Education in this country

dorourke07

tonyb wrote: »

Aren't you spinning it ? I guess it must be impossible to be from Columbus and work on Wall St. ?
Obviously he won because the majority of the people in your state liked his message.
Still, whats the point in this ?

He asked and I answered. I'll break it down for you. A pretty successful politician bombed out of his presidential run. He tried his hand at business. He was not good at it but was a great contact guy. Like I said, he did not bankrupt Lehman or cause the crash. He was a mediorce sales guy. He came back and got back into politics. Watching him campaign he did the usual politican thing. Some days he was the "outsider business man" who was coming back to get involved and figure out what was going on, not at all attached to Columbus. The next day he was the simple guy who never left Columbus but could handle those wallstreet guys. I didn't think he was the best candidate or even best Republican. The majority of voters liked him. It will teach people to vote.

dorourke07

inspiredsports wrote: »

Wow, you figured it out!

P.S.: you will not know this for years, but U.S. equity firms were basically attacked by outside forces in a concerted effort to accomplish exactly what has come to pass, but you can blame Wall Street if that makes you happy.

Not sure what this is but Mel Gibson is with you. What happen was greed. From the guy flipping burgers thinking he should own a mansion and a caddy all the way up to the guy leveraging 100 billion in collaterized debt on a 10% margin. People didn't want to earn money they wanted it for free. It doesn't come free, you need to earn it.

megasat16

A University Curriculum in this country is a joke. It's less or equivalent to what a College Student learn in other developed country.

In one word, we are f'ed! And there is no sight of anything will be done about it.

nooshinjohn

inspiredsports wrote: »

P.S.: you will not know this for years, but U.S. equity firms were basically attacked by outside forces in a concerted effort to accomplish exactly what has come to pass, but you can blame Wall Street if that makes you happy.

The truth is that the United States has been living far above our means for decades, and all we needed was a little push. You are correct in stating that external forces were used to bring about the collapse, such as rumors of financial troubles ar Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Such speculation created a self fufilling prophecy and the world markets ran from them in droves. At the time Bear and Lehman were sitting on about 18 billion in equity, but after the speculators got through with them it was game over. To be sure, there were other factors as well, but when you have enemies like we do, and social media like facebook being used to plan the demise of nations(Egypt, and coming soon to Saudi Arabia), how hard is it to use it to create chaos here as well.

markmarc

dorourke07 wrote: »

Not sure what this is but Mel Gibson is with you. What happen was greed. From the guy flipping burgers thinking he should own a mansion and a caddy all the way up to the guy leveraging 100 billion in collaterized debt on a 10% margin. People didn't want to earn money they wanted it for free. It doesn't come free, you need to earn it.

BINGO!!!!! Not the normal level of greed, but out of control greed. Young financial tigers created money grabbing vehicles that the old guard didn't really grasp. As the money rolled in the old guard stopped asking questions and instead pushed for greater profits. A version of this spanned across so many parts of the country and businesses, the biggest of course was real estate.

inspiredsports

dorourke07 wrote: »

Not sure what this is but Mel Gibson is with you. What happen was greed. From the guy flipping burgers thinking he should own a mansion and a caddy all the way up to the guy leveraging 100 billion in collaterized debt on a 10% margin. People didn't want to earn money they wanted it for free. It doesn't come free, you need to earn it.

Right, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with it :rolleyes:

But wait . . . I thought it was already determined by marcmarc that it was all Kasich.

At any rate, I'm hoping Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Indiana will be the first 4 of all 50 states that solve a portion of their budget issues by stopping the strongarm tactics unions use to hold taxpayers hostage.

jcandy

dorourke07 wrote: »

Not sure what this is but Mel Gibson is with you. What happen was greed. From the guy flipping burgers thinking he should own a mansion and a caddy all the way up to the guy leveraging 100 billion in collaterized debt on a 10% margin. People didn't want to earn money they wanted it for free. It doesn't come free, you need to earn it.

This is essentially accurate.

On a general note, capitalism and the market are supposed to provide the tough love to ensure that individuals and institutions who make bad economic decisions, take the wrong risks, etc, will fail (to use a familiar term) in the long run. The theoretical basis for this lies in the hypothesis that, since wealth is created, capitalism roughly ties the creation of wealth to the income of the innovators, and so the innovative (1) are the long-term economic survivors, (2) graciously allow the non-innovative (workers) to derive incidental benefit from real wealth and job creation.

This is a relatively accurate reflection of what happened farther in the past in the USA (1950-1970), or of what happens today on sub-corporate scales due to the innovation and hard work of small businesspeople. However, on a corporate scale, virtually all industrialized societies are, at the top, examples not of capitalism but of state capitalism, whereby much of the risk that is supposed to be borne by the risk-taking corporations are in fact borne by society. (Short-term) profits, as in the case of the financial industry, are privatized but the risks are socialized. More technically one would say that financial institutions systematically underprice risk because of this social "buffer". Other institutions also (allowed to) underprice risk; for example, the petroleum industry vastly underprices the risk associated with environmental damage because, again, the taxpayer provides the buffer. Note that the zero-order economic prediction for any firm (even a small one) that underprices risk is a crash, and when the the risk is not borne by the taxpayer, the firm collapses. Period. However, large-scale crashes which are buffered by taxpayers are now commonplace, proving that it is really state capitalism that is at work.

inspiredsports

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35 and that was the beginning of the end. The erosion of states rights has also worked to destroy the elegant design of the system. We are at a tipping point right now and the collective bargaining battles being fought are a huge indicator as to which way the pendulum will ultimately swing.

markmarc

inspiredsports wrote: »

But wait . . . I thought it was already determined by marcmarc that it was all Kasich.

Hey Inspired, you obviously have no clue as to my original post about Ohio. I never claimed in any way shape or form that Kasich was the problem. I saw a quote from a poster on another site. Since you live in Ohio, I asked if what was said in the quote was true or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for Frank & Dodd, they were just additional clueless kindling on the future firestorm. The seeds were started when Greenspan convinced Clinton in 1999 that Wall Street could police itself and had a section of the Glass-Steagall Act repealed thus letting Wall Street and depository banks mingle.

inspiredsports

markmarc wrote: »

Hey Inspired, you obviously have no clue as to my original post about Ohio. I never claimed in any way shape or form that Kasich was the problem. I saw a quote from a poster on another site. Since you live in Ohio, I asked if what was said in the quote was true or not. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for Frank & Dodd, they were just additional clueless kindling on the future firestorm. The seeds were started when Greenspan convinced Clinton in 1999 that Wall Street could police itself and had a section of the Glass-Steagall Act repealed thus letting Wall Street and depository banks mingle.

Again, we disagree. I believe Wall Street firms were solvent, in fact flush with cash, when this all went down and I also believe as posted above, " . . . U.S. equity firms were basically attacked by outside forces in a concerted effort to accomplish exactly what has come to pass . . ." A DOD report is currently circulating that sheds light on this catalyst.

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35 and that was the beginning of the end.

I am not sure how this view can be supported. Social Security benefits in the US are quite modest even though they are crucial for the poorer/disabled citizens. It is an embarrassment, IMO, that the US has among the least generous public pension systems in the developed world.

According to Chomsky (2005):

The Bush administration wants to "reform" Social Security ? meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a "fiscal crisis" that doesn?t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

jcandy

markmarc wrote: »

The seeds were started when Greenspan convinced Clinton in 1999 that Wall Street could police itself and had a section of the Glass-Steagall Act repealed thus letting Wall Street and depository banks mingle.

I believe the wheels were set in motion with the dismantling of Bretton Woods restrictions on finance in 1971 (the Nixon shock). But yes, the lack of protection of exactly the type supplied by Glass-Steagall made possible the extreme financial risk-taking we saw in 2008 (and still see, UNBELIEVABLY, today).

megasat16

inspiredsports wrote: »

Again, we disagree. I believe Wall Street firms were solvent, in fact flush with cash, when this all went down and I also believe as posted above, " . . . U.S. equity firms were basically attacked by outside forces in a concerted effort to accomplish exactly what has come to pass . . ." A DOD report is currently circulating that sheds light on this catalyst.

Are you saying that the bubble bust of 2008 and housing collapse was mastermind by the outside sources?

Yes, the wall street firms are flushed with Cash that was derived from the life line / bail out funds given to them. Instead of using these new funds for investing in technology, new energy, new business infrastructure, new anything good; they are investing in the swallowing up one another to maximize profits that looks good on paper, betting against inflation and the whole nation economy.

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

I am not sure how this view can be supported. Social Security benefits in the US are quite modest even though they are crucial for the poorer/disabled citizens. It is an embarrassment, IMO, that the US has among the least generous public pension systems in the developed world.

The US was never conceived to be like the rest of the world and there is absolutely nothing embarrassing about that. If it's better elsewhere in your mind, why not go there? The law of the land specifies a small unintrusive government and what it has morphed into was not intended, and actually warned against.

Equal chance and equal outcome are not the same thing and equal chance was all that was contemplated.

I guess a huge failing in our current educational system is that so many fail to learn/understand this and then feel "embarassed".

AudioKarma started www.politicalchat.org and I guess we should probably migrate en masse over there so we can really hash this stuff out.

tonyb

cnh wrote: »

No problem there...sorry you feel that I digress from the real issues. Perhaps another thread (or entire class) would prove informative? I'm an accommodating kind of guy.

You believe both sides are not equal? OK--we'll go with that. So, when you eliminate one side, will the other then be 'equal' to what no longer exists? All I'm trying to do is follow you and not take the lead because I wish to understand, honestly.

Is 'education' the most significant part of a state's budget? Would 'you' consider that an honest and thread-based question? And if it is, let's go with that! If not, we'll try another angle. What I want to do is to see if there are other angles to this or only 'one'. Is that fair?

If that's OK would it be 'acceptable' to talk about other parts of the budget we could cut and compare the savings with those in the sector of Education? Or is that not allowed? Well, perhaps, since the cuts listed above include, in some cases all or most 'public employees'.

So are we mostly talking about services and the people who man them?


cnh

I like that about you.
How exactly is one side being eliminated ? One side has a gun to the taxpayers head, the same side negotiates for pay and benefits with those they funnel money to on the other side of the table. Thats illegal in the private sector.
As far as education being a significant part of a states budget, yeah, I would say so, especialy when you throw in the unfunded pension liability they carry for public union workers. See what your state's is, you'd be shocked.
When it comes to pay and benefits, one is not entitled to anything the other side is not willing to give. Then again,unions look at it like it's a human right.

tonyb

jcandy wrote: »

I am not sure how this view can be supported. Social Security benefits in the US are quite modest even though they are crucial for the poorer/disabled citizens. It is an embarrassment, IMO, that the US has among the least generous public pension systems in the developed world.

According to Chomsky (2005):

The Bush administration wants to "reform" Social Security ? meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a "fiscal crisis" that doesn?t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

Why Bush and social security have anything to do with this is beyond me. But just for the record, Bush wanted to privatize social security at least in part and give people a choice of what to do with their money. Instead of having it raided by congress. Having choices is good, no choices is bad. Democrats thought of it as an assualt on the working man. More so it was an assualt on the money flowing to Washington that pissed them off.

tonyb

inspiredsports wrote: »

The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35 and that was the beginning of the end. The erosion of states rights has also worked to destroy the elegant design of the system. We are at a tipping point right now and the collective bargaining battles being fought are a huge indicator as to which way the pendulum will ultimately swing.

Agreed. Unions have gotten into bed with so many socialist and communist organizations, the members don't even know who they are standing up for.
I got a kick out of the protesters up in Wisconsin calling out the Koch brothers for donating to the gov's campaign. Seems a portion of union pension dollars are invested in a company owned by...gosh, the Koch brothers.
Bottom line is nobody likes to be forced into joining a union, or forced to pay for something without a say in it. It does appear Ohio's bill is moving forward at a good clip and thats even more anti union than wisconsins.

jcandy

inspiredsports wrote: »

The US was never conceived to be like the rest of the world and there is absolutely nothing embarrassing about that.

Its certainly is embarrassing, ethically, that one would rant in admiration of the promise of zero safety net for an elderly stroke victim, in a country where multi-million bonues are handed out to corporate principals who make catastrophically poor decisions. Is that your utopia? Its also entertaining for me to see people flail to justify something so ridiculous even though Social Security is not a major contributor to US debt.

inspiredsports wrote: »

If The law of the land specifies a small unintrusive government and what it has morphed into was not intended, and actually warned against.

You are espousing a common (in a Dec. 2005 poll, 90 percent of Americans felt big business has too much power in Washington) but self-contradicting sentiment. In reality, big business is inextricably linked to big goverment insofar as big government ensures the interests of big business via state capitalism (even the Cato institute admits this link). And there is nothing unique about the USA in this respect. Most developed economies are state capitalist entities. The US takes it a step further and in that the use of military force is also a fundamental tool to exercise the agenda of business/government (not the people). So, whatever historical notion you may have of the philosophical foundations of the USA, its the present absolutely corrupt form that is the issue.

inspiredsports wrote: »

IEqual chance and equal outcome are not the same thing and equal chance was all that was contemplated.

LOL. Did that contemplation include equal chance for slaves?

inspiredsports wrote: »

I guess a huge failing in our current educational system is that so many fail to learn/understand this and then feel "embarassed".

Yeah, that's some pretty deep stuff you're hitting me with. Compassion is for wimps, and poor people are stupid. The trouble is, I've heard this ridiculous line so many times that I just chalk it up to some kind of quasi-religious position that it so far divorced from facts and reality that its probably not even worth discussing.

Sherardp

All excellent ideas that should happen immediately. I took mine out of American school and sent them to Japanese school. Summer break is only 2-3 weeks, school until 4pm Monday -Fri and sometimes weekends. The science and math programs are outstanding, I can see how they(Japanese) get ahead .

jcandy

tonyb wrote: »

Why Bush and social security have anything to do with this is beyond me. But just for the record, Bush wanted to privatize social security at least in part and give people a choice of what to do with their money. Instead of having it raided by congress. Having choices is good, no choices is bad. Democrats thought of it as an assualt on the working man. More so it was an assualt on the money flowing to Washington that pissed them off.

I can assure you I'm not playing partisan politics here. Nassim Taleb echoed my sentiments when he said:

The problem I have is that Republicans love big business, and Democrats love big government, and I hate both big business and big government.

Nevertheless, I believe the actual goal of the Bush administration was to dismantle Social Security, although the stated goal was to reform it.

jcandy

Sherardp wrote: »

All excellent ideas that should happen immediately. I took mine out of American school and sent them to Japanese school. Summer break is only 2-3 weeks, school until 4pm Monday -Fri and sometimes weekends. The science and math programs are outstanding, I can see how they(Japanese) get ahead .

Excellent. Presumably your kids speak some/all Japanese at home, right? I have to ask, why did you take them out of American school?

We had my daughter in a supplementary Dutch school for a while but it was more like a glorified day care because some kids couldn't really speak any Dutch (and my daughter is perfectly fluent). Anyhow, she goes to a private school which can provide discretionary acceleration.

cnh

tonyb wrote: »

I like that about you.
How exactly is one side being eliminated ? One side has a gun to the taxpayers head, the same side negotiates for pay and benefits with those they funnel money to on the other side of the table. Thats illegal in the private sector.
As far as education being a significant part of a states budget, yeah, I would say so, especialy when you throw in the unfunded pension liability they carry for public union workers. See what your state's is, you'd be shocked.
When it comes to pay and benefits, one is not entitled to anything the other side is not willing to give. Then again,unions look at it like it's a human right.

Our state is a small state but I thought that some numbers would be useful. So here are the numbers for the state of Maine.

The Maine public school system (prekindergarten-grade 12) operates within districts governed by locally elected school boards members and superintendents. Maine has approximately 201 public school districts.
The Maine state constitution requires that the legislature has the duty to require "the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools; and it shall further be their duty to encourage and suitably endow, from time to time, as the circumstances of the people may authorize, all academies, colleges and seminaries of learning within the State."[1]

The cost per student in Maine is $13,454, it is the 15 highest cost in the nation.[2] Maine's school system is currently $788 million in debt.[2]

Maine's education costs are 43% of the state budget
Of the total Maine $5.7 billion statewide budget for the 2010-11 Biennial General Fund Budget, K-12 education accounted for an estimated $2.43 billion.[3] On March 30, 2010, the Maine State Legislature approved the state's $5.7 billion two-year budget, which closed a $310 million gap between revenues and expenses. The Senate voted to approve it by 110-35, and the Senate tally was 31-2. The budget includes cuts to social programs such as MaineCare, revenue sharing and school subsidies that legislative leaders called "painful," but the budget also includes no general tax or fee increases.[4][5]

In the 2003-2004 school year the average teacher yearly salary in the state of Maine was $39,86. However, the average elementary school teacher salary was $39,784, compared to $40,038 average salary of a secondary school teacher. The chart below highlights average teacher salaries for the state as a whole and broken down into elementary and secondary schools salary averages.[10]

The chart below details the percentage of students that scored either proficiently or failed to meet targets in reading and mathematics on the state assessment exam Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) exam. AYP is used by the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program to determine the academic performance of schools. Maine education officials reported that approximately 64% of students met both reading and mathematic AYP targets for the 2008-2009 school year. A total of 18% of students failed to meet all targets.[19]

cnh

cnh

Now during the time that things have risen to these numbers, my real estate taxes which fill in the other half of funds for local education, have fallen by over 15 percent? During the time that I've received these TAX breaks. The ARTS, Physical Education, Foreign languages, and a number of other programs which made our area one of the 'better' school systems in the state have been eliminated or greatly curtailed. We've also lost teachers, had increases in class sizes and more stress on our teachers.

In my area, MOST property owners can 'afford' to pay the old rate in real estate taxes IMO. Most of us higher property owners make twice what a school teacher makes or 'more'?

In 2008 the average full-time income for a male in the state was 41,704.
For woman 31,496.

Now, the debate, WILL, of course turn to benefits and perks. And Demi will want to multiply teachers' salaries by a 12 month year. And factor in 401K and health care? Of course, MANY people, including my son who works for the private sector in Boston have perks that are equal to, or in his case, greater than K-12 teachers in his area? The Private sector is NOT devoid of benefits. And some argue that it is those collective bargaining units that help prevent everyone from devolving into a minimum wage salary with no benefits of any kind. I know an awful LOT of people in various businesses in the private sector that have 'spectacular' benefits. Now, I am not advocating that NO cuts for teachers are acceptable--but let's not get carried away here. It's not that 'easy' a job. It can be depressing, frustrating and disillusioning work. And then, you have to look at the NEWS and read that everybody thinks you're a LAZY **** who works very little and has tons of vacation time? Lot of 'respect' for our fellows there! Right! We may want to change things...but let's lay off the ATTACKS.

As a college professor I can't personally address how K-12 teachers use their time. But those in my daughter's school seem to put in a LOT more hours than most of us 'think'? I can tell you that "I" spend far less time in the classroom than a public school teacher but I put in hours equivalent to those of you in BUSINESS? Advising students, tutoring, doing research, publishing articles, books and giving profession presentations, developing new courses and keeping up with my field and spending endless hours on various college committees. Working weekends is pretty common. And spending most of the summer preparing for classes, writing and conducting research is par for the course? Next time anyone thinks that teachers don't bring their work HOME with them think again.

These days. A lot of our class info and discussion is on line. And I often find myself chatting with students at 1 and 2 AM in the morning. Answering questions and helping them with assignments and test preparation. And we have almost as many Office Hours as we have class hours. Most of us work a full work day and then continue at home at night and Saturday and Sunday. I expect many good K-12 teachers do the same?

On paper we have a 'representative' organization. But it has NO real power. Most of our perks are negotiated by Administrators who are less interested in 'us' and more interested in their budgets. Most of these people have ABSOLUTELY no academic insight or vision but merely do what is profitable in the 'short term' just like our market boys and girls. The non-profit University is run like a CORPORATION. And recently, there has been a push to turn the college and University into a WORKSHOP for the CORPORATION. That our ONLY mission should be to teach students what BUSINESSES most need? I wonder if that includes ETHICS? lol

cnh

markmarc

This is just way too funny not to post, no matter what your viewpoint is!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-the-dairyland---for-richer-and-poorer---teachers-and-wall-street

tonyb

I guess every state has it's own set of problems when it comes to education. I see some have actually found ways around union rules to implement some change for the good. I believe we can all agree that the whole system needs to change in a more forward cost effective manner that gives the kids the best education possible for the dollar spent. Sometimes this stuff is more trial and error, see what idea's work,and what doesn't. You never know until you at least try something different. In my view,and many others, Unions stand in the way of that option and fight change.

cnh- nice post pal. Now lets take what your state spends per pupil. Roughly 13 g's per. Now what would happen if you gave a voucher for someone to send their kid to a charter or private school for maybe 10 g's ? State would save money,and the kid would have a better shot at a quality education,no? I realize that all private and charters are not created equal, and doesn't gaurantee a quality education, but surely the odds must be better. Plus you give a parent more choice in the selection of their kids education.
Just saw a story today about public unions unfunded pensions, for all states is approaching 2 trillion dollars. Thats money you as a taxpayer have yet to give them.

Jcandy- if you want to believe Bush wanted to do away with SS, fine. But for the sake of arguement, lets look at why it even exists. Not talking the historical value of the subject but rather the thinking behind it. I view it as a flawed ponzi scheme. The problem for me is the government takes my money, by force, they use it as they see fit and promiss to return it to me at some time in the future, decades away. Because I'm too stupid to know what to do with my own money, so they will take some and hide it under their bed for me. The other problem is they get to decide when they will give me my money back, and how much. This can and does change at their will,not mine. It pretty much comes down to another entitlement program based on shared wealth. Bush offered to put the control of your money back in....god forbid, your hands. Now if you believe that the government is best suited to handle your money, then by all means,send them more, but for some of us, the more of our hard earned dollars we get to keep gives us more choices for our financial futures.

jcandy

tonyb wrote: »

It pretty much comes down to another entitlement program based on shared wealth.

I agree. All pension programs are. People worldwide generally find some level of pension guarantee to be an ethical good which outweighs the ethical bad of forcing people to pay for it.

tonyb wrote: »

Bush offered to put the control of your money back in....god forbid, your hands.

A deeper reading of the situation would indicate otherwise. But now we're repeating ourselves.

tonyb wrote: »

Now if you believe that the government is best suited to handle your money, then by all means,send them more, but for some of us, the more of our hard earned dollars we get to keep gives us more choices for our financial futures.

When did I ever say the government is best suited to handle my money? On the other hand, in some cases, other people are really much better suited to "handle my money". For example, in order to guarantee personal freedoms and well-being, the government must "steal" from all of us, to use your classic Randian expression. Or, did you have a good plan to fund your own military and police force? Do you have any ideas about how to protect your anarchist utopia? How were you going to get water to your home in your anarchist utopia?

Sherardp

jcandy wrote: »

Excellent. Presumably your kids speak some/all Japanese at home, right? I have to ask, why did you take them out of American school?

We had my daughter in a supplementary Dutch school for a while but it was more like a glorified day care because some kids couldn't really speak any Dutch (and my daughter is perfectly fluent). Anyhow, she goes to a private school which can provide discretionary acceleration.

Actually they speak/write both languages fluently. I took them out of American school here because it lacks. I will probably alternate them between both programs as they get older.

jcandy

Sherardp wrote: »

Actually they speak/write both languages fluently. I took them out of American school here because it lacks. I will probably alternate them between both programs as they get older.

Can you speak and write Japanese, and are you worried at all that their English will lag behind a bit?

tonyb

jcandy wrote: »

I agree. All pension programs are. People worldwide generally find some level of pension guarantee to be an ethical good which outweighs the ethical bad of forcing people to pay for it.


A deeper reading of the situation would indicate otherwise. But now we're repeating ourselves.


When did I ever say the government is best suited to handle my money? On the other hand, in some cases, other people are really much better suited to "handle my money". For example, in order to guarantee personal freedoms and well-being, the government must "steal" from all of us, to use your classic Randian expression. Or, did you have a good plan to fund your own military and police force? Do you have any ideas about how to protect your anarchist utopia? How were you going to get water to your home in your anarchist utopia?

I thought we were talking Social security, your talking taxes in general, 2 different animals. Taxes of coarse are necessary in part for the reasons you laid out, social security is not a necessity. The key here is choice, If you had a choice,would you contribute to social security or find other investment avenues on your own with that money ? I'm not saying the scenario would work for everyone, but if some had a choice in the matter, I'm sure they would opt out.

jcandy

tonyb wrote: »

The key here is choice, If you had a choice,would you contribute to social security or find other investment avenues on your own with that money ? I'm not saying the scenario would work for everyone, but if some had a choice in the matter, I'm sure they would opt out.

That is actually a myth. Perusing any legitimate source of statistics will tell you that most Americans are ethically good and are for entitlements that provide the basic necessities (go to www.gallup.com and search with keywords "social security" and sort by date).

What you should conclude from these results is that Americans don't want, on average, to help non-Americans.

My opinion is that one should be free to spend or invest one's disposable income according to one's preferences. The essential aspect of this issue that is perhaps not fully appreciated is that since about 1970, most of your money (the wealth produced by American workers) has been cleverly scooped-up by the elite (since the elite did not create the wealth, they are "stealing it" according to Capitalist rhetoric, which I agree with in this instance):

Data from the United States Department of Commerce and Internal Revenue Service indicate that income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s,[10][11][12][13][14] whereas it had been declining during the mid 20th century.[15][16] As of 2006, the United States had one of the highest levels of income inequality, as measured through the Gini index, among high income countries, comparable to that of some middle income countries such as Russia or Turkey,[17] being one of only few developed countries where inequality has increased since 1980.[18]