']edit: on reflection, I do think it's possible to raise the age of retirement to reflect our better health... but you have to be careful. Take the UK - life and health expectancies vary geographically and economically, the poor having a much lower life expectancy, for example (as low as 58 in parts of Glasgow!) than the better off. Given that health varies so much as people approach 60, raising the bar further is... troublesome.

Tackling social inequality is an entirely different issue. I'm just going by the average life expectancy in the US.

Yes, and they should be optional or, especially schools, should be more open-minded to change and high-schools should be more student-run. For example, students should elect a principal in a similar fashion to the president. There would be restrictions, such as the principal candidates must be a teacher at the school for say 5 or 10 years at least.

The 3 major government sponsor programs:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare & Medicaid
3) Public School

They all sound good, but the government seems to have problems funding those programs. Social Security is on the verge of going bankrupt. Medicare is unable to provide for millions of people who needs medicine. Public school in US is not that great compare to other countries. Do you think the private or the corporate sector run these programs instead of the government?

No. When the private sector took over the running of prisons in certain american states, the prisons placed profit above humanity, buying sub-standard food, depriving prisoners of basic rights, etc. Private corporations cannot be counted on to "do the right thing."

EDIT: As I constantly stress, the best way to ensure that social services have proper funding is to cut military spending, moving towards dissolving the army. World military spending excedes 3 billion dollars a day, which is enough money to provide many social services.

The only reason Social Security is becoming bankrupt is because our (13-20) generation is withdrawing, but refusing to pay. They don't want to do their part, get off their lazy ass and start workin and start putting into Social Security which is gonna be pretty bad when you get to become old because the Social security will be dried up with nothing for you. Social Welfare and Medicare are becoming dried up for the same reason, no body puts back into it, but continually leeches from it.

Private companies have a profit motive. The governments only motive for action is the benefit of the people. Therefore, the people should put their trust in the government

No. When the private sector took over the running of prisons in certain american states, the prisons placed profit above humanity, buying sub-standard food, depriving prisoners of basic rights, etc. Private corporations cannot be counted on to "do the right thing."

What, do you think prisoners deserve gormet meals and a victorian style prison cell to live in, hell no. They are lucky they get "sub standard" food "are being "deprived" of their rights, they are prisoners for a reason, not homeless living in a half-way home.

What, do you think prisoners deserve gormet meals and a victorian style prison cell to live in, hell no. They are lucky they get "sub standard" food "are being "deprived" of their rights, they are prisoners for a reason, not homeless living in a half-way home.
mmmm, compassionate conservatism

What, do you think prisoners deserve gormet meals and a victorian style prison cell to live in, hell no. They are lucky they get "sub standard" food "are being "deprived" of their rights, they are prisoners for a reason, not homeless living in a half-way home.

I'm an advocate not just for human rights, but for rehabilitation. Clearly, treating prisoners as scum is NOT an effective deterrent. Prisoners fall into three categories: those who were wrongly convicted, those who made horrific mistakes because of major problems within their lives (ie: poverty, poor education), and those living with severe personality/mental disorders. The first group deserve freedom, the second require education and counselling to put them back on track, and the third need to be permanently removed from society and cared for in a secure hospital-like facility.

The only reason Social Security is becoming bankrupt is because our (13-20) generation is withdrawing, but refusing to pay. They don't want to do their part, get off their lazy ass and start workin and start putting into Social Security which is gonna be pretty bad when you get to become old because the Social security will be dried up with nothing for you. Social Welfare and Medicare are becoming dried up for the same reason, no body puts back into it, but continually leeches from it.


Umm...what? You can't draw from Social Security until the age of 62(at the earliest and with decreased benefit levels). Further, you can't really "refuse to pay." Unless you're self-employed or in one of a tiny handful of special professions your job takes SS/Medicare/Medicaid funds directly out of your paycheck at the same time it takes income taxes out. You never even see the money. You really have to jump through some major hoops to work and not pay into Social Security, and if you do you are forbidden from drawing upon it.

The reason Social Security is becoming bankrupt is because rising life expectancies and an increasing number of individuals old enough to draw benefits are straining the resources of a system that has been routinely looted by democrats and republicans alike to pay for pork projects. Those three factors mean that it is only a matter of time before the system folds. You have to understand that were looking at a situation in just a decade or so where the number of people drawing from the system will equal roughly one quarter the number of people paying in. You can raise the retirement age and cut benefits all you want, but eventually sheer numbers are going to break the system.

It doesn't help that social security is based on a lie for almost everyone under the age of 35. For my parents generation, paying into the system meant that you were investing in your future, it wasn't a tax, it was financial planning, it was funding your safety net. For my generation, it is a tax. I'll never see a social security check. I get to see money come out of my paycheck to pay for insuring a system that won't be insured for me. That means I have to save more and invest more than my parents, because on top of the gobs of money I throw into the hole that is social security I also have to throw gobs of money to insure my own retirement. When more young people start realizing that, thats when you're going to see people refusing to pay, thats when you're going to see the young and the old squaring off politically.

No. When the private sector took over the running of prisons in certain american states, the prisons placed profit above humanity, buying sub-standard food, depriving prisoners of basic rights, etc. Private corporations cannot be counted on to "do the right thing."

EDIT: As I constantly stress, the best way to ensure that social services have proper funding is to cut military spending, moving towards dissolving the army. World military spending excedes 3 billion dollars a day, which is enough money to provide many social services.

Prisoners do not deserve humane treatment, frankly ther majority of them deserve to be either conscripted, or utilised as a workforce, in the case of long term inmates, since, having transgressed against society, they ought to be due no benevolence from it.

I'm an advocate not just for human rights, but for rehabilitation. Clearly, treating prisoners as scum is NOT an effective deterrent. Prisoners fall into three categories: those who were wrongly convicted, those who made horrific mistakes because of major problems within their lives (ie: poverty, poor education), and those living with severe personality/mental disorders. The first group deserve freedom, the second require education and counselling to put them back on track, and the third need to be permanently removed from society and cared for in a secure hospital-like facility.
I think you're wrong. Criminals aren't sentenced to 5-10 years of rehabilitation, they are sentenced to 5-10 years of incarceration, meaning it's not supposed to be pleasant. So long as the government legislated a few basic rules about how prisoners should be treated, like prisoners must be served balanced meals (which is more than innocent schoolchildren are given already), I don't see the problem with privatized prisons.

You can raise the retirement age and cut benefits all you want, but eventually sheer numbers are going to break the system.

Uh, how are sheer numbers going to break the system if the numbers are decreased by raising the retirement age? I say force the age for benefits to be the average life expectancy minus a few years, so you don't have people leeching off social security for fifteen years or so before they die. That reduces stress on the system and stays true to the purpose of social security.

I'm an advocate not just for human rights, but for rehabilitation. Clearly, treating prisoners as scum is NOT an effective deterrent. Prisoners fall into three categories: those who were wrongly convicted, those who made horrific mistakes because of major problems within their lives (ie: poverty, poor education), and those living with severe personality/mental disorders. The first group deserve freedom, the second require education and counselling to put them back on track, and the third need to be permanently removed from society and cared for in a secure hospital-like facility.


Way to absolve individuals of anything vaguely resembling personal responsibility. This everyone is a victim game doesn't really work in the real world. Do you know any convicted felons? I do. A good friend of mine who was 20 or so at the time was working at a jewelry store. He was earning a decent wage, he had a good education, he came from an average family. He decided he wanted a new amp and speaker cabinet but he didn't have the money and he wanted something top-of-the-line so saving would have taken a long time. So, to fund his purchase, he started stealing from his job. Little things, bracelets and chains mostly. All told he took his job for around $12,000. He got caught, was convicted, and was punished. Now which category does he fall into? He wasn't wrongly convicted. He made a mistake, but it wasn't because of some major external factor in his life, he was just young, greedy, and stupid. He didn't need couseling or specialized education, he learned his lesson by spending a short period in jail and paying back the value of what he stole, with interest. That leaves mental illness, which is clearly not the case.

In the real world, there are more than three categories. Sure, the ones you mentioned are allo represented, but they are minor groups. The biggest category are people like my friend, people who were stupid or greedy who made a mistake and learn better because they are punished. There are also genuinely bad people. I know, it is tempting to find some mental health reason that a person would rape or kill for profit, but the fact of the matter is there really is such a thing as a bad person. There really are people who just don't care about others, who are willing to put their desires above the needs or rights of others. I'd think that someone who is so quick to condemn corporations for being corrupt would recognize that fact.