I think you missed it, but this is what I'm furious about : ) I mean, you're claiming to be catholic and all but even the pope condems every single one of you ... France and Germany will never be made useless, just because they have a high living standard. US has one of the middle, lower of the 'civilized countries', Flanders (in Belgium for those of you who don't know, the Dutch-speaking part) has the highest in the world ...
"George Bush our hero!"
- Thread starter kendall
- Start date
I think you missed it, but this is what I'm furious about : ) I mean, you're claiming to be catholic and all but even the pope condems every single one of you ... France and Germany will never be made useless, just because they have a high living standard. US has one of the middle, lower of the 'civilized countries', Flanders (in Belgium for those of you who don't know, the Dutch-speaking part) has the highest in the world ...
Decado
Kallikanzaroi
What i find strange is that in USA (and a lot of other countries too) you have to pay money to go to the university, that it actually COST anything to get an university-education. That is so sick. it makes it too hard for the lesser fortunate, or people without rich parents, to become what they want to become.
Education should be free in all countries!!!
Education should be free in all countries!!!
Darkshadow
wandering shadow
Well, if they made the universities free, the standard of education would go down. Mostly because of money - to make them free in the US, either the local government, or the state government, or the federal government would have to step in and pay for it. And none of those doles out very much money for education, sadly.
habilis - in your perfect government, where would someone like me, who doesn't really have any family to turn to, go? I'm not talking about welfare, I personally wouldn't do that, but what about unemployment checks? It sounds like you wouldn't want that either.
habilis - in your perfect government, where would someone like me, who doesn't really have any family to turn to, go? I'm not talking about welfare, I personally wouldn't do that, but what about unemployment checks? It sounds like you wouldn't want that either.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
I never said or meant that France and Germany would become useless. What I was talking about is that the U.N. was created with one of the main purposes being to stop tyranny and genocide on the Hitler-scale from ever happening again, as in it was meant to UNITE NATIONS againt this kind of tyranny. The UN is morally bankrupt. It needs to be gutted and rebuilt and renamed the Global Actions Front. The UN did nothing of consequence to prevent the oppression and genocide commited by the former Saddam regime.
And as for me being Catholic?? I don't know how you concocted that but it can't be any farther from the truth.
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
In my idea of good government, there still exists welfare, but it has been privatized, and that's the key. A privatized version of the red cross or salvation army is a good example. A great many people still will want to help people without families. Even I would give to this cause.
That's exactly where I prefer the unemployment system here in Switzerland. I don't want "giving" people to give money to the unemployed. I want a system where everybody gives a percentage of the money he makes. What you're suggesting is just opening doors to crime and class systems at the same time.
binaryDigit
Registered
I vehemently disagree. My wifes dad worked three jobs (I know and he had to walk 20 miles through the snow up hill in the dark yadda) to put his 5 kids through school (3 Harvard, 1 Berkeley, 1 USC). And I'm not talking 3 posts on the boards of companies, I'm talking 2nd generation Mexican American auto mechanic. Did the kids and parent accumilate a lot of debt to achieve this, hell yes, would he/they do it all again, in an instant. Their family is a testament to what CAN happen given some determination, some decent morals, and a system that may not be perfect, but DOES allow those who are "not rich" to achieve whatever it is that they want.
There is no denying that those who don't have the money probably have a tougher row to hoe, but hey, that's life. EVERYBODY gets a publicly funded education up until 12th grade, but that hardly ensures a good quality education. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that having the availability of a free college level education would create a population that is any smarter than it is now. I don't know, and have NEVER known a single person who said "I'd love to get a college degree, but I can't afford it". Now let me clarify that last statement. There the "afford" it means the simple cost of tuition/books/etc. I DO know some people that because of their situation can't afford to survive AND go to school (even if it were free). Single moms are an excellent example. Even if school was free, they'd still have to find a way to earn money to live and for child care while they went to school and work. With the multitudes of grants, scholarships and institutions falling all over themselves to loan you money, the case where someone has a valid reason for not attending college is rare indeed. (Supporting individuals like the single mom example heads off into a completely different topic, which I guess this thread has already
)
Ugg
Registered
Habilis, your view of the world ain't gonna happen. Education for the last century in almost all of the world has been the purview of government. Private education always leads to elitism or systems that teach little more than religious drivel. When public education has been put into the hands of private enterprise here in the US the results have been less than promising. Once again, in my belief, the control of education needs to be in the hands of localities, not the federal government.
The same with unemployment and welfare. In the wake of Enron, Global Crossing etc, etc, it has been proven without a doubt that had our retirement plans been controlled by ourselves and our employers, half of all current retirees would have seen themselves begging on the street corners.
America also has no interest in becoming a family-based society, we like our transient lives way too much to put faith in our family. binarydigit brings up a good point in that traditionally it is only the recent emigres who work their fingers to the bone to achieve greatness. It always has been, it always will be.
If we were to put our faith in the family as the center of social welfare, we would soon find the US to resemble southern Italy, Turkey, Egypt etc, where graft is a way of life and a common theme is that if you don't steal from the government then you've stolen from your family.
The post-WWII era in the US was when free or inexpensive tertiary education, Social Security for the elderly, and a host of other programs lifted the majority of this country out of ignorance and poverty.
Europe has proven that it can provide high-quality education and welfare without breaking the bank or creating a world of welfare dependents. They have it a little easier in that most are fairly homogenous societies where most people share a common history and value system.
The US due to its incredible mix of people, cultures, etc, will never find it as easy to administer a welfare state as successful as those inEurope. But through that diversity, rather than bringing people closer as it has in Canada, we've allowed ourselves to view the poor and disadvantaged as enemies of the state.
More money is not the answer, more compassion is.
The same with unemployment and welfare. In the wake of Enron, Global Crossing etc, etc, it has been proven without a doubt that had our retirement plans been controlled by ourselves and our employers, half of all current retirees would have seen themselves begging on the street corners.
America also has no interest in becoming a family-based society, we like our transient lives way too much to put faith in our family. binarydigit brings up a good point in that traditionally it is only the recent emigres who work their fingers to the bone to achieve greatness. It always has been, it always will be.
If we were to put our faith in the family as the center of social welfare, we would soon find the US to resemble southern Italy, Turkey, Egypt etc, where graft is a way of life and a common theme is that if you don't steal from the government then you've stolen from your family.
The post-WWII era in the US was when free or inexpensive tertiary education, Social Security for the elderly, and a host of other programs lifted the majority of this country out of ignorance and poverty.
Europe has proven that it can provide high-quality education and welfare without breaking the bank or creating a world of welfare dependents. They have it a little easier in that most are fairly homogenous societies where most people share a common history and value system.
The US due to its incredible mix of people, cultures, etc, will never find it as easy to administer a welfare state as successful as those inEurope. But through that diversity, rather than bringing people closer as it has in Canada, we've allowed ourselves to view the poor and disadvantaged as enemies of the state.
More money is not the answer, more compassion is.
toast
Gone !
Wrong. France, but also Belgium and Germany are perfect counter-examples of that. The problem goes over Europe/US and federalist/centralist cleavages.
The problem is government budget. I have a question for you, if you find the answer, you'll understand why education is charged in the US and not in most European countries.
The question has 2 parts:
1) What's state budget #1 in France, Italy, Germany, Benelux, Spain, Scandinavian countries, Greece, Canada, and Quebec ?
2) What's state budget #1 in the US, in African dictatures, in Russia, in India and Pakistan, in most South America countries and in Central Asia [Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan] ?
Conclusion
The higher education level is found where the highest percentage of population has access to school, thus Canada and parts of Western Europe, plus Japan.
toast
Gone !
You are asking for progressive taxation, ie. a fixed percentage of your money is given to the state.
The system knows a variant: you give a percentage which increases when your wage increases. For example, you give close to nothing (0%) when you earn under $120/mth, but you give 18% when you earn $750 or more. This system, called progressive system, is in place in France.
That's how taxes in Belgium go ...
If you don't earn much, you don't pay much taxes. If you earn a lot, you pay a lot of taxes (in percentage). For example: As a student I don't pay taxes if I work somewhere for a month or so in the holidays or on weekends, which is logical, I'm a student, I don't pay support, my parents still do that for me. Which isn't all too great because at the computer store I worked I earned more than a regular employee, bruto he earned more, but I don't pay taxes, my bruto = my netto. His netto = his bruto - 15% or sth like that. But now my father as a neurologist / psychiatrist is in the highest circle of taxes, and pays 45-55% of what he earns to the governement. Meaning if he earns 30-40 million a year, 15-20 a year goes to the governement
There's also a difference between employees, employers, people working for the state, students (as I showed), people who work for themselves (like my dad with his own practice). Of course you can also start NVs and BVBAs, so you van start a BVBA, buy it completely and then buy everything as a company (the BVBA) and work for you own BVBA. So you're the owner and the employee, paying less taxes and deducting a lot of your purchases ...
I could go on for hours but I shan't bore you with it
Grtz,
.anerki
If you don't earn much, you don't pay much taxes. If you earn a lot, you pay a lot of taxes (in percentage). For example: As a student I don't pay taxes if I work somewhere for a month or so in the holidays or on weekends, which is logical, I'm a student, I don't pay support, my parents still do that for me. Which isn't all too great because at the computer store I worked I earned more than a regular employee, bruto he earned more, but I don't pay taxes, my bruto = my netto. His netto = his bruto - 15% or sth like that. But now my father as a neurologist / psychiatrist is in the highest circle of taxes, and pays 45-55% of what he earns to the governement. Meaning if he earns 30-40 million a year, 15-20 a year goes to the governement
There's also a difference between employees, employers, people working for the state, students (as I showed), people who work for themselves (like my dad with his own practice). Of course you can also start NVs and BVBAs, so you van start a BVBA, buy it completely and then buy everything as a company (the BVBA) and work for you own BVBA. So you're the owner and the employee, paying less taxes and deducting a lot of your purchases ...
I could go on for hours but I shan't bore you with it
Grtz,
.anerki
habilis
Ministry of Re-Education
Well, you're right, not at this particular moment. In fact I may not live to see the day, but if the Bush plan succeeds in keeping America free of future 9/11's, and there is an economic rebound because of it, and the seeds of democracy take up firm roots in the middle east, then the conditions will become ripe for a major paradigm shift, leading to a golden age in the comming century of societal evolution shaped by conservative philosophy.
People don't seem to understand just how much the world has changed in post-9/11 and in particular, the last 3 weeks. There is a major awakening in this country right now even at the lowest social levels. The success of the Bush plan is creating thousands of new conservatives every day. At this pace, my view of the world is not only possible, it's probable.
Darkshadow
wandering shadow
Um...the US has changed some since 9/11, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the world has changed.
doemel
Mac addict since 1993
In fact I may not live to see the day, but if the Bush plan succeeds in keeping America free of future 9/11's, and there is an economic rebound because of it, and the seeds of democracy take up firm roots in the middle east, then the conditions will become ripe for a major paradigm shift, leading to a golden age in the comming century of societal evolution shaped by conservative philosophy.
Right, and when we're there hell will freeze over . Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last "golden age" of Conservativism back in the 80's (Reagan/Thatcher era)? I really, really hope that's not what you have in mind.
Right, and when we're there hell will freeze over
. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the last "golden age" of Conservativism back in the 80's (Reagan/Thatcher era)? I really, really hope that's not what you have in mind.