Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A Mitt Romney Victory means the Paul Ryan Budget gets passed

Posted 2 years ago on May 27, 2012, 10:43 p.m. EST by Huxley (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Mitt Romney's victory would mean even lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, further banking deregulation, and deeper cuts in social spending.

Why neither Obama nor Romney wants to talk about Romney’s record

The budget prepared by Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, and the Romney campaign’s general-election platform look quite similar. Both would cut taxes while flattening the tax code. Their Medicare-reform plans look similar; Ryan even modified his original draft to make it look more like Romney’s, which allows seniors to choose between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and private options. Their plans to increase defense spending are alike, as are their plans to cut domestic spending and to turn Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs over to the states.

Because it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Romney is elected and Republicans don’t hold the House and win control of the Senate, Republicans wouldn’t be stymied by Democratic opposition. They would have the votes to pass their agenda. True, they won’t get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the upper chamber, but Ryan’s budget is, well, a budget, which means it could be passed through the budget reconciliation process -- and couldn’t be filibustered. To enact a radical change of direction, Republicans need only a simple majority of votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wny-neither-obama-nor-romney-wants-to-talk-about-romneys-record/2012/05/26/gJQAweqGqU_blog.html

115 Comments

115 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Congress would still have to pass it. That's like saying if Barack Obama got elected we'd have a public option healthcare system.

Don't get me wrong... Romney is a douche and is just a tool for the 1% and the corporations which he believes are people. But congress passes budgets and such not the president. I hope the R's don't keep winning in congress. Although the dems in my state have a pretty identical voting record with the repubs from my state. That's the problem with living in Nebraska. Even our D's are "conservatives" or whatever the fuck that means.

What do D's Bob Kerrey and Ben Nelson and R's Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry have in commmon? The patriot act, support for the Iraq war and deregulating Wall Street. My congressmen D's and R's share equal guilt in fucking up the country and wasting our tax dollars.

The 2012 election blows. It's full of terrible options.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Vote out anti people politicians - kick em to the curb.

Yayyy Wisconny show the rest of us the way.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Did they finally kick out Walker?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

We will know June 5th.

People if you know some one in Wisconsin lend them your support in their move to regain a government for the people.

[-] 6 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Well I wish them the best of luck of getting that Koch out of their government.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23968) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Me too - ALEC/Koch are throwing a lot of money into the fight to support their corrupt in their pocket politician walker.

This will be an awesome defeat of big money financing/manipulating a corrupt government.

Everyone send your love and support to The People of Wisconsin - they are in an epic fight for change.

[-] -1 points by howlongwillthisnamelast (-1) 2 years ago

Walker wins by 6 points.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

if true, America loses koch-grover wins

[-] 2 points by Huxley (5) 2 years ago

In other words, it would be two steps back in the wrong direction. We would find ourselves even further in debt, and the GOP would still blame "spending" and we'd find ourselves in the middle of even more cuts to necessary programs.

[-] 1 points by matoinyanawacis (157) 2 years ago

Simply put, if the repubs maintain the house or worse yet, gain the white house and the senate too, America will no longer be America. It will become a feudal state. The Lords and Ladys own everything, and the serf's and peon's (literally derived from the descriptive of a person so low in the social order that they had no rights to redress should the aristocracy decide to urinate on them) live only at their whim and pleasure. In the past, such a society was only maintained by use of force, today however, the rich are attempting to achieve ownership of all through manipulation and purchase of laws beneficial to their goals. If you haven't been charged with a crime yet and thus had your constitutional rights removed, then just wait your turn, they'll get to you soon enough. If they haven't taken your house yet, be patient, they're working quickly to force through laws that allow them to claim "Imminent Domain" so that they can follow Romney's plan..."...don't stop the bankruptcy process, let it hit the bottom, then let investors (rich people) buy up all the properties, and then rent them out.." Home ownership is an outdated concept anyways don't you think? Oh, and if you don't have a job, don't worry the Job creators, you know, the rich people, they'll give you one just as soon as they get the laws passed that allow them to pay their workers whatever they feel like, give whatever benefits they feel like, and fire you whenever they feel like. I mean, come on, who needs a minimum wage law, or the decision of what medical health coverage to get being controlled by the person seeking the medical treatment, and certainly no one wants to allow a person to maintain their job if they refuse the bosses unwanted sexual advances, or if they engage in or support a lifestyle not agreeable with their employers conscience. I'm sure most intelligent beings are able to tell that all that I have written here was both facetious, as well as sarcastic. However the saddest part is that there are too many idiots out there that will read this and completely miss that point as well as the analogies. Only goes to show why a decent education is not only beneficial, but absolutely essential to a healthy democratic society. But Americans are so egregiously lazy when it comes to thinking for themselves that it is no surprise to me that America is about to cease to exist as the "shining example" of freedom in the world. Hitler said it best, and the rich and republicans have been using his advice to perfection... You can get anyone to believe any lie, no matter how big, simply by repeating it over and over, continuously, with passion and confidence. I Love America, and like a loved one, I hate having to watch them die right before my eyes. America is gasping, because the rich, along with their republican sychophants, are holding a pillow over the babies face in an attempt to kill it without making it look like a murder, so that they can inherit the estate. America is the baby, by the way, being the youngest nation in the world, for those a little too slow to understand the parable. If Americans are too stupid to recognize the undercurrents of power manipulation occurring in our government to the benefit of the upper 1% and to the detriment of the 99%, and are stupid enough to vote Romney and his republican cronies into positions of power in our government, then they deserve the raping they will receive as a result, and subsequently have no right to complain later about being raped. If Americans are too lazy to seek and find the "TRUTH" about what is occurring in our own government, and what is the TRUE record of the activities of the players in the Drama that is our National Elections, or the Criminal Enterprises that is our Congressional Legislature, then they deserve to lose their rights to freedom and representation WITH their taxation. As it is now, only the rich are receiving representation, and with only minor taxation as they set it up. Be prepared America, your are truly about to face a choice here soon. Freedom or Economic and Legislated Slavery. If you refuse to hear the truth, then you deserve to live the under the auspices of the lie and suffer for it.

[-] 0 points by linker (-241) 2 years ago

Yes - excellent - I cant wait for the Ryan plan to pass. What's the Obama budget? oh yea - his budget got voted down 97 - 0 in the senate. his own party rejected it & they dont even have the guts to put one on the table. Pathetic

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The whole nation is going into the toilet regardless if we pass Ryan's budget or Obama's no budget.

Its all fluff that is just delaying the inevitable.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

Good. Senate Dems haven't passed a budget in three years. That's working real well for us.

Time for some reality. We're broke.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

we're broke because of Repub wars that costs us trillions, and republican giveaways to the 1% (more trillions). and because of the annual trillion plus deficit that Bush left us 3 years ago. at least this President has had the slowest fed spending (not counting that annual trillion dollar Bush deficit) since eisenhower! And the last Democratic President left Bush a surplus. that is how we roll. It's the Republicans who spend (military) and give money to 1%'rs. thats whats killin us.!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So why can't Obama, a democrat, end the war in Afghanistan until 2014?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

he IS ending the war. That is more than the war mongering, fear mongering republicans have and would do. We need to step back from the "constant war on terror" mentality that repubs used to bankrupt the nation to benefit their 1% friends. this President has begun that long process.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Six years in office to end the war?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

We had eight of Bushs constant war, We would have another eight with any Republican. stop speaking for the 1%. Support OWS. Vote out pro norquist politicians

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The 1% support Obama too! Goldman Sachs was his biggest contributor in 2008. It does not matter whether injustice is perpetrated by a republican or democrat. Both parties are equally guilty. Why do you make the distinction?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The parties are vastly different. You support republicans when you push the fallacy that they are the same. One party supports Fin reform (regardless of goldman sachs, contributions and/or appointments) One has done everything to water it down and obstruct/delay implementation. Why do you pretend they are the same? are you trying to minimize the crimes that the republican right wing neo cons have perpetrated for their 1% constituents are you trying to convince the progressives on this site to throw away their votes to help your right wing wackos? Just aksin.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I condemn the wrongs by all people regardless of party affiliation. There is not a republican or democrat bone in my body.

All I am asking is that you honestly judge without political bias as to the actions of the last two presidents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell me what are the differences between the two? Which bombs dropped were liberal and which were conservative?

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

"Which bombs"....? How childish!. One President stopped the Iraq war and the other started it illegally!!! hows that.? "Which bombs. "? How idiotic is that. To say the parties are the same simply serves the republican and the 1% because it minimizes the crimes (like starting the illegal Iraq war) for the benefit of the 1%. Got it?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Look it up on the internet. Obama stopped the Iraq war on the same timetable that Bush already had set up. Please refute that if you are able.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I don't have refute or look up. bush said he would stop the Iraq war. In '68 Nixon said he would stop a war too, and didn't! not until his next term! Saying is meaningless, and if you believe what Bush says then you are certainly a republican 1% tool. President Obama stopped the Iraq war. You don't have to look it up. You don't have to refute. I don't care if you disagree. I already know you disagree. It's ok. Support OWS Vote out anti union politicians

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Can you refute the statement that Obama ended the war in Iraq on the same timetable as Bush?

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

No! but it is Irrelevent. Bush started an illegal war in Iraq. President Obama ended it. Bam! Refute that you 1% tool.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Bush did start an illegal war. Why did Obama take 3 years to end that illegal war in Iraq?

[-] 0 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Saying Corporate Puppet "Obama ended it" in Iraq is BS like when Dubya said "Mission Accomplished". The death and destruction there continues...

Obama's first term was Dubya's third. And it makes no difference who "wins" (LOL) in November - Obama or Romney - the freedom to fascism timetable will stay right on schedule.

[-] -1 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Corporate Puppet "Obama stopped the Iraq war" is BS like when Dubya said "Mission Accomplished". The death and destruction there continues...

Obama's first term was Dubya's third. And it makes no difference who "wins" (LOL) in November - Obama or Romney - the freedom to fascism timetable will stay right on schedule.

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You support republicans when push the fallacy that the parties are the same because you minimize the crimes of the right wing neo con against the 99%.

[-] 1 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Post a link proving I "support republicans", VQkag, or else admit by not so doing that you are a pro-regime plant and a LIAR.

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Obama's first term was Dubya's third. And it makes no difference who "wins" (LOL) in November - Obama or Romney - the freedom to fascism timetable will stay right on schedule.

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

The war in Iraq is far from "stopped", pro-regime plant. And Obama is illegally bombing and droning more innocents in more countries than Dubya ever dreamed of - assuming of course Dubya has enough brain cells to dream.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Fel arall y mae mewn gwirionedd

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Here we go again, you lying pro-regime plant... The parties are NOT vastly different. They differ only on wedge issues during elections, and those differences tend to disappear afterwards. What the Democrats and Republicans agree on - like NDAA 2012 - is far more damaging and dangerous than what they don't. And the "right wing wackos" have no more real power than the "left wing wackos". BOTH parties are controlled by the same corporate global elite.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

NDAA is a serious crime against our constitutional rights. this President has produced a signing statement indicating he will not invoke it. and hasn't invoked it. That is more than Republicans have or would do!!!. If NDAA is to change WE must challange it with protests and court cases. We can't sit back, be lazy and entitled. We must protest and give Dems the backbone they need to stand up against the war mongering right wing! We can't expect one man to do everything for us. Especially when NDAA was passed with veto proof majority. OK? protest!!! Bring a court case. Stop sittin on your fat ass beaten Obama over the head. Lazy bastard!

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

A ddywedwch y gwirionedd wrthym ?

[+] -4 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

And what did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

You back?. I thought I dismissed your sorry 1% supporting ass earlier. What we have is the beginning of a multi year process to undo what the right wing neo con criminals have perpetrated on the 99% and the entire planet. Perpetrated only for the benefit of their 1% criminal constituents. What we have is the end of one of Bushs illegal wars and the beginning of the end of the other. In addition we have the ending of the constant war/fear mongering "war on terror" mentality that Bush and the repubs used to steal from the 99%. Dats what we have!!!! You 1% tool!!!

[-] -3 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

Here is what I posted:

And what did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

Explain to the forum how stating historical fact makes me a "sorry 1% supporting ass".

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

NO!!!

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

AGAIN... Here is what I posted:

And what did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

Explain to the forum how stating historical fact makes me a "sorry 1% supporting ass".

[-] 0 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Suck it! you 1% tool!

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

ONCE MORE... Here is what I posted:

And what did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

Explain to the forum how stating historical fact makes me a "1% tool".

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Fel arall y mae mewn gwirionedd

[-] 1 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Blah! Blah! Blah! You are a 1% tool!!!

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

AGAIN I ASK... Here is what I posted:

And what did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

Explain to the forum how stating historical fact makes me a "1% tool".

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

No, the two wars together are about $1.4 trillion as of today. Entitlements are running over $200 trillion. We're broke because of those. Don't believe me, see the government's own numbers for yourself.

http://www.usdebtclock.org

Obama is the one who added 5 trillion to the debt in 3 years. It took Bush 8 years to add that much.

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

And yeah Bush added 5 trillion in 8 years after inheriting a surplus from the Dems!!!!. In fact Bush added the next 4 trillion (during this Presidents term) because Bushs annual deficit doesn't disappear when he leaves office!!! You gotta be special kind of moron to believe otherwise. It doesn't magically get wiped clean. we are still living with Bush's annual deficit. GET IT STRAIGHT!

[-] 2 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

The debt created during this presidents term is made up of the annual trillion dollar deficit that Bush left us. The wars cost much more than 1.4 trillion!. including wasteful military budget increases, and paying mercenary corps that are republican special interest constituents! Entitlements ( not counting Social security, and medicare) are a tiny percent of the annual budget.! get it straight!

[-] -1 points by adaldk (-11) 2 years ago

you actually believe the dem party line of B.S.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

I believe the truth. I certainly don't believe the right wing neo con propaganda that would have us believe that the parties are the same. that is ridiculous. the dems have moved too far right. Yes definately! they have lost their backbone against the right wing wackos that have bankrupted the country for their 1% criminal constituents We must get the Dems back in line. Give them a backbone by constant protest/pressure. We are the change we've been waiting for!! Support OWS vote out pro ALEC politicians

[-] -1 points by adaldk (-11) 2 years ago

there is no propaganda that says the parties are the same.

[-] -2 points by gwirionedd (-369) 2 years ago

You don't "believe the truth", you lying pro-regime plant. You're trying to cover it up on behalf of the Bushbamney re-election circus. Here is the truth:

What did we have with "Nobel Peace Prize" winner Obama? A four-year global peace? Or the greatest expansion in wars of conquest since Napoleon, and immoral killing of innocents since Hitler?

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Mae'r gwirionedd yn wahanol

[-] -3 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago
[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

No lies. Just the facts. Republicans bankrupted the country for their 1% criminal constituents. They inherited a surplus, and left us a trillion dollar annual deficit. Keep your links I ain't interested in propaganda. I think for myself. I am the 99% you speak for the 1% criminals who crashed the economy and stole our govt.!

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 2 years ago

You've been government numbers on costs of war and entitlements. You don't like 'em, too bad. I won't waste anymore time on a drone.

[-] 3 points by VQkag (930) 2 years ago

Your sentence makes no sense. Stop speaking for the 1%. You clearly do not support the 99%. You must want to destroy OWS. You will fail. we are legion! Support OWS. Vote out anti buffett rule politicians

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why are lower corporate taxes a bad thing? Other developed countries like those in Europe have much lower corp taxes than the US.

Corp taxes are just hidden taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor. They affect staples like food and clothing that are normally tax exempt.

[-] 0 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

Ireland did radically well with their 13.5% corporate tax rate. The failure of the Celtic Tiger doesn't have anything to do with the corporate tax rate.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

13.5% would be a step in the right direction for the US. 0% would be better.

[-] 1 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

How do you propose the government make money then?

[-] 2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The Gov should have to look you in the eye when they tax you. Don't let them hide the bills in corporate, import, and VAT taxes.

I would get rid of the payroll deduction and require that individuals pay their own taxes; that way they can see the money going out every week. Move federal elections from Nov to end of April.

Get rid of taxes on investments (that money was already taxed once) , get rid of all double taxes, and go to a voluntary income tax. Let the Warren Buffets of the world put their money where their mouth is.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I agree taxes should be transparent. No corporate or other taxes that just get passed down. A consumption tax on all non essential goods and services that is paid by the end user. No income taxes, no fed, state tax forms necessary. The states would collect and redistribute a percentage to federal and local governments.

The consumption tax would also apply to profit from investments like stocks and bonds. Since the rich would pay a relatively small tax from their non essential purchases, it would be compensated by their much greater profit from investments.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The problem with a consumption tax is that is discourages consumption. Tax a thing and you will get less of it. Some years ago the US tried to put a luxury tax on pleasure boats with disastrous results. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-09/business/1991160128_1_luxury-tax-yachts-harrison.

If you tax capital investment you will get fewer small business starts, less innovation, reduced competition, higher prices to the consumer, and fewer jobs.

I have a question: If an Emergency Room Dr. is asked to work on the weekend and he saves the lives of ten people we punish his sacrifice by taking up to 35% of his overtime pay. If his fellow Doc shirks the overtime to go on a boat trip with drunken buddies and catches ten fish he pays nothing. My question is: who thought this plan was a good idea? I suspect it was not the hardworking, conscientious, people.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Consumption taxes completely replace income taxes. Everyone would have more money in their pockets to spend. No more paperwork for income taxes for both consumers and businesses. Just the paperwork for collecting sales tax. Very efficient and transparent.

Capital investment isn't taxed, just the profit. Remember the wealthy aren't paying income tax either. They pay only when they sell, which would also have the added benefit of reducing speculation.

The Doctor is adequately compensated for his services, he is not "punished" any more than any other person paying a share of their income.

The people who are "punished" are those unfairly compensated for their labor before any taxes are paid. 50% of the people in the U.S. have incomes of $26,000 or less. About $12 an hour or less. Half of all minimum wage workers are over 25 years old.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Consumption tax is regressive and disproportionally hurts the poor (folks that you mention above making under $26,000). It also costs poor people their jobs as do capital gain taxes. Both are bad ideas. If you tax a thing the supply will decrease. Tax capital gains and you will get less capital investment. Tax achievement ( like the Doc in the example above) and you will get less innovation. The harder the Doc works the greater % of his income goes to taxes. He contributes to society while his lazy co-worker adds nothing and loses more money in the bargain.

We should have a lazy-man tax. A SlackTax. The highest rates would be levied on bloggers.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A persons contribution to society is equal to their benefit minus their cost. A person who provides $100,000 a year in benefit, but receives $100,000 in compensation provides no net benefit.

The person who provides $30,000 a year in benefit but only receives $20,000 in compensation provides a net benefit of $10,000 a year. He enriches society more than the well paid person.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Unless while making the $100 k he invents a cure for cancer.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A wealthy man in pursuit of riches might be responsible for introducing the carcinogen into the environment that causes cancer. What would his net benefit be? Could that negative amount even be measured?

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Many people rich and poor have a negative impact on society. Some commit crimes like polluting and are prosecuted. The punishment is a measurement of the negative impact of the deed.

I have heard ball players making $10,000,000 a year complain that they are underpaid; and I don't blame them for trying to get more. But the only way they can get that much money is if someone is willing to pay it.

The point is that most significant improvements made to the human condition were and are accomplished by for-profit enterprises.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And what do we do with the kids we kick out. Are they garbage? Yuo didn't say. Y'know it is those kids that bring down our numbers. And believe it or not we needall our kids educated. Uneducated kids become criminals. And I cannot agree to turn over education to corporations/private enteprises. I've seen enough of the current examples. I've seen about 4 5ths charters doing poorly, Religious schools are too religious, too anti science. Real oversight, real punishment, even for neglectful parents.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What to do with the kids that get kicked out?

  1. Remove them from the school and stop them from stealing the education from kids that want to learn. This is key to creating excellent schools that parents will want their kids to attend. BTW students don’t become really disruptive and commit serious offences until ~ 12 year, around puberty.

  2. Provide a path for expelled students to earn their way back into the school.

  3. Parents of expelled students (now having to look after them all day) will have a real incentive to help their child earn their way back.

  4. Segregate schools by gender

  5. Many alternate schools have had success with groups of students that are too disruptive for main stream settings. (e.g. http://www.chamberlainschool.org/, http://www.abundantlifeacademy.com,http://www.carsonlong.org, http://www.aspeneducationgroup.com,)

BTW, I don’t think that learning about different religions while at school is a bad thing. Maybe we would all get along a little better if we understood other cultures.

Of all the religious schools that you have studied which did you find had the most anti-science curriculum?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You cant a force a nation to care about education.

[-] -2 points by monticello (-28) 2 years ago

A vote for the Democrats or a vote for the Republicans is a vote for the status quo. Both parties and their puppet politicians answer to the same masters. You know, VQ[whatever], the one's paying you to pollute this forum with pro-regime propaganda...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/americans-have-three-choices-in-november-bushbamne/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-democrats-exploit-occupy-counterpunchorg/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You have very well thought out reasons to deny education. Maybe if you (and your wing of the politcal spectrum) focused on how to PROVIDE an education we wouldn't suffering with the effects of millions of uneducated americans. The whole country is better off when we invest successfully in creating an educated workforce/citizenry! If you think education is expensive, you should see ignorance.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you about the importance of eduaction. It is the great equalizer.

I would favor more spending on education but there has been little evidence that it is the solution in US public schools. Why does an inner city all girls Catholic high school with half the tuition succeed three blocks away from the failing public school?

Little Flower, Phila. PA

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

BS on the roads. Eisenhower, created the national highway system in the 50's. No profit in it for corps to reap. Every city/state uses tolls and gas tax to fund govt road maint. Your are sadly mistaken. Schools have gotten worse because of neglect by those against school desegregation. it is insidious. wealthy Corps are at the center of our problems. Your blind support is what allows them to continue preying on American working families. Hope your proud.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Info on this subject is not hard to find. Your recalcitrance is confounding.

The highways authorized during the Eisenhower (and other) Admins were built by private contractors, not by the Gov. The Gov has no capacity to build highways (or much of anything else).

http://www.todayinsci.com/Events/Transport/HighwayInterstate-EisenhowerSigns-NYT30Jun1956.htm

http://www.generalcontractor.com/resources/articles/interstate-highway-system.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

http://www.heavy-highway.org/history.aspx

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh please! Distractions all. No corporation could have done anything without the system of public roads (non profit) public education (non profit) without the right to do business in this great nation. You shill for the 1% criminals who crashed the world economy. They already have armies of lobbysts, lawyers, accountants to rig the system against us and avoid paying there fair share of taxes. They cannot succeed without the collusion of half the 99% (right wing) who vote against the interests of the 99%.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The roads in the US were built by private corporations. The Gov has no capacity for such projects.

95% of all new roads (including sewer, water, gas, electric, and communications infrastructure) are built by private corporations and with private funds. They are then deeded to local towns.

Public education in the US is a disaster. We have dropped to 27 th in Math and Science while in the top three in cost per child. A national embarrassment.

This statistic is even sadder when we realize that the poorest among us are subject to the worst run schools. The rich can afford private schools (~ 10% of students) that go out of business if they do a lousy job (The Obama children go to Sidwell Friends at $32k per year) . Public schools are lousy because there is no competition. Crappy schools have no impetus to improve. They get more money year after year with no improvement. Test scores in the US have been flat for 30 years.

Public education is a great study in why Gov should stay out of people’s lives. Gov has a place in oversight and law enforcment, but poor at actual execution of pretty much everything they touch.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wrong. improvements have only come from liberal movements not related to corporations. Womens sufferage, emancipation, workers rights, civil rights these improvements were obstructed by for profit enterprises. Corporations are only interested in profits not improving human conditions that is laughable. What kind of propaganda are you pushing?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It does not matter what corps are interested in, all that matters are results. It is just a fact that more innovation, lifesaving drugs, sanitation, labor savings, food production, safety, environmental protection, energy, communications, and other improvements in the human condition were and are accomplished by people working for pay or profit than people working for free. The delta is huge .

This little patent (Patent No. 2666015) did more to liberate women than all of the marches in the 20 th century. And the guy (yes it was invented by a man) and his company made a fortune off of it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Repetitive and as ridiculous as it was the 1st time you sent it. To speak in support of these corps is to condone the crimes they have perpetrated against working american families. The 1% cannot succeed without the help of half the 99% (right wing) voting against there own interests. Support OWS. Vote out anti union politicians

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

By what metric do you claim more innovation, life saving drugs, sanitation, labor savings, food production, safety, environmental protection, energy, communications, or other improvements in the human condition that were accomplished by people working without pay or without a profit?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I wonder how much Thomas Jefferson received in compensation for writing the Declaration of Independence?

Or Jonas Salk for the polio vaccine?

Or Albert Einstein for the theory of relativity?

Or Martin Luther King for the civil rights movement?

I would bet that their net benefit to society was far greater than Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, or Warren Buffett.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I wrote most, not all, and Salk was employed and paid by the University of Pittsburgh for the vaccine development (he also received patent assignments as do most scientists working at University (Nice little perk sometimes worth millions that nobody ever mentions)). King was employed and paid as a pastor (his self-professed religious beliefs drove his push for equal rights). Jefferson was a wealthy slave holder motivated by profit as much as principle in penning the Declaration; remember that the revolution was mostly driven by Royal confiscatory tax policies.

Gates did more to increase wages (via gigantic individual productivity boost) than the combined efforts of all US unions for the last 200 years ( today unions mostly just improve the wages of the union leaders). Gates' work is just one of millions of examples of productivity enhancing, life extending, health improving inventions produced by for-profit enterprises and individuals. The relative contributions by non-profit activities (things for which you are not paid) is tiny.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Don't know how much of genesis I remember. But for me that is irrelevant. It seems more like a myth/farytale. Religion (and misuse of) has been at the root of millions of death through out history. Drawing lines is a constant human endeavor. Mainly to say I'm good, Your bad, You must die. So I would have no problem if the human race "evolved" enough to put these religious myths behind us. Natural selection? I'm sure I don't know enough about the details of the theory. If it went away? not gonna happen but I could handle scientific "evolution" It's religions that are slowto accept change. It was only 20 years ago or so that they agreed galileo was right. C'mon.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Since America is mostly christian That is what I;m talkin about. Religious schools teach that their believers will go to their version of heaven (and are good). Everyone else is (going to some hell and) therefore bad. Thats a problem for me. And It is Christians who question basic science (evolution, age of the earth). That is also a problem.. I'm not against them having schools just not my preference.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

10% of the kids in the US go to private schools. 50 % of them go to Catholic schools, 25% are not religious. Since Catholic schools are such a large % let's study them a bit.

  1. Every student in Catholic grade school has one period of religion (~ 40 min per day). While the focus is Catholicism they also study Judaism, Islam, Hinduism (the list varies depending on the state, city, and country; the idea is to learn about your neighbors.

  2. Every student in Catholic High school also has one period of religion per day, however the student may select which religion or spiritual related course to study.

  3. The courses in science are conducted using the same text books that are used in the local public schools (one funding source that does follow students in the US are public $ for books). Catholic school students are taught the theories of natural selection and geology just like their public school counter parts. There is Creationism taught in the science curriculum.

I have three questions for you. Try these without consulting a reference:

  1. How much of the story of creation from Genesis of the can you recall?

  2. What are the four principles of the theory of Natural Selection?

  3. How different would your life be if the theory in (2) was found to be in error?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Individual examples are difficult for me to address. But.... !st of all the private school most likely gets to kick out any student who doesn't behave. That improves the likely hood of success, and the private school stats. Public schools cannot kick any one out. Private school costs money, families with no money can't afford private school that can kick out bad kids. But certainly the public school in question (innercity I assume) Might get lots of money but the corruption and waste that is allowed to fester (because they are just minorities we don't care if they educated) destroys the possibility of success. Poverty is a big demoralizer, it can sap the strenghth from the best of parents. They give up especially when they see their children stuck in failing schools, when they see no employment future for themselves, or their children. It is insidious. There are many reasons. And no excuses. I don't have the answers other than to say better oversight, Real punishment. Even for neglectful parents.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Point 1: I agree. That's the point. Kick out students that don't want to be there and steal education from others. Public school change #1.

Point 2:. Little Flower is located in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Philly. The problem with the nearby public school is more likely to be apathy and greed than racism or corruption . Let the failing school die (like a failing business) and give the poor parents in this neighborhood the money to send their kids to the school that works.

Point 3: Parents that don’t care. A parent that fails to provide the best education possible for their child (including praise for good grades, support for the school and teacher, homework, etc.) is doing more damage than the parent that fails to provide adequate food and shelter. The latter is a Gov crime, the former is a Gov acme. The Gov education monopoly has a vested interest in maintaining the current failing system. That monopoly has great political power; enough to elect the very politicians with the power to make changes (or not rock the boat).

This problem will never be solved as long as we let the Gov maintain the current monopoly that is public education.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah I'm sure Louisiana has poor/minority peoples best interest at heart. Whatever they decide will probably hurt the poor/minority population. I have no confidence in deep south, confederate, bible belt racists to do the right thing. Sorry my partial nature comes out when the right wing wacko regions are put up as examples. What a joke. Louisiana! HA!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Education IS a right. If we add a cost/tuition/profit to it, the poor will be excluded!. The truth is it is more costly to deal with uneducated people than pay for education.. The entire country benefits when the population is educated. and the whole is hurt when we go uneducated. So as I said, real oversight, and punishment. Lets start putting people in jai en mass. See how quickly they start doing the right thing.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If education was a privilege and still financed by taxpayers (as it is now) the privilege could be revoked for offences like: bringing a gun to school, threatening a teacher, attacking another child, selling drugs, excessive disruption (stealing an education from other students), etc.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am unfamiliar with the Ivy program you refer to. Whatever it is I would bet it is inadequate. We'll see. If it is adequate perhaps there will be no more problems with college accessability. doubtful. Adding competition to public primary/secondary education may help. but to be entirely honest with you I believe the biggest problem with public education is racism. We have allowed generations (since desegregation) of minorities languish in underfunded schools where authorities allow corruption and waste create dilapidated schools with teachers who have given up and socially promoted uneducated students who are then delivered into the black market economy to become a statistic. We ignore these issues because education statistics for white suburban students are just fine. It is insideous. Real oversight, Real punishment for crimes against the children is the right start.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Looks like Louisiana is going to give it a try (see below). Just about any change is likely to improve things there. They have the worst schools in the nation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/01/us-education-vouchers-idUSL1E8H10AG20120601

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

You report on the exact problem with the public education monopoly. It is the subtle racism of low expectations (although it is often more about riches than race).

Wealthy folks in the suburbs (black, white, whatever) are happy with their local schools so they don't push for reforms. As a result poor kids (disproportionately black) in the city get the shaft.

The question is: what to do about it?

We have tried the education monopoly approach for 80 years. Test scores have been flat for the last 50. Time to try something new. We use private contractors to collect our garbage. Surely our children are more important than trash pick-up.

Do you think it would help to make education a privilege, like a driver’s license, instead of a right? If you give something away for free folks tend place its value at zero?

http://onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1413556

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Profit in education sounds dangerous. They should be working to improve our children not the bottom line. Private colleges have been a disaster because they are now too expensive for most people to attend. And that is what would happen when profit is introduced. People with out money will be left behind. And private construction for govt project are rife with fraud and corruption. The boondoggles and waster are legendary. I'm afraid you are way off on that. Even public school spending is rife with corruption and theft. No easy answers. Better oversight is a good 1st step. Real punishment a good 2nd step.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

failing educational monopolies.

when one human teaches another, that is a success

schools rarely fail

the government belongs to the governed

therefore can not be a monopoly

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

It does not have to be about profit. There are many good private-non-profit schools. The point is that there should be competition for the public education dollar, and crappy schools get weeded out. Never again will poor children be forced to attend the local failing educational monopolies.

The Ivy's have adopted a new tuition plan nick-named the $100k rule.

If you are accepted to an Ivy and your folks make less than $100k you pay nothing. Beyond $100k the tuition in increased linearly to 100% at $250k.

What do you think?

Led by the Ivy's many private schools with large endowments competing for students will be forced into this plan.

BTW I am with you on: " Better oversight is a good 1st step. Real punishment a good 2nd step." This is the proper role for Gov.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

All those private corp doing road work are paid by public funds. All those corp medical/chemical/energy improvements started with public funded R&D. We don't owe the 1% corp a God damn thing. They owe us for the priviledge of doing business here. And if they move jobs or assets out of the country they should be penalized or even banned.! Then they will get in line and show their proper loyalty.!

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Replying to post below:

The major problem I have with wanting to privatize education is the opportunity for religious or other ideological groups to have free reign to indoctrinate our nation's children. When I see reports of gay and lesbian students being denied entry to proms, denied graduation, and other things at these Christian schools I become concerned. If we don't have a public education option than these kids will not have anywhere to go for a fair and equal educational experience.

We're supposed to have separation of church and state. Letting Christians educate our children under the government's approval violates that principal, and threatens to turn our next generation into bigots.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you.

In the past road construction was funded with public money and built by for-profit private contractors (Although today 95% of all roads and infrastructure are built with private funds, by private contractors, and then deeded to local municipalities) .

The point is that the use of private contractors for such operations is great for the Gov and the people. It promotes excellence, reduces cost, and improves quality. If a contractor does a crappy job they get fired and possibly banned from future awards.

One place that we fail to follow this model is public education and the results are catastrophic. Why not move to private contractors for schools? It works for Colleges and Universities.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever benefits we have gottenwe deserved!. They enjoy the priviledge of doing business in this great nation! We are still the greatest middle class market on the planet until the Chinese catch up. They must do more for the 99% if they want to continue doing business here. And whatever benefits they have brought ( I disagree still with your premise) they are still at the center of our current economic problems. Your blind support is what allows them to continue preying on American working families. You have no honor!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I agree with you that it is a privilege to do business in this nation.

When the Gov authorizes something like road construction they send out a bid solicitation with detailed rules on performance, cost, quality, safety, etc. Private corporations bid on the contracts and the awardees must post performance bonds. This process is a proven recipe that drives excellence, reduces cost, and improves quality .

Why don't we apply the same successful process to public education to improve performance? It works for Colleges and Universities.

BTW, it is great good luck to be born in the US. People in the US are in the top 10% of the wealthiest people on the planet (OWS is not really the 99%).

So why has the US been so successful? Pretty good treatment here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-book-review.html?pagewanted=all.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Thomas Jefferson bore the burden of substantial monetary debt throughout his life. Except for a brief period at the beginning of the nineteenth century,[1] it was not possible to declare bankruptcy and it was his reputation in large part that kept creditors at bay. While debt was not unusual for Virginia planters of his time, his eventually grew so ponderous that his family were forced to sell much of his property, including Monticello, after Jefferson's death. His grandson and executor of his estate, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, posted an advertisement for his estate sale, indicating that Jefferson's debts at his death amounted to $107,000. Converting this figure into a modern estimate is an inexact process at best, but it would probably be somewhere between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

In 1775 when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he was a wealthy man. He owned 200 slaves, a 5000 acre plantation in VA, and inherited a large endowment from his wife's family.

He was a poor farmer (negligent really) and made bad investments later in life, but was almost steadily involved with for-profit enterprises. He sold (not donated) his book collection to the Library of Congress for half a million in today's $.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

When he was asked in a televised interview who owned the patent to the vaccine, Salk replied: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wrong. improvements have only come from liberal movements not related to corporations. Womens sufferage, emancipation, workers rights, civil rights these improvements were obstructed by for profit enterprises. Corporations are only interested in profits not improving human conditions that is laughable. What kind of propaganda are you pushing?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Salk was employed and paid by the University of Pittsburgh for the vaccine development (he also received patent assignments as do most scientists working at University (Nice little perk sometimes worth millions that nobody ever mentions)). King was employed and paid as a pastor (his self-professed religious beliefs drove his push for equal rights). Jefferson was a wealthy slave holder motivated by profit as much as principle in penning the Declaration; remember that the revolution was mostly driven by Royal confiscatory tax policies.

Gates did more to increase wages (via gigantic individual productivity boost) than the combined efforts of all US unions for the last 200 years ( today unions mostly just improve the wages of the union leaders). Gates' work is just one of millions of examples of productivity enhancing, life extending, health improving inventions produced by for-profit enterprises and individuals. The relative contributions by non-profit activities (things for which you are not paid) is tiny.

Make yourself a list of contribution from both sources (working for profit and working for free) and weight them by positive effect on society. It is not even a little close.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The person who provides $30,000 a year in benefit but only receives $20,000 in compensation makes it possible for another to increase his compensation above what he has provided.

Take a thousand workers who are underpaid and they can increase a single persons compensation by $10,000,000.