Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Fanaddict, Jan 3, 2006.
I'm gonna bet wingtips went to private schools.
Wait, what? Are you saying rent is bad? Weren't you just saying that home ownership is bad?
You confuse me.
Government promotion of homeownership and buying if you can't afford it are bad. Buying in itself is just a choice. Good for many. Not good for others.
Besides if you don't want to pay property taxes, or at least not send the county a check every 3 months, renting is your bag.
I have no idea whether he did or not. However, the one consistant factor shown to be tied to school performance is how much money comes into the district from property taxes.
IF so, everybody should realize he said money coming in, not money spent. DC spends more per student than just about any other place in the country, with just about the worst schools to show for it.
All the above post really means is that the school district has a lot of well off people with expensive property. It has smart, responsible parents who know how to succeed and insist that their childen also succeed.
DC has lots of very expensive property, much of which is owned by corporations or people do not live there full time. How many of the people who live full time in the more expensive DC homes and have childen actually send their children to DC public schools?
You made a huge amount of assumptions about my post, most of them completely unwarranted. And, for the record, having expensive property doesn't make school districts better - its about the willingness of the residents to shell out more of their money for those schools. I lived in a suburb which would pass levies if the superintendent sneezed. The town over, which was a bit wealthier, never did. Guess whose school district was better?
how did you know dave? but fyi, only for k-6.
but back in the hometown, if I remember correctly we had re-assessments every 7 years. and our public schools were top notch...
Please elaborate. How do you do this and what does the society look like? Are there any models?
You say that as if it's a bad thing, dave.
Tax the absolute ******** out of luxury items like cars that get less than 50 mpg (this will force auto makers to improve fuel economy), cigarettes, liquor, yachts, etc. Remove al taxes form real food items such as fresh fruits and vegetables, meat etc. Tax convenience foods and things with no nutrional value like soad, sugar, candy etc.
Tax corporations for exporting jobs, creating pollution etc etc.
Tax private property, but lower the rates for people who only own one home--tax every subsequent land purchase etc.
State or federal tax? What should be done with the extra revenue?
Thta's ok but what if you're on social security of $1,500 property tax of $5,000 a year and rents running as much as your social security and no money left for food. Oh I know If they can't afford bread "let them eat cake".
As far as I know, every state has provisions for such situations. That is good law.
Besides, cake is cheaper nowadays
I went to a private school for K-3. Then I transferred to the public school because the private one couldn't meet my educational needs (gifted). Somewhat ironically, the school thought I had a learning disability which is what prompted the testing - and my mother teaches LD and MH kids in a neighboring public district and thought the school was nuts.
My brother attended Catholic school from K thru 12.
My parents are liberal Catholics who strongly support public schooling. My pops and I both bitched about the high property taxes in their new suburb (the one my mother teaches in and I used to live in). Ironically, the reason the property tax is so high is that there is no income tax in that city.
No I didn't.
Sell their house and move into a smaller one, perhaps?
What kind of person earned enough jack while working to own a place with $1500 in property tax, but only gets $417 in SS, anyway? Your numbers don't cohere.
How do you do what? Produce a society that does not distill everyone down to a conception of humanity that is premised with "wo(man)=economic being"?
Take a look at the society we were becoming before about 1973, and compare it with what kind of society we were in 1953, 1933, 1903, 1883, 1863, 1845, 1827, 1800, 1789, 1787 and 1776. That's a solid model for being on a path, for variety of reasons, toward becoming a society that valued the whole human, and promoted the complete citizen, and didn't reduce humanity to solely economics, humans to solely consumers. An continued development of the nation in the recognition of how the universe clearly works brings with it an evolution of how we treat everything with which we are in relationship, including land. Where the endpoint is on where that process leads, I don't know (just like noone really knows whee doing what we do now will ned up, only what's happening along the way to most people and the most vulnerable, for me, the only ethical calculus of any way of being in the world), but I like to think that some things would be radically different in ways that reached out to most people most of the time, and the most vulnerable all of the time.
I'm out of my mind, I know...
State and federal. Extra revenue should be used to fund things like education and Universal health care.
Who sees themselves as a consumer alone? I don't understand what you are talking about. Right now we live in a period of history where people have never been more educated and have neve had more disposable resourses as they do now, true. But people are still spiritual, they love their families, they help out their fellow man, etc.
You just don't see it.
Please don't judge America on what you see on TV and read in the papers. That's not real America. Those sources, as you have pointed out in the past are just advertising vehicles with some news attached at the end. Americans are already the people you want them to become, except for their lack of political involvment.
I'd say that down inside, we're already there and practice it every day.
But two more points. How were non-white people or non protestant people treated in this nation before 1973. To say that was a society that valued the whole human, and promoted the complete citizen is simply a falacy and in fact we have progressed the worth of the individual by leaps and bounds since 1973.
Second. Don't you think of the exponential growth of a central government in this nation one of the root causes of our lack of human togetherness? Wouldn't one of the solutions be to break down the central power and return authority to smaller, more responsible community organizations?
You trust George Bush with your healthcare?
The one thing about old people is, they vote.
If Bush's Medicare plan sucks, and they turn out, 2006 will turn out to be a terrible year for Republicans.
If the plan works, the oldsters will dull any forward movement Dems are getting on Abramoff, Iraq, Plame, etc.
We're gonna find out just how good of an idea it is to trust Bush with your healthcare.
I absolutely disagree; well, it depends on what you call education. We are far more deteached from a knowledge of nature than ever before, far more ignorant of civic society than ever before (and all the civic organizations' member rolls are down), far more unaware of the actual actors and systemic players in our lives than ever before, and far more occupied with illusion and image than ever before.
This is all debatable, imv.
You just don't see it.
It would be, were that what I said; what I said was that we were on a clearly progressive path up until 1973, one that, again, met the criteria of making the resources of the nation work for most of the people most of the time, and in ways that looked after the most vulnerable; that that process is bound up with people being in the streets for al lthe rights we have today, and I've listed them for you in various threads so I won't list them again...after that time, we began to seemingly buy into the myth of independence as part and parcel fo the American Dream...the haves were somehow effectively able to sell the illusion to all the have-nots who could never be haves...that they might. The "opportunity" to get away fro mthe great unwashed masses and get thyself behind a gated community like the owners and elites was a dream we bought into, and as a result produced institutions, systems and ways of being in the world that reflected that myth, that dream, so-called because you'd have to be asleep to believe it. "Labor," as much for its own corruption as for its necessary re-casting by ownership, became a four-letter word in this country, and we became a nation that celebrated low prices at Wal-Mart (masters of the short-term) while beign wholly ignorant to how Wal-Mart's foreign alliances destroy communities right here (long-term ignorance), and that way of being in the world continues to reflected in nearly everything...the gov. and mayor of NYC calling on NYC's citizens NOT as citizens, or fellow humans, after 9/11, but only as consumers..."Get out there and buy, or the terrorists win!"...the existence of boner pills and hair-growing pills while ravaging diseases cannot get the funding they need...WMD...
we're a very weird culture...in that we tell ourselvves mths and lies that we have to believe to maintain ourselves, instead of finding a motivation that comes from really looking at our problems and having real dialogues about them in ways that relfect the above, asserted morality. But of course if your ethics, your system of moral implementation, is bereft of that institutionally, you miss all that.
And then, "spiritually," claim Christ; please, don't talk to me about work being done that I just don't hear about. That Bill Cosby argument is hollow and so shallow.
We - all of us - give this nation $1.6 trillion every 365 days to manifest America. Either we are responsible for what kind of nation is created with that energy, or wee are not; either words and actions have meaning or they don't.
We choose, everyday, to make a certain kind of nation; across the board, those choices are makredly different, and on a different path, than they were in th early 70's. There's no doubt about that.
A perfect example is the civil rights legislation enacted before and after that period; take a look, if you would, at the legislation enacted in 1964-65, and the, for example, ADA egislation. Take a look at the content, and at the exceptionality that cuts through the latter. It's almost like having no legislation at all.
The Age of Image is upon us; no doubt. it's a time where it's more important to lay claim to being able to LOOK lke you've engaged ADA issues than it is to actually side with those who would benefit from ADA in robust legislation.
You just don't see it.
I think the growth of less representative and responsive government is an issue, at any level. At the federal levle, like I've submitted before, we don't have two parties, we have ONE PARTY; the Financial Unicrats, and the number one priority of the F.U.'s is not to do the right, moral and just thing, but to stay in power.
Good to see you have judged our nation by the images you see, rather than the content of its character.
About as much (or as little) as my insurance company.