U.S. Government Shutdowns

[Tarvos]

And simply tax rich people more. Makes it easier for everyone.

 

[Butterfree]

My family is quite well-off and I think it is completely fair that we pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than those less well off.

Whining that it's unfair to those who are rich and did a lot of hard work is silly, even ignoring the classist assumption that the rich are just rich because they work harder. Their hard work is still netting them more total money than if they did less hard work. Obviously it would be silly if taxes became so high that you actually just lose money overall once you pass a certain threshold (because then nobody would have any incentive to try to earn that much money in the first place), but nobody's talking about that. Why exactly do you find it vitally important that the rich can use every cent that they earn beyond the rest of the population for themselves, instead of earning slightly less beyond the rest of the population and putting more money into the welfare system? I can't even begin to imagine why you'd think so and I'm one of these people. It's fair and natural that more is collected from those who have more to spare.

Verne tackled why yes, you should care about the poor having access to contraception, so I won't go into that.

Incidentally, I have absolutely no love for Glenn Beck, but "Glenn Beck was canceled so what he says about taxes is wrong" and "Glenn Beck is a misogynist and a racist so what he says about taxes is wrong" are ridiculously textbook examples of the ad hominem fallacy. So is "You don't yet pay taxes, so therefore your opinion on what you would hypothetically want your taxes spent on is invalid." And cringeworthy as Pwnemon's classist comments are, unfortunately "this is hurtful and therefore your point is invalid" is also fallacious. Please argue against his actual points.

 

[Tarvos]

My family is quite well-off and I think it is completely fair that we pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than those less well off.

This.

 

[Music Dragon]

This isn't really about what works and what doesn't; the problem is with the attitude of the American people. I mean, just take a look at Europe and you'll see there's nothing wrong with secularism, welfare and making it illegal to walk around with guns.

 

[Aobaru]

But super fundamentalist states will still exist, and that will just make the education there worse. We'll end up with states that outlaw teaching evolution in schools and such, seeing how that almost happened multiple times in the past...

But you've yet to prove why (1) a federal department is needed to meddle in state affairs or (2) why it needs funding of $70 billion a year. These are state issues than can be resolved internally. Even if it were to stay, why does it need so much fucking money?

...I think I might actually support the South seceding. It would make the rest of America a better place.

But then I'll be stuck here...

This isn't really about what works and what doesn't; the problem is with the attitude of the American people. I mean, just take a look at Europe and you'll see there's nothing wrong with secularism, welfare and making it illegal to walk around with guns.

America is a fairly secular society, at least in the public sphere, though of course not on par with modern Europe. (Though don't a lot of European countries have state religions?) America has had welfare since the '30s. As for guns, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Hrr hmm, it appears I misunderstood the concept of the flat tax. Turns out it is a progressive tax: it's a flat tax rate, not flat tax amount. For example:

$1,000,000 yearly revenue * 10% = $100,000 in taxes annually
$60,000 yearly revenue * 10% = $6,000 in taxes annually

It's still a good idea, though:

"The flat tax isn't designed to help the wealthy, it's designed to make it easier for the rest of us to be better off. Some investors and entrepreneurs will pay lower tax rates, to be sure, but a lot of rich taxpayers will pay more since they'll lose access to all the loopholes and tax shelters. And let's be clear about one thing: the IRS data unambiguously show that the vast majority of tax deductions go to the wealthy. A flat tax, by contrast, treats everyone equally. If Bill Gates makes 100,000 times more money than I do, he should pay 100,000 times more in taxes."

 

[Adriane]

[The northeastern US and west coast are] fairly secular, at least in the public sphere, though of course not on par with modern Europe.

Fixed!

(Though don't a lot of European countries have state religions?) America has had welfare since the '30s. As for guns, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Nothing is taken nearly as seriously to the degree that it is in the Bible Belt.

It's still a good idea, though

Well, yes. If you have more money, you should pay more overall taxes. I mean, you have more money. And even after taxes you'll still have more money.

But you've yet to prove why (1) a federal department is needed to meddle in state affairs or (2) why it needs funding of $70 billion a year. These are state issues than can be resolved internally. Even if it were to stay, why does it need so much fucking money?

'meddle'? The problem is that they aren't resolved internally. Look at Texas re: texbooks last year. Clearly the state education program would be in shambles if the board had its way entirely. Also, the US is waaaay bigger than most other countries. Things cost money. A lot of money. 50 states is a lot for one central government to handle, though. Particularly because the south refuses to progress with the rest of the nation.

 

[goldenquagsire]

(Though don't a lot of European countries have state religions?)

We Britishers like to have a go at the US for mixing religion and politics, but the sad truth is that we're far worse off than you guys. There's 26 unelected Church of England tosspots sitting in the House of Lords right now with no claim to represent the people of the UK (in England, about 1.1 million people regularly attend CoE church services out of a total population of about 51 million; furthermore, the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh don't have any representative bishops). They can and have meddled with legislation against the will of the general population, such as the 2006 pro-euthanasia bill.

 

[Ether's Bane]

This is just so irritating, you don't even know.
Seriously, it happens in every debate. Someone who's not very recognisable comes along, says something a little off, and someone always always responds with something along the lines of either 'everybody disagrees with you, therefore you're wrong' or 'lurk moar jackass'.
You did both.
Kudos.

Fake Edit: You did it twice in the same thread. Well done.

Sorry. I got carried away in the moment.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

But you've yet to prove why (1) a federal department is needed to meddle in state affairs or (2) why it needs funding of $70 billion a year. These are state issues than can be resolved internally. Even if it were to stay, why does it need so much fucking money?

1) Because not all states are created equal. Given the chance, a lot of the Southern states will find ways to dance around the Constitution and segregate people/do other crappy stuff. The government is needed to create a minimum education standard that the states need to follow, else some states will ending up teaching their high-schoolers what other people learn in first grade*

As I've said before, the government needs to intervene in state affairs because I really don't want the super conservative states left to teach their children whatever crap the states wanted.

*It's not like that isn't a problem now, even across school districts, but at least the government is trying to do something about it.

2) I'm not saying that it can't be cut. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be on the top of the priority list of cutting. Since I have no idea what goes on in the government, I can't say why they need to spend $70 billion a year. What I can say though is that the US is a humongous country with 50 states and a ridiculously large number of people when compared to Eurpoean countries, so $70 billion definitely isn't as much as you think.

I think most of that $70 billion is being spent on the No Child Left Behind law, which is probably one of the stupidest laws out there. Then there's also government-funded student loans, which is much needed in the current economy, and funding for states that have trouble funding themselves.

Though don't a lot of European countries have state religions?

They have state religions; they just don't believe in them.

Take, for example, Norway. It has a state church, but it's also one of the countries with the highest percentage of atheists.

"The flat tax isn't designed to help the wealthy, it's designed to make it easier for the rest of us to be better off. Some investors and entrepreneurs will pay lower tax rates, to be sure, but a lot of rich taxpayers will pay more since they'll lose access to all the loopholes and tax shelters. And let's be clear about one thing: the IRS data unambiguously show that the vast majority of tax deductions go to the wealthy. A flat tax, by contrast, treats everyone equally. If Bill Gates makes 100,000 times more money than I do, he should pay 100,000 times more in taxes."

Hrrr hum, yes, this flat tax works a lot better than what you thought was the flat tax.

I would just like to point out that what most people's arguing here is that the poor people should be getting the tax reductions, not the rich.

 

[Aobaru]

As I've said before, the government needs to intervene in state affairs because I really don't want the super conservative states left to teach their children whatever crap the states wanted.

The problem is that, since the Department was created, the quality of public schooling has decreased dramatically, and the cost has shot up the roof. In addition, schooling in D.C. is one of the worst and most expensive in the nation: $13,000 per student!

When pointing out a few examples of states radically changing their curriculum, you imply that a federal department is the only solution; however, you neglect to include the democratic process already mentioned, along with Court action. See Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. You also neglect alternative schooling, such as private and home schooling. Unfortunately, I know from experience that those seeking to indoctrinate their children with religious ideals often opt for private school or home schooling. But on the other side of the coin, private and home schools perform a hell of a lot better than public schools.

 

[Tarvos]

The Netherlands is pretty much secular. I think irreligious people are the majority with religious attendance declining every year. And our religious parties are pretty much made fun of by anyone who isn't in the hardcore protestant fundie sphere

 

[Crazy Linoone]

The problem is that, since the Department was created, the quality of public schooling has decreased dramatically, and the cost has shot up the roof. In addition, schooling in D.C. is one of the worst and most expensive in the nation: $13,000 per student!

Okay, let's see if I can rephrase myself we stop the misunderstanding. I am not saying that our Department of Education is flawless. In fact, I agree that it has been doing some things that are just really bad ideas (No Child Left Behind, for example). What I am saying is that the Department of Education should be kept around because it's needed.

When pointing out a few examples of states radically changing their curriculum, you imply that a federal department is the only solution; however, you neglect to include the democratic process already mentioned,

...Yes I did. I probably just didn't phrase it clearly enough (it's an reoccurring fault I seem to have), so apologies if it is the case.

Let's see if we can agree on my line of logic:
1) We generally do not want people to be extremely fundamentalist and conservative because they tend believe in somewhat outdated and horrible ideas such as white supremacy and that homosexuality is a sin.
2) There are a lot -- a majority -- of extremely fundamentalist and conservative people in many of the Southern states.
3) By democratic process, these people will elect similarly fundamentalist and conservative people into their state's Education Board and other positions of power.
4) These fundamentalist and conservative people will create an educational system based on fundamentalist and non-liberal ideas.
5) The children growing up under these fundamentalist and conservative influences will be similarly conservative

along with Court action. See Epperson v. Arkansas, Edwards v. Aguillard, and Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Yes, we can always sue, but not everyone has the money to go to court. Court cases are expensive, and so are good lawyers. What's more is that the people can only sue if the Education Board is teaching something unconstitutional. It might stop creationism, but it doesn't stop the states from removing Thomas Jefferson from textbooks and teaching their children that the Civil War was fought over "States' Rights" instead of slavery.

You also neglect alternative schooling, such as private and home schooling. Unfortunately, I know from experience that those seeking to indoctrinate their children with religious ideals often opt for private school or home schooling. But on the other side of the coin, private and home schools perform a hell of a lot better than public schools.

Sorry, I don't quite see your point. Mind explaining it a bit more? From what I know, the government (state or otherwise) doesn't really have much to say about private or home schools, only that there's a baseline standard and the teachers had to take some test or something.

 

[Aobaru]

What I am saying is that the Department of Education should be kept around because it's needed.

If the Department were to stay, it would, in my opinion, have to be severely cut.

Let's see if we can agree on my line of logic:
1) We generally do not want people to be extremely fundamentalist and conservative because they tend believe in somewhat outdated and horrible ideas such as white supremacy and that homosexuality is a sin.
2) There are a lot -- a majority -- of extremely fundamentalist and conservative people in many of the Southern states.
3) By democratic process, these people will elect similarly fundamentalist and conservative people into their state's Education Board and other positions of power.
4) These fundamentalist and conservative people will create an educational system based on fundamentalist and non-liberal ideas.
5) The children growing up under these fundamentalist and conservative influences will be similarly conservative

Yes, I agree to that logic. Unfortunately, though, as a state, it's their right to regulate education as they see fit. Those who disagree have every right to protest, sue, move, or choose alternative education for their children.

I'm curious... what exactly does the Department of Education do in cases like you've mentioned? Say, "No, Texas, you can't do that"?

 

[Adriane]

Yes, I agree to that logic. Unfortunately, though, as a state, it's their right to regulate education as they see fit. Those who disagree have every right to protest, sue, move, or choose alternative education for their children.

Well, gee, if moving was that easy or protesting is that effective, why am I still here? States are called states because they are just that -- states. Part of a whole, that is the country. When you have states that can't comply with the federal government, then there are separate issues to address.

 

[Pwnemon]

Well, gee, if moving was that easy or protesting is that effective, why am I still here? States are called states because they are just that -- states. Part of a whole, that is the country. When you have states that can't comply with the federal government, then there are separate issues to address.

When you have a federal government that's addressing issues it has no rights to address, you have states with no need to comply. Or at least no need to refrain from lawsuit.

 

[Tarvos]

Free public education, expensive religious private education.

La problem es solved.

 

[Adriane]

When you have a federal government that's addressing issues it has no rights to address, you have states with no need to comply. Or at least no need to refrain from lawsuit.

And how does the federal government have "no right"? No other developed country has nearly the amount of unrest and disparity between their governments on the state and federal levels. Which leads back to: the United States is entirely too big and can never make the south happy.

 

[Aobaru]

And how does the federal government have "no right"? No other developed country has nearly the amount of unrest and disparity between their governments on the state and federal levels. Which leads back to: the United States is entirely too big and can never make the south happy.

Well, for starters the Constitution says nothing about the federal government regulating education. Which could be solved by amending it; but that hasn't happened.

 

[Adriane]

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. That's because it was written over 200 years ago and things have changed immensely since then. It's not relevant to today and nobody seems to get this. Amendments are like trying to patch up an ancient, raggedy quilt instead of just making a new one.

 

[Aobaru]

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. That's because it was written over 200 years ago and things have changed immensely since then. It's not relevant to today and nobody seems to get this. Amendments are like trying to patch up an ancient, raggedy quilt instead of just making a new one.

The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things because it's a limited document made for a limited government. The Tenth Amendment says that everything not in the document is the states' business, including education. So, in order to legally give the federal government power over education, an amendment would have to be passed.

How is it not relevant to today? Because it doesn't give the federal government authority to meddle in every aspect of local issues? You and I obviously have different views on the role of the federal government.