Text 14934, 267 rader
Skriven 2007-05-25 16:31:21 av Carl (1347.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================

"lizardgirl" <gabiks@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:1180110023.302250.122410@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 6:54 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>So any American that goes overseas can be said to represent America
>>
>> > Yes, but not all of them in an official capacity.
>>
>> Not being difficult, I'm just curious...
>
> see how you are :^)

Imeant to write "Not *trying* to be difficult..." :)

>>.......what official capacity does the CSO have?
>>
>
> amend that to quasi-official.  its perception.  we go to a foreign
> land.  we dress nice, play nice, eat with forks,  use the potty all be
> ourselves, makes the rest of us look good.

So then it's okay to tax federally rather than at the state level because a 
group
dresses nice, eats with forks and can use the potty by themselves?

Lots of people will go overseas if those are the requirements to get federal
tax dollars.

"Quasi-official" status doesn't cut it (to me)  as justifying federal 
funding rather
than state funding. As a related issue, if the funding is at the state 
level,
no one from another state has any right to complain about what type of art 
gets funded.


>> But unfortunately these days the government doesn't accept ANY limit
>> to their power.  They feel free to seize assets for anything they want.
>
> let's assume we like being a republic.  which federal powers in your
> estimation warrant nation asset re-allocation, taxes, fines,
> penalties, seizers, whatever?

Most programs that are directed to specific state interests.  Here we've set
up a new light rail system.  Part of the justification was that if we spend
six or seven hundred million dollars locally, we'd get money from the 
federal
government too.  The proponents made it sound like it was free money and
we'd be crazy not to feed at the federal trough..

One of two things happens: either we get more federal money that we pay out
as MN taxpayers... in which case people in other states are being soaked for 
a light
rail system that  only a relatively few Minnesotans even use, or MN 
taxpayers pay
out more of their tax money than we get back so that we pay for everyone
else's mass transit programs.

I find either condition undesirable.  I have no desire to impose on other 
people's
tax burdens because of my needs or desires either.

BTW, I'm not saying there shouldn't be mass transit, but right now there's 
no apparent
need to scale the projects to the actual need of the community.

>
>>
>> I'm more forgiving of state spending...even when it's on something I
>> disagree with than I am on federal spending.  A lot of federal programs
>> reek of power grab.
>>
>
> you'll get little disagreement from me on federal power grabbing.
> there's way to much money being laundered through capital hill.
> but why is questionable (to you) state funding more forgiveable then
> federal spending on the same?

Because at the state level the people that raise the taxes are more
accountable to the people that pay the taxes.

If the people of MA thought the Big Dig was important enough they
should pay for it.  If they actually felt the full impact of the expense
they would probabaly have demanded that it didn't turn into a massively
over budget mess that was so poorly managed that millions and millions
of dollars are unaccounted for and the quality is so poor that people
were killed within months of the project being completed.

That's not to say that I'm completely forgiving of state legislators either; 
the
MN congress decided that even though it required a referrendum to pass
stadium funding for the Twins and the vote failed twice, they decided
to change the law so they didn't need the vote and then passed the
spending bill.

Why should the people of MA care when a lot of the cost was picked up by 
other states?

Nevadans shouldn't have to pay for the $465 million for the International 
Fund for Ireland, (warning, I referenced this recently in another thread) 
which gets an addition $13-25 million every year as a tribute to Tip Oneal 
and is spent on things such as producing golf videos,  an "all Ireland 
genealogy project,"   pony trekking centers, building a replica of the 
Jeanie Johnston, a Canadian ship that once ferried famine victims across the 
Atlantic,  the construction of Creggan Community Café and Catering Ltd., the 
Leitrim Food Center of Excellence, the Chef Development Program, and (my 
favorite) funding toward the World Toilet Summit.

Why should the people in Idaho have to pay towards the $850,000 for a 
bicycle path in Macomb county MI?

What about $11 million for "Steamtown," in Scranton, called a "third-rate 
collection in a place to
which it has no relevance" by a former transportation curator from the 
Smithsonian Museum

Would the people of Scranton vote to pay for such a thing if they had to pay 
for the whole thing themselves?

How about $500,000 to restore the home of Lawrence Welk in Stasburg, North 
Dakota, population 553,
(which was not requested by the Welk family)

$2,000,000 for restoration of the Liberty Theater and Lucas Theater.

$2,000,000 to the City of Toledo, OH to create a strong community anchor in 
the heart of the downtown, concentrating on restoring the Toledo Farmers' 
Market and helping rehabilitate the nearby abandoned Portside Marketplace in 
the district of House appropriator Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

$1,500,000 added in conference at the request of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to 
establish a Center for Pacific Rim Studies at the University of San 
Francisco, CA

$1,360,000 added in conference for renovation of Point Stadium in Johnstown, 
PA in the district of House appropriator John Murtha (D-PA)

$1,300,000 added in conference for Newburyport, MA for renovation/addition 
to police facilities in the district of then-Rep. Nick Mavroules (D-MA)

$250,000 for a water tower for the Joplin Industrial Park in Joplin, MO in 
the state of Senate appropriator

200,000 added in the Senate for entomology acoustics detection in the state 
of Senate appropriator

---  Stopping with examples now :) ---

Now, some of these projects may or may not be wonderful projects, but 
they're added to the federal bill without telling the taxpayer they're there 
(other than the recipients of the pork who feel like they're getting 
something for nothing).

I don't see why any of them are funded by my parents dollars...or by your 
dollars.  If it's done at the state level, the people will see where there 
money is going and be able to judge how well it's being spent.



<snip>

>> > There is this misconception that art does not extend past the studio
>> > or museum system.  Every time you do something as simple as buy a
>> > magazine you encounter an artist or two in the form of photographers,
>> > graphic artists, layout designers, art directors, etc.  everytime you
>> > turn on the tv, actors, set designers, storyboarders, costumers,
>> > makeup artists, writers, get dressed, on and on and on.  the need for
>> > 'creative' types is ever present.   the need to provide a quality
>> > education for artist makes as much economic sense as providing one for
>> > doctors, lawyers, and economist.
>>
>> Doctors?  I think there is a greater demand for 10000 more doctors in the
>> world
>> than  there are for 10000 more makeup artists.  That's just my opinion.
>>
>
> i'm taking 'demand' to mean 'need' here.  we may need more doctors but
> dollar for dollar i'm willing to bet that makeup artists contribute
> just as much to the economy as a profession.

But the primary purpose of a doctor is not to contribute to the economy; 
that's
secondary.  We *do* need more doctors than we need makeup artists.
No offense to makeup artists intended.

>
>> > Personally I believe there is an over emphasis on math and science in
>> > our school system.  I wouldn't however suggest cutting either
>> > program.  My point being that not everyone can/wants to be an artist
>> > or a scientist, a general education (which is what the school systems
>> > tries to provide) should allow for both.
>>
>> Personally, I think K-12 should place a high emphasis on math and 
>> science.
>> Math and science teach more than how the world works, they teach how to
>> think.
>> They are the foundation. Writing should also have a high emphasis.
>
> in principle i don't disagree.  every year we get a break down of the
> test results for the entire school district.  last year for math our
> district scored in the 87 percentile at the elementary level (k-5),
> dropped to the 72 percentile in middle school and dropped again in
> high school to the 53 percentile.  this could mean a lot of things.
> one of which is that by high school kids know enough about who they
> are and what they want to be that math ain't all that important to
> them.

> i'm all for teaching kids how to think.  but once we've done
> that ...

At what point do you feel that's been accomplished?

> shouldn't we allow them to opt out of a standardized requirement
> they disagree with?

Let's take that a bit farther.  When I went to college, I went in
as a Chemical Engineering student.  Using your reasoning, why should
I have had to pay thousands of dollars on out of state tuition to pay for
the various liberal arts courses that were required when I knew I wasn't
interested in them?  I'd already read a great deal of Shakespeare.  I've
been to museums around the world.  Why shouldn't I have been able
to opt out?

>>
>> If one doesn't question everything, then you deserve it when the
>> government spends your money in ways you don't like.  It's
>> just as valid to question how well tax money is spent on education as it
>> is asking how it's spent on defense.
>
> absolutely.  yet the government will always spend money in a way that
> i might not like.  the question becomes does the government know/
> understand/have a right to spend on my behalf whether i like it our
> not.   often i think the answer is yes so in order to serve the
> greater good.

The government gave itself the right to tax for anything it wants to,
and has done just that.  When the congress was voting to create
the income tax there was a hige debate over whether or not there
should be an upper cap of 10%  There was outrage in the debate
because many thought that by stating an upper limit...some might
actually be tempted to raise taxes to that limit!   Most were disgusted
at the very thought of taking that much of a person's income.

There are obviously valid expenses that are national by their very nature.
Many still disagree about  the level of spending on things like the 
military,
but few question whether a military is a national expense.

As to the "greater good," I reserve the right to challenge each item for 
proof.
You could claim it is in the "Greater good" to take every penny Bill Gates
has and divide it equally among the people in Portland.  Then you could
say that his body should be strung up and beaten in order to make those
that hate him because he's wealthy feel better and improve the "national
psyche."

You can rationalize "greater good" about almost anything... like taking
the homes of people that have lived there for decades and giving them
to a private hotel developer.

Carl

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
-- Chief Justice John Marshall
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)