View Poll Results: 4 more years for Bush? if he could.

Voters
267. This poll is closed
  • yes

    91 34.08%
  • no

    176 65.92%

Dumb Question- If Bush Could Run Again, Would You Vote For Him?

Page 4 of 12 First ... 23456 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by CDB


    Oh, that's so frigging rich!

    If our economy is deregulated then I'm Chuck ****ing Norris.
    Didn't you read the stories about oil companies got away with lying about the cost of their production to avoid paying premiums to the government? Its recent news.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Didn't you read the stories about oil companies got away with lying about the cost of their production to avoid paying premiums to the government? Its recent news.
    That wasn't your claim. You said Bush had undertaken "[a]lmost a complete deregulation of businesses." This is complete nonsense on its face and not worth more than a laugh at its lunacy.
    •   
       


  3. Bush is an idiot ass.


  4. Things bush has done.. i think The Experiment MIGHT find something in this stack of stuff that he agrees with lol..



    Abortion & Traditional Values
    1. Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade.
    2. Reversed Clinton's move to strike Reagan's anti-abortion Mexico Policy.
    3. By Executive Order (EO), reversed Clinton's policy of not requiring parental consent for abortions under the Medical Privacy Act.
    4. By EO, prohibited federal funds for international family planning groups that provide abortions and related services.
    5. Upheld the ban on abortions at military hospitals.
    6. Made $33 million available for abstinence education programs in 2004.
    7. Supports the Defense of Marriage Act — and a Constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
    8. Requires states to conduct criminal background checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents.
    9. Requires districts to let students transfer out of dangerous schools.
    10. Requires schools to have a zero-tolerance policy for classroom disruption (reintroducing discipline into classrooms).
    11. Signed the Teacher Protection Act, which protects teachers from lawsuits related to student discipline.
    12. Expanded the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs.
    Budget, Taxes & Economy
    1. Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.
    2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax.
    3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
    4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority.
    5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty.
    6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people.
    7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts.
    8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America.
    9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals.
    10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains.
    11. Signed trade promotion authority.
    12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches.
    13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States.
    14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes.
    15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home.
    16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled.
    17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child.
    18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000.
    19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans.
    20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year.
    1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.
    2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education.
    3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.)
    4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight.
    5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.
    6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards.
    7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems.
    8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to to become teachers.
    Environment & Energy
    1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty.
    2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc.
    3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives.
    4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
    5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger.
    6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger.
    7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California.
    8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species.
    Defense & Foreign Policy
    1. Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom.
    2. Saddam Hussein is now in prison. His two murderous sons are dead. All but a handful of the regime's senior members were killed or captured.
    3. Leader by leader and member by member, al Qaida is being hunted down in dozens of countries around the world. Of the senior al Qaida leaders, operational managers, and key facilitators the U.S. Government has been tracking, nearly two-thirds have been taken into custody or killed. The detentions or deaths of senior al Qaida leaders, including Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11, and Muhammad Atef, Osama bin Laden's second-in-command until his death in late 2001, have been important in the War on Terror.
    4. Disarmed Libya of its chemical, nuclear and biological WMD's without bribes or bloodshed.
    5. Continues to execute the War On Terror, getting worldwide cooperation to track funds/terrorists. Has cut off much of the terrorists' funding, and captured or killed many key leaders of the al Qaeda network.
    6. Initiated a comprehensive review of our military, which was completed just prior to 9/11/01, and which accurately reported that ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE capabilities were critical in the 21st Century.
    7. Killed the old US/Soviet Union ABM Treaty that was preventing the U.S. from deploying our ABM defenses.
    8. Has been one of the strongest, if not THE strongest friend Israel has ever hand in the U.S. presidency.
    9. Part of the coalition for an Israeli/Palestinian "Roadmap to Peace," along with Great Britain, Russia and the EU.
    10. Pushed through THREE raises for our military. Increased military pay by more than $1 billion a year.
    11. Signed the LARGEST nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia.
    12. Started withdrawing our troops from Bosnia, and has announced withdrawal of our troops from Germany and the Korean DMZ.
    13. Prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command.
    14. Paid back UN dues only in return for reforms and reduction of U.S. share of the costs.
    15. Earmarked at least 20 percent of the Defense procurement budget for next-generation weaponry.
    16. Increased defense research and development spending by at least $20 billion from fiscal 2002 to 2006.
    17. Ordered a comprehensive review of military weapons and strategy.
    18. Ordered a review of overseas deployments.
    19. Ordered renovation of military housing. The military has already upgraded about 10 percent of its inventory and expects to modernize 76,000 additional homes this year.
    20. Is working to tighten restrictions on military-technology exports.
    21. Brought back our EP-3 intel plane and crew from China without any bribes or bloodshed.
    Globalization & Internationalism
    1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant).
    2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court.
    3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty).*
    4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.
    5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."
    Government Reform
    1. Improved government efficiency by putting hundreds of thousands of jobs put up for bid. This weakens public-sector unions and cuts undeserved pay raises.
    2. Initiated review of all federal agencies with the goal of eliminating federal jobs (completed September 2003) in an effort to reduce the size of the federal government while increasing private sector jobs.
    3. Led the most extensive reorganization the Federal bureaucracy in over 50 years: After 9/11, condensed 20+ overlapping agencies and their intelligence sectors into one agency, the Department of Homeland Security.*
    4. Ordered each agency to draft a five-year plan to restructure itself, with fewer managers.
    5. Converted federal service contracts to performance-based contracts wherever possible so that the contractor has measurable performance goals.
    Health
    1. Strengthen the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas, and make its scholarship funds tax-free.
    2. Double the research budget of the National Institutes of Health.
    3. Signed Medicare Reform, which includes:
    • A 10-year privatization option.
    • Prescription drug benefits: Prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery, for example, at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs that eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine.
    • More health care choices: As President Bush stated, "…when seniors have the ability to make choices, health care plans within Medicare will have to compete for their business by offering higher quality service [at lower cost]. For the seniors of America, more choices and more control will mean better health care. These are the kinds of health care options we give to the members of Congress and federal employees. What's good for members of Congress is also good for seniors.
    • New Health Savings Accounts: Effective January 1, 2004, Americans can set aside up to $4,500 every year, tax free, to save for medical expenses. Depending on your tax bracket, that means you'll save between 10 to 35 percent on any costs covered by money in your account. Every year, the money not spent would stay in the account and gain interest tax-free, just like an IRA. These accounts will be good for small business owners, and employees. More businesses can focus on covering workers for major medical problems, such as hospitalization for an injury or illness. At the same time, employees and their families will use these accounts to cover doctors visits, or lab tests, or other smaller costs. Some employers will contribute to employee health accounts. This will help more American families get the health care they need at the price they can afford.
    Homeland Security, Border Enforcement & Immigration
    1. *See Government Reform above. Under President Bush's leadership, America has made an unprecedented commitment to homeland security.
    2. Has CONSTRUCTION in process on the first 10 ABM silos in Alaska so that America will have a defense against North Korean nukes. Has ordered national and theater ballistic missile defenses to be deployed by 2004.
    3. Announced a 9.7% increase in government-wide homeland security funding in his FY 2005 budget, nearly tripling the FY 2001 levels (excluding the Department of Defense and Project BioShield).
    4. Before DHS was created, there were inspectors from three different agencies of the Federal Government and Border Patrol officers protecting our borders. Through DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) now consolidates all border activities into a single agency to create "one face at the border." This not only better secures the borders of the United States, but it also eliminates many of the inefficiencies that occurred under the old system. With over 18,000 CBP inspectors and 11,000 Border Patrol agents, CBP has 29,000 uniformed officers on our borders.
    5. The Border Patrol is continuing installation of monitoring devices along the borders to detect illegal activity.
    6. Launched Operation Tarmac to investigate businesses and workers in the secure areas of domestic airports and ensure immigration law compliance. Since 9/11, DHS has audited 3,640 businesses, examined 259,037 employee records, arrested 1,030 unauthorized workers, and participated in the criminal indictment of 774 individuals.
    7. Since September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard has conducted more than 124,000 port security patrols, 13,000 air patrols, boarded more than 92,000 vessels, interdicted over 14,000 individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally, and created and maintained more than 90 Maritime Security Zones.
    8. Announced the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), an internet-based system that is improving America's ability to track and monitor foreign students and exchange visitors. Over 870,000 students are registered in SEVIS. Of 285 completed field investigations, 71 aliens were arrested.
    9. This week, the US-VISIT program began to digitally collect biometric identifiers to record the entry and exit of aliens who travel into the U.S on a visa. Together with the standard information, this new program will confirm compliance with visa and immigration policies.
    10. Eliminated INS bureaucratic redundancies and lack of accountability.
    11. Split the Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies: one to protect the border and interior, the other to deal with naturalization.
    12. Signed the workplace verification bill to prevent hiring of illegal aliens.
    13. Established a six-month deadline for processing immigration applications.
    14. Information regarding nearly 100% of all containerized cargo is carefully screened by DHS before it arrives in the United States. Higher risk shipments are physically inspected for terrorist weapons and contraband prior to being released from the port of entry. Advanced technologies are being deployed to identify warning signs of chemical, biological, or radiological attacks. Since September 11, 2001, hundreds of thousands of first responders across America have been trained to recognize and respond to the effects of a WMD attack.
    Judiciary & Tort Reform
    1. Is urging federal liability reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits.
    2. Killed the liberal ABA's unconstitutional role in vetting federal judges. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not the ABA.
    3. Is nominating strong, conservative judges to the judiciary.
    4. Supports class action reform bill which limits lawyer fees so that more settlement money goes to victims.
    Politics

    1. His leadership resulted in Republican gains in the House and Senate, solidifying Republican control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.
    2. Signed an EO enforcing the Supreme Court's Beck decision regarding union dues being used for political campaigns against individual's wishes.
    Second Amendment
    1. Ordered Attorney General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, and is NOT a Leftist-imagined "collective" right.
    2. Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit.
    3. Currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers.
    4. *See Globalization & Internationalism.
    Traditional Values, Compassion & Volunteerism
    1. Endorses and promotes "The Responsibility Era." President Bush often speaks of the necessity of personal responsibility and civic volunteerism. He said, "In a compassionate society, people respect one another and take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. My hope is to change the culture from one that has said, if it feels good, do it; if you've got a problem, blame somebody else — to one in which every single American understands that he or she is responsible for the decisions that you make; you're responsible for loving your children with all your heart and all your soul; you're responsible for being involved with the quality of the education of your children; you're responsible for making sure the community in which you live is safe; you're responsible for loving your neighbor, just like you would like to be loved yourself."
    2. Started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered. For the first time in history, Americans can enter geographic information about where they want to get involved, such as state or zip code, as well as areas of interest ranging from education to the environment, and they can access volunteer opportunities offered by more than 50,000 organizations across the country and around the world.
    3. Established the The White House Office and the Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative — located in seven Federal agencies. The faith-based initiative supports the essential work of these important organizations. The goal is to make sure that grassroots leaders can compete on an equal footing for federal dollars, receive greater private support, and face fewer bureaucratic barriers. Work focuses on at-risk youth, ex-offenders, the homeless and hungry, substance abusers, those with HIV/AIDS, and welfare-to-work families.
    4. The White House released a guidebook fully describing the Administration's belief that faith-based groups have a Constitutionally-protected right to maintain their religious identity through hiring — even when Federal funds are involved.
    5. Issued an EO implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead ruling, which requires moving disabled people from institutions to community-based facilities when possible.
    6. Increased funding for low-interest loan programs to help people with disabilities purchase devices to assist them.
    7. Revised the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 rent subsidies to disabled people, permitting them to use up to a year's worth of vouchers to finance down payments on homes. HUD has started pilot programs in 11 states.
    8. Committed US funds to purchase medicine for millions of men, women and children now suffering with AIDS in Africa.
    9. Heeding the words of our own Declaration of Independence, the president laid out the non-negotiable demands of human dignity for all people everywhere. On January 29, 2002, he said, "No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture. But America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity." As stated by the President, they are a virtual manifesto of conservative principles:
    • Equal Justice
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Limited Government Power
    • Private Property Rights
    • Religious Tolerance
    • Respect for Women
    • Rule of Law

  5. I agree, there's nothing good that Bush has done:

    1) Eliminated a tax surplus into the most rampant spending ever. Of course we'll never know the actual figures being spent annually since certain stuff (military expenses) get cut out. Some say its anywhere from $700-800 billion annually. Some think more. Whats worse is that there's so much tax cuts for the rich that we're borrowing more than we ever had to.

    What good is a tax surplus. We now have a better and stronger economy then when we had a surplus. Bush has failed to advertise that.


    2) No Child Left Behind is a miserable flop. Education is worse than its ever been, despite the education beefed up by 100%. Where is the money going to? Not into the system itself, more into the pockets of the school boards.

    I agree. Some children should be left behind. Not everyone is suppose to be smart, and we need short order cooks. This money can be put into national security.. acutally.. he should cut NASA too.. we don't need anymore battle bots on mars


    3) Cut education spending for college students...for loans. Money that you pay back to the government. He also cut the Corps of Engineers, which was responsible for the levee in Louisiana. As a student for Civil Engineering, this point sticks out to me more than to others I suppose.

    Good. Not everyone should go to college. I work for a college and I have no problem failing people, though i get heat for it. More than half of my students shouldn't be out of 10th grade let a lone college. A degree at college is worthless today because of the amount given out.

    4) Billions of unaccounted for dollars. Nobody knows whats happening to it. Not to forget the extremely padded no bid contract deals. Probably the worst record of spending ever.

    Speculation. Give an exact amount.

    5) Sent in a small amount of troops in Afghanistan, making it possible for Osama to run out and escape. I thought he might have been dead but it looks like he's alive and well, unfortunately. Now it looks like the Taliban forces are slowly gaining momentum in certain parts. Some areas are no-go zones for American troops.

    Bush has done something that most presidents are scared to do. Let the military control the miltary. Anything the military needed, they ended up getting after it was requested. Take into account it is almost better that Osama isn't killed our caught. He is worth more to his cause if he is dead....


    6) Sent troops into Iraq without proper body armor or weaponry. At least a bridge in Alaska is getting all the support it needs.

    Same as above comment

    7) Almost a complete deregulation of businesses. Gives tax breaks to companies for outsourcing. Companies are now hiring employees...for half the wages people were fired for 10 years ago. Lets massive companies merge for hundreds of billions of dollars, leaving a massive gap between the has and the has nots. Small companies' existences are futile. Fortunately the internet is a way for companies to get some more revenue.

    I think the other posts talked about this issue. But i do agree that oil companies are in the "free and open market" I couldn't open up an oil field and sell maynardogo gas for 22cent a gal...

    8) Turned the US into an international joke. Its Bush's way or the highway. Unfortunately for Bush, people are picking the highway. Irreperable damage? I don't think so but we ****ed over a lot of countries.

    The united states spends more money, time, man power to aid international issues than ANY country combined. These nations stop laughing after they ask for our help.


    9) Wants to drill into Alaska, where prices will barely be impacted. At least oil companies will be making a cool several hundred million from it. Thats all that matters in the end to the administration and his butt buddies.

    True. Kenedy, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Edwards, and mike moore will get lots of money when we drill in alaska.. they all have a take in the oil game. I know everone has that idea of going to Alaska.. fishing in the river.. starting their life a new.. re connecting with nature and life.. but know what... they dont.. they go to sin city. We have the ability to drill and be clean.. its being done and will be done.. Just because we protect nature doesn't mean it will prolong the human race as well.. Example is DDT. We ban that.. now we have west nile virus killing thousands a year... its a catch 22


    I don't know if Bush is the worst President ever but he's at the bottom of the barrel. The whole "There's worse out there" is really not an excuse. Most Americans don't mind him since most of what goes on is outside of their realm. If there was a draft or a raise in taxes to make up for the spending, people would wake up immediately to what Bush is doing.

    If there was a draft, it was voted in by the democratic party whom twice try to have that bill pass. Raising taxes doesnt ever cover spending.. it never did.
    •   
       


  6. What good is a tax surplus. We now have a better and stronger economy then when we had a surplus. Bush has failed to advertise that.
    The surplus could pay off some national debt for one. A tax cut wasn't really needed and all the future tax cuts were really unnecessary.

    Also, a stronger economy for whom? The cost of living is rising faster than wages.

    I agree. Some children should be left behind. Not everyone is suppose to be smart, and we need short order cooks. This money can be put into national security.. acutally.. he should cut NASA too.. we don't need anymore battle bots on mars
    Uh oh, I'm afraid I agree with you on something Just kidding. I think that the quality of education should get better but the opportunities are there for teenagers to better themselves. At my High School, the drop out rate was extremely high; so high that your driver's license was suspended for six months for dropping out.

    Anyway, at age 16-18, people kept dropping out because they'd rather stick to their $9/hr job than finish school. People are such idiots. I think opportunities should be available for every student but if they blow it, tough ****.

    Good. Not everyone should go to college. I work for a college and I have no problem failing people, though i get heat for it. More than half of my students shouldn't be out of 10th grade let a lone college. A degree at college is worthless today because of the amount given out.
    Whats funny about this is that now it seems like jobs (Engineering ones anyway) send you right back to Graduate School once you get hired. I have no problem with people failing either. The problem with College is that its not about higher education any more. Now its about quotas. People don't give a **** about education as much as they care about how many women are in Mathematics or Sciences.

    Speculation. Give an exact amount.
    $8.8 billion.

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

    The united states spends more money, time, man power to aid international issues than ANY country combined. These nations stop laughing after they ask for our help.
    I agree but my point is I want America to be respected by everyone; an example of a country where people can aspire to be. They don't have to be afraid of getting tortured if they mentioned they don't like Kim Jong-Il or all those doctors in Turkmenistan who promised to help out the leader, not the citizens there. Thats the way I want America to be seen. As inspiration.

    True. Kenedy, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Edwards, and mike moore will get lots of money when we drill in alaska.. they all have a take in the oil game
    Of course, as long as the money is right, political parties will turn against their principles.

  7. You can't reason with the left.

    George Bush is the sole reason for everything wrong in America to them. No man has ever been hated so much, while being responsible for so little.

    I don't even like him that much as a President (too liberal), but I can't stand the ridiculous amount of hatred people spew about him.

    Also, keep in mind, the democrats in Congress and the Senate are saints and completely blameless for the actions of the government.

  8. I didn't vote for him the first time, his old man either. Beelzebub will be wearing long johns before I ever voted for anyone with the last name of Shrub!! Before I get branded as a left winger, it has nothing to do with right or left, it has to do with the man and his old man. Those 2 are the evil incarnated on Earth in my opinion!! I used to be a republican, then I saw the light and became a Libertarian.
    ROB

  9. Quote Originally Posted by MaynardMeek

    1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act.


    That is the biggest joke in the world. The only people who think that Bush did a good job with that do not work anywhere near a public school.

    Its not that schools shouldn't be accountable, but he has failed to supply the necessary funding to support it.

    And for those of you who don't know everything about it, its not just buying new books or computers. It fails to pay for the additional teachers, tutors and teaching aides that are required to go with his plan.

    Also Private Industry wouldn't work for education. Education is not that profitable. It also doesn't take into account how poor many districts are. And I'm not just talking inner city, but also rural and blue-collar towns. If you elimenated the taxes and government support, most American's would not be able to afford the tuition for their kids.
    Also if the government had no hand in education, how can they possibly require that students attend? You can't make Americans attend a private institution.

  10. Alright, alright. Nice exchange of ideas. Now exactly which one of you "lettered" on the debate team? Also, have you been telling others you earned it playing football?

  11. Yes, but im making a lot of money here in Iraq, so i guess im biased.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    And for those of you who don't know everything about it, its not just buying new books or computers. It fails to pay for the additional teachers, tutors and teaching aides that are required to go with his plan. Also Private Industry wouldn't work for education. Education is not that profitable. It also doesn't take into account how poor many districts are.
    This is news indeed since the private economy has managed to take once massively costly items like TVs, computers and cars and essentially made them available to anyone at prices almost anyone can afford. Either there is something incredible and magical about education that makes it immune to the market forces that affect every single other product or service in the exact same way, or your statement is incorrect. I'm inclided to think the latter is the correct option. After all the manufacturers of TVs, basketballs and footballs, boomboxes, snazzy sneakers, fast food services and chrome spinner rims don't take into account the relative paucity of the people in those districts, but in my last trip into the ghetto for a client I saw no shortage of those items.

    That education as it currently exists might be destroyed by privatization I have no doubt. It's an inefficient model based on old technology and political correctness more than effectiveness these days, and a change from that model would mean the end of a lot of cushy administrative careers and a mixed business model that seems to have done more to support its employees than its customers (kids and parents) over the years, which I think is what's really behind the resistance to change of almost any kind the education community offers. The only change they seem to support is an increase in their budget. At least privatization would get rid of that reversed logic, that a failing system should get more money.

    As for what bush has done for education, I doubt he's improved or made it worse in any tangible way.


    Also if the government had no hand in education, how can they possibly require that students attend? You can't make Americans attend a private institution.
    Many state laws require people take out insurance policies on their cars, but this doesn't mean the state or federal government needs to own the insurance companies too.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    This is news indeed since the private economy has managed to take once massively costly items like TVs, computers and cars and essentially made them available to anyone at prices almost anyone can afford. Either there is something incredible and magical about education that makes it immune to the market forces that affect every single other product or service in the exact same way, or your statement is incorrect. I'm inclided to think the latter is the correct option. After all the manufacturers of TVs, basketballs and footballs, boomboxes, snazzy sneakers, fast food services and chrome spinner rims don't take into account the relative paucity of the people in those districts, but in my last trip into the ghetto for a client I saw no shortage of those items.
    Do you noticed how all of your examples of private industry making things affordable are all products produced overseas by cheap labor? And fast food? Why is fast food so cheap and fast? Because its filled with CRAP. I don't think anybody on here is going to step up and say McDonald's makes quality food.
    That education as it currently exists might be destroyed by privatization I have no doubt. It's an inefficient model based on old technology and political correctness more than effectiveness these days, and a change from that model would mean the end of a lot of cushy administrative careers and a mixed business model that seems to have done more to support its employees than its customers (kids and parents) over the years, which I think is what's really behind the resistance to change of almost any kind the education community offers. The only change they seem to support is an increase in their budget. At least privatization would get rid of that reversed logic, that a failing system should get more money.
    So where is this money going to come from? I mean seriously, if you cut out all taxes, then only people attending would pay right? So it'd be tuition. The school I work at has 700 students. 41% are low income. This is a former factory town (Amaco/Standard and Clark) not an inner city. There are no fancy suburbs or subdivisions. It's a basic middle income town. So how would this be affordable? You would still need quality teachers, so you need competive pay. You still need secratarial, maintance, janitorial, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. That's a lot of people and their money has to come from somewhere. Plus you have the overhead costs of supplies and utilities bills.

    Many state laws require people take out insurance policies on their cars, but this doesn't mean the state or federal government needs to own the insurance companies too.
    Yes but driving a car is a privelage not a right. Also the government controls, regulates and pays for the highways. So I am to assume that you think an education is a product and not a right?

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Do you noticed how all of your examples of private industry making things affordable are all products produced overseas by cheap labor? And fast food? Why is fast food so cheap and fast? Because its filled with CRAP. I don't anybody on here is going to step up and say McDonald's makes quality food.
    No, but that's not my point. If there is a demand for something and it can be done, it will be delivered by the market. It's the profit incentive. As for the cheap labor, you're assuming the only business model for education is the current one used by public education. That's blaming the problems of the government on the private sector. The private market would provide a variety of choices, from things similar to what we have now to targetted courses for learning trades or specific subjects. There can be distance learning, at home learning, predesigned packages, endless options requiring different amounts of resources and labor.

    The current failed model of education is the government's failure, not that of the private sector, and just as government manufactured cars in the old socialist states were horrible, saying the private sector couldn't do it better and using those cars as the example would obviously be as incorrect as it is to point to our current education model and say private industry couldn't do it better, when obviously they could.

    So where is this money going to come from? I mean seriously, if you cut out all taxes, then only people attending would pay right? So it'd be tuition. The school I work at has 700 students. 41% are low income. This is a former factory town (Amaco/Standard and Clark) not an inner city. There are no fancy suburbs or subdivisions. It's a basic middle income town. So how would this be affordable? You would still need quality teachers, so you need competive pay. You still need secratarial, maintance, janitorial, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, etc. That's a lot of people and their money has to come from somewhere. Plus you have the overhead costs of supplies and utilities bills.
    See above. You're limiting possiblities to the current model of education. Of course it would be impossible to fund our current public education system privately, because no private investor in his right mind would pour a cent into such a wasteful, ridiculously inefficient structure. That is not the only option there is, unless of course the private market is stopped from discovering and developing other options for people. Yes, lower income families would have differnt options than rich people. I'd rather they had more and different options than being forced into the one size fits all failure we currently have.

    Yes but driving a car is a privelage not a right. So I am to assume that you think an education is a product and not a right?
    No, I do not belive education is a right, not in the sense you seem to imply. Rights do not impose costs on other people. The right to free speech doesn't mean everyone gets their own subsidized daily newspaper. Nor should the right to do something be confused with the ability to do something. I have the right to buy a Lexus, but I have no right to force anyone else to pay for it if i can't afford it myself. People certainly have the right to persue an education for themselves or their children, but definitely not to force others to hand it to them. At least in my opinion, I admit people can disagree on this issue and the fact that kids didn't exactly ask to be here kind of greys it a bit.

    I would still argue though that the efficiency of the private market would better meet the needs and wants of all people, which is in my opinion a better option than forcing almost everyone into making one choice. The poorness of our current educational system is, I think, easily tracable to the fact that it is government controlled and comes with all the weird and perverse incentives of such a structurte, making the delivery of a quality education to kids a systemic impossiblity over time. It will degenerate and there's no way to stop it because failure simply isn't punished. The system always sees an income no matter how dissatisfied it's 'customers' are. That is the basic problem and it isn't correctable in the end. It promotes waste, it promotes inefficiency.

    The end the result is exactly what proponents of public education say they want to avoid: the poor and middle income kids get forced into a failing system with no other options, and the rich get to do what they want with their kids. They gap between them will continue to widen too, until the poor and the middle income kids have the same advantage the rich ones do. But that advantage is not massive amounts of money, though that is an advantage we'd all like to be sure. The one advantage they need which would respect everyone's rights and do the most to level the playing field of opportunities is choice. In the end that's what the rich kids really have going for them: options. And the only way to ensure everyone has options is to make people compete in offerring those options to them.

  15. Okay you say I keep looking at failed structure and then applying the Private Sector idea to it. So far though you have only given me the idea of a Private Sector but haven't actually explained how this would work or how an investor would set this up. It's like you've said "here's an idea that looks better on paper, so I'll leave it to someone else to figure out how to make it work money wise."

    Until you can also add to your theory how someone might make money of this, this is simply an insanely optimistic dream. It's like saying we should have world peace.

    What's to stop these businesses from going under? Who can guarantee that there will be enough schools to pull this off? Think how much the market goes up and down. Would you want to send your kid to school that is losing money the last three quarters and has now laid off half the Janitoral staff? Or now there's 35 kids in Bio instead of 25 because you had to fire a couple teachers to make numbers? Now my kid can fall behind because the teacher can't possibly give as much attention to al those kids. You would need more schools than McDonald's, and think how many those are. So maybe for schools you have "different brands"? How will this make education even for everyone?

    So what exactly is so wasteful, in your opinion, about Public Education? Is it just those cushy adminstration jobs? It might interest you to know that those cushy jobs are a part of the Free Economy. Principles, Superintendants, etc. are not union jobs like teachers. Their salary is set by good ol' supply and demand. Obviously if you want a well educated and compotent person to run the school, you need to compete with other school's offers right? That's exactly what they do. High salarys of superintendants are because of competition. The reason they run so high is because the pool of people with enough experience and education to have this job is small. Few people+Lots of jobs=higher pay. These cushy jobs wouldn't go away if education was privatized. People always want to work where there is more money.

    Here's a solution that is more than reasonable and would put more money back in education: Federal Caps on Superintendant/Adminstrative pay.

  16. And one more point: You say it is all about choices and that's what makes rich kids better off than middle/lower class. So then how would a Private Sector make things better for the non-rich? THe rich will still be going to the Abercrombie or whatever of education and the poor will still be going to the thrift shop of education.

  17. Does'nt matter, it's just 2 puppets and one puppetmaster.
    Beside does anyone in their right mind actually believe Bush is in charge of anything?
    Cheney's got his hand so far up George's ass, they could be a ventriloquist act.

  18. not a chance.

  19. No. But he was still a better alternative than Kerry!

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Okay you say I keep looking at failed structure and then applying the Private Sector idea to it. So far though you have only given me the idea of a Private Sector but haven't actually explained how this would work or how an investor would set this up. It's like you've said "here's an idea that looks better on paper, so I'll leave it to someone else to figure out how to make it work money wise."
    That's because no one knows. I would say you're approaching the idea from the wrong mindset. There are, or ideally should be no rules other than don't steal and don't hurt in the private sector. Any plan that works would be acceptable, any plan that turns enough of a profit for someone in some way will succeed. And profits doesn't mean money, it just means a person is marginally satisfied with the trade/how they spent their time for whatever reason. The basic model is there's a demand for a product or a product someone thinks there is a demand for, they solicit investors and get going on delivering it. It's what happened for example in the PC market. A lot of the people most deeply involved in the computer business before PCs thought there was no real reason for regular people to have them. Now there are people who couldn't see living without them. The whole point of the private sector is that it doesn't have to stick to strict rules of how you do this, and how you deliver that. There is no plan per se. There's just the demand, the possible demand, and the risk, and people can deal with those in countless ways. For existing models I'd point to existing distance learning programs. Some schools offer lectures on DVD, CD, etc. Some schools exist for the teaching of specific trades, business skills, languages, etc.

    Until you can also add to your theory how someone might make money of this, this is simply an insanely optimistic dream. It's like saying we should have world peace.
    Sounds like you're biased against the idea to begin with. Since there are already a decent amount of private schools of all types thriving right now, even in light of a virtual government monopoly on education, it seems a lot less insanely optimistic than you would indicate. After all, those schools are still managing to pull in profits when there is a "free" alternative available. There are however lots of government rules that make competition hard.

    What's to stop these businesses from going under?
    Nothing but their own ability to keep their customers satisfied. That's the point.

    Who can guarantee that there will be enough schools to pull this off?
    Who guarantees there are enough TVs to go around, or cars? Who guarantees there are enough tomatoes on the shelves at the super market, or apples or steaks? Somehow those things manage to stay stocked at a reasonable level to satisfy everyone's demand for them. It isn't magic, just economics.

    Think how much the market goes up and down. Would you want to send your kid to school that is losing money the last three quarters and has now laid off half the Janitoral staff?
    The market going up and down isn't a general reflection of its stability. It is a general reflection of government intervention however. On any given day, when the market is up or down, when you look at a snap shot of business conditions the vast majority are pulling in profits. They might not be making a killing but they are surviving and usually thriving. That's the weeding mechanism of the market in place, generally speaking people who run their businesses poorly lose and don't get another chance, unless the government subsidizes them with easy credit and similar things. There can be ups and downs depending on market conditions, but when those are general responses to consumer demand, investors, etc., they are good things because they represent the self balancing of the market. The wave like movement of the market in boom in bust cycles is generally the result of government intervention, credit expansion and investment misallocation. While this can make investment projects temporally far from the retail/consumer market very iffy, generally the business cycle does not hit the retail markets hard if at all. Even during the great depression those markets only went down 10-20%. When a business does go under in the retail market it would generally be because of competition, which means some other business is satisfying consumers' demands better, cheaper or both. That's a good thing.

    Or now there's 35 kids in Bio instead of 25 because you had to fire a couple teachers to make numbers? Now my kid can fall behind because the teacher can't possibly give as much attention to al those kids. You would need more schools than McDonald's, and think how many those are. So maybe for schools you have "different brands"? How will this make education even for everyone?
    How have the public schools done that, except by making it equally horrible for everyone? That education would not be the same for everyone is, once more, the point. Not everyone has a Rolls Royce or a plasma TV. But, almost everyone does have access to various versions of cars and TVs that are within their price ranges.

    It seems to me you think all kids have the right to the same education even if it comes at the expense of others. I don't. It's an arguable point. I don't agree with it because even though you can make several moral and ethical arguments that kids should be provided for as innocents or on similar grounds, any attempt to provide a communal solution through the public sector leads to waste, lack of options, increasing costs and eventual collapse. So eventually it's every kid gets the same poor education except the super rich, who can still afford to opt out. In my view every kid and their parents should get a choice of options delivered by the free market. Maybe a new immigrant doesn't see the need for his kid to learn Shakespeare, but would like him to learn a marketable trade so he and his family's economic position can be advanced further and quicker. While I think in an ideal world every kid would get the greatest education possible, the world isn't ideal. Like anything education is a scarce service and throughout history the only mechanism that has shown itself to be good at alleviating scarcity by appropriate pricing is the market. All governments do is basically devalue the general market so everyone can get a hold of a good, even though it costs a ridiculous amount in taxes and wasted resources and the end product keeps worsening in quality, and often dwindeling in quantity too.

    So what exactly is so wasteful, in your opinion, about Public Education? Is it just those cushy adminstration jobs? It might interest you to know that those cushy jobs are a part of the Free Economy. Principles, Superintendants, etc. are not union jobs like teachers. Their salary is set by good ol' supply and demand.
    If the government employs them they are not private sector jobs, plain and simple. No matter what calculations the government might use to try and fool people into believing they are being paid in line with their demand, it is essentially economic nonsense. Such things can't be calculated aprior, only discovered through the market. Even if the government just owned the institutions and contracted out the jobs, the amount of educational facilities is not market determined and so therefore neither are the amounts of administrators needed nor are their salaries. Further points on this below.

    Obviously if you want a well educated and compotent person to run the school, you need to compete with other school's offers right?
    Wrong. That's like saying contractors compete for each other for defense contracts. Technically true, but competing for a government contract or a government job is not the same as competing for a private contract or job. If anything the tax resources used to pay the salary of such people have been pulled out of the private sector and have destroyed other potential productive options for the use of the capital. That's opportunity cost. There is also no guarantee of productivity once in the position because of the perverse incentive structure of public sector jobs. If the market justification for the position is interrupted at any step of the way by public intervention and decision making, it basically destroys the whole process.

    For example the government can artificially create an increase in 'demand' for such jobs by simply opening more schools. In a free market the product/service demanders, the consumers, set the salaries, numbers of workers, etc., in the end because there is a limit to what they are willing to pay and there is a limit maximum efficiency will allow at any given price. No such mechanism is at work at all in the public sector. The 'customers' and their 'demand' are artificial and invented through compulsion, the amount of institutions and jobs necessary to run them likewise artificial and invented. To allow for your argument would be to say that if the government decided Ford was the only car Americans should own, and made that rule compulsory, that somehow the 'demand' for Fords would be legitimate in a market sense. The larger amount of workers would be legitimate in a market sense as well. And, because the 'demand' can be artificially raised through further legislation, say forcing everyone to trade in and buy a new one at 4 years, salaries and 'demand' can likewise be bid up absent any true market mechanism or actual increase in demand. That's not the free market nor is it competition. In any sense of the word.

    In education you have another problem as well, the imposition of a single 'business' model on all institutions. The compulsary laws, the entrenched interests, the strings tied to federal money, the relatively lower number of people in private schools and the general if not total restriction of that market by the 'free' alternative of public education make innovations less likely as well.

    That's exactly what they do. High salarys of superintendants are because of competition. The reason they run so high is because the pool of people with enough experience and education to have this job is small. Few people+Lots of jobs=higher pay. These cushy jobs wouldn't go away if education was privatized. People always want to work where there is more money.
    I find that and 'interesting' view of supply and demand to say the least, given the above.

    Here's a solution that is more than reasonable and would put more money back in education: Federal Caps on Superintendant/Adminstrative pay.
    Which, granting your above argument which I don't but let's do so for argument's sake here, will cause an even greater shortage of such people. That's what price caps do.

    And one more point: You say it is all about choices and that's what makes rich kids better off than middle/lower class. So then how would a Private Sector make things better for the non-rich? The rich will still be going to the Abercrombie or whatever of education and the poor will still be going to the thrift shop of education.
    Yes. I've already said there will be a variety of choices, and that includes low income choices and it stands to reason those would not be the best of options, but they would be options that weren't there before. And the incentive structure inherent in the market would ensure they would be the best for the price. Everyone would be able to get the best they could afford, and they would have more options too, unlike now where everyone gets the mediocre to the worst, and the rich are the only ones who can make an actual choice. It's that ability to choose which will give the greatest advantage. Once the middle and lower income people have the option to choose the market can begin the process of honing in on their actual needs and wants as well, instead of the government imposed one size fits all curriculum there is now. There's also a virtual guarantee the methods used would improve because there's no unions or voters to please or consciences to salve, just consumer demand for better and better products at each given price point. That everyone cannot afford a Rolls Royce isn't justification for nationalizing the automotive industry, especially since everyone knows the end result will be cars similar to those once made in Russia and East Germany; unreliable oil burning gas-guzzlers in bland designs that necessitate a huge tax burden.

    In every single case without exception if a product is delivered by the market rather than the government, it is cheaper and of better quality, there are no shortages or surpluses worth mentioning at any level and everyone involved at every step of the way is involved voluntarily. I've yet to see anything about education that would make it different except the assertion that because the current government model doesn't work that the private market couldn't possibly work, which doesn't really sit right because the private market in all other cases does function better. In the end there is nothing special about education. It's a product/service some people want or feel they need, and someone will deliver it to them. If it's the government I'll grant you the delivery is guaranteed, but so is continually falling quality of service/product. It's got nothing to do with the educators themselves, it's just the nature of a compulsary government system.
    Last edited by CDB; 03-04-2006 at 04:39 PM.

  21. If the government employs them they are not private sector jobs, plain and simple. No matter what calculations the government might use to try and fool people into believing they are being paid in line with their demand, it is essentially economic nonsense. Such things can't be calculated aprior, only discovered through the market. Even if the government just owned the institutions and contracted out the jobs, the amount of educational facilities is not market determined and so therefore neither are the amounts of administrators needed nor are their salaries. Further points on this below.
    This makes no sense. So you are saying just because state/federal money is involved in paying for a job it somehow automatically erases a competetive job market?

    It simple to understand that a wealthy suburban district has money money than a rural area. This will be true for either public or private education. Joe Superintendant just recieved his masters and administrative certification. Straigh A's, dean's list, all that. He gets offered both of those jobs, which one is he more likely to take? It doesn't matter if there is only a certain number of these fixed non-market jobs available.

    The point is that as long as the pay is different, there are few solid canidates and many positions, this creates competition amongst districts to "snag" the next "C.E.O." of the school.

    You also said caps cause a shortage? So I guess fewer people try to get into professional sports now? Caps seem to work fine there. Keeps the money steady and guarantees an even playing field. Even if what is capped is the total amount of all pay (not just adminstration) this would be good. They could even run it like baseball, where those who go over have to do revenue sharing with the smaller "teams".

    It is somewhat disapointing that someone who is obviously intelligent does not think that everyone should have a fair shake at a quality education.

    More stupid uneducated people is only going to lead to more sixteen yearolds asking Superdrol questions here. And I don't think anyone wants that!

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    This makes no sense. So you are saying just because state/federal money is involved in paying for a job it somehow automatically erases a competetive job market?
    Yes. Competition for manufactured demand is not a free market by any stretch of the imagination, and it's barely a competitive market.

    It simple to understand that a wealthy suburban district has money money than a rural area. This will be true for either public or private education. Joe Superintendant just recieved his masters and administrative certification. Straigh A's, dean's list, all that. He gets offered both of those jobs, which one is he more likely to take? It doesn't matter if there is only a certain number of these fixed non-market jobs available.

    The point is that as long as the pay is different, there are few solid canidates and many positions, this creates competition amongst districts to "snag" the next "C.E.O." of the school.

    You also said caps cause a shortage? So I guess fewer people try to get into professional sports now? Caps seem to work fine there. Keeps the money steady and guarantees an even playing field. Even if what is capped is the total amount of all pay (not just adminstration) this would be good. They could even run it like baseball, where those who go over have to do revenue sharing with the smaller "teams".
    Price caps cause shortages, yes. Honestly trying to argue otherwise is like arguing 2+2 doesn't equal 4. It's an economic certainty. They will generally appear at the margins first, which you can see to a degree in the recent free agent fiasco if football. Cap their salaries they will go somewhere else or not work. Admitedly the salaries in professional sports are very high and it is possible that even capped there might not be an immediate shortage because the cap is high enough that there is no pronounced effect at first; the salaries still available satisify most player's demands. It would be lik government capping the price of gas at 50 dollars a gallon. Meaningless now, but it would start to manifest itself as a shortage if the market price every wanted to push above that amount. That a similar cap be placed on a much lower salaried position would lead to a more pronounced and immediate effect is basically a given.

    It is somewhat disapointing that someone who is obviously intelligent does not think that everyone should have a fair shake at a quality education.

    More stupid uneducated people is only going to lead to more sixteen yearolds asking Superdrol questions here. And I don't think anyone wants that!
    Not by any stretch, but I'd say it's just as disappointing that so many people refuse to see the possibilities and many benefits of a free system and keep forcing everyone to throw money into the hole public education has become, to the point where any attempt at change and more specifically change to allow the least fortunate to have some option is opposed with such vehement force by the very teachers and administrators who are supposed to be educating those kids. At the very least that indicates to me there are some conflicting interests involved in the system. In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else. With public education the approach is not to outperform other options, but to outlaw them.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else.
    Not really. It's to make money. If public education is private, you would have one of the largest corporations in America. It would also be one of the most influential institutions in the country. You will have advertising in schools. You will have food courts with fast food. Maybe you don't think this is a big deal, but I think it's horrible now, the amount of "sponsorship" that goes on currently. I can't imagine what it would be like when actual companies have a stake in the schools. If Pepsi owns Lay's and Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC, it's not a far stretch to imagine them wanting to get "involved" in education.

    It doesn't matter anyway. This will never happen. And not because people do not support this idea, but because it is so far fetched that one can only dream. If this was even a possibilty, there would already be an example somewhere in this country of somebody trying it. Hell, private schools have enough trouble staying afloat now.

    BTW, still disagree about the salary cap/revenue sharing. Until I enetered my "career" job, Every job I had had a maximum pay. From my first job at McDonals's to my last part time job I had doing retail for the st. louis blues. This already exists in many jobs.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    In a free system there is one interest: keep your customers happy so they don't go anywhere else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrw
    Not really. It's to make money.
    You accomplish the latter by accomplishing the former though. That's how the system works. Companies don't make money if people don't buy their products. Not unless they use the government to force purchases or limit alternatives to a product with inflexible demand.

    If public education is private, you would have one of the largest corporations in America. It would also be one of the most influential institutions in the country.
    Jeff, you have to start seeing other options than the current model. One institution? There's isn't one manufacturer/distributor of any other good or service in the world unless such an arrangement is government enforced. Why do you think education would be any different? It's like people in the former USSR saying they shouldn't privatize television because there'd only be one network, it ignores the reality that in a free system it just doesn't work that way.

    You will have advertising in schools.
    Unless of course the customers didn't want it. And if they didn't mind, who honestly cares?

    You will have food courts with fast food. Maybe you don't think this is a big deal, but I think it's horrible now, the amount of "sponsorship" that goes on currently.
    That is all happening under the government run system...

    What exactly would stop parents from enrolling their kids in schools that offer healthy food, not the admittedly horrible stuff they're getting access to in our current government run model? Don't you think that would be a great selling point for a school, good onsite meal/nutrition options/education? If I had a kid and the such a system was in place, it's something I'd look for.

    I can't imagine what it would be like when actual companies have a stake in the schools.
    What you're missing though is that the main profit they get from the schools would be based on the kids' educations, not how many bags of chips and bottles of soda they sold. While that might be an additional way to earn a profit and some companies might try it, it isn't guaranteed to happen.

    You're ingoring the very crucial point that the education/care of the kids is the product. If some institutions saw this as a means to an end to the point that they ignored their primary goal of satisfying their customer (parents), they'd lose those customers. To the point that such advertising was incorporated the return companies got on such ads could help lower the overal cost of education, making it more widely available. To the extent parents did not want their kids exposed to such ads, they could simply do business with those who didn't run schools along those lines, or use some other method of education besides an actual school.

    Which brings up another point. A school building with various rooms is just the modern equivalent of the school house, and while that worked fine in the old days who is to say it's the best option now? Have you considered that in the goernment run system on a basic infrastructural level the approach to schooling and education hasn't really changed in literally hundreds of years, despite massive advances in technology? Just get the kids together in one room with one instructor and talk at them is the basic model and has been for longer than it probably should have been. How much of that lack of advance could be laid at the feet of a system whose very existence discourages investment/experimentation with radically different methods? No one could possibly know the answer to that, but it's a question that can and should be asked. I would say the lack of options, choice and real development in this area would be worth getting rid of even if it meant giving Pepsi a free license to advertise to kids.

    If Pepsi owns Lay's and Pizza Hut/Taco Bell/KFC, it's not a far stretch to imagine them wanting to get "involved" in education.
    No, it's not. But Honda's ATV business doesn't necessarily intrude on their auto business, despite some crossover I'm sure, because those in charge are aware they are seperate. I'm sure the ATV business comes it at appropriate times, like some info ater buying a trailer for a Ridgeline, etc. Right now those companies see schools as a source of juicy government contracts, which is basically a guaranteed overpayment for products and services. Even if Pepsi owned and ran education institutions of some kind the involvement of the soft drink/fast food arm of its business would only enter into the realm of their education business to the extent the customers of the education business would tolerate.

    It doesn't matter anyway. This will never happen. And not because people do not support this idea, but because it is so far fetched that one can only dream. If this was even a possibilty, there would already be an example somewhere in this country of somebody trying it. Hell, private schools have enough trouble staying afloat now.
    Eliminate the "free" option and I'm so sure you'd be surprised by the sudden surge of business in this area that I'd literally be willing to bet my car you're wrong. What you're ignoring is companies also had a problem thriving in the old USSR, not because people didn't want the products and not because the companies weren't capable of delivering them, but because of the debilitating blow a 'free' option delivers to the private market. There's also the compounded problem that the 'free' option isn't free but is paid for with taxes, which means capital getting sucked out of the private sector en masse, used in ways where efficiency is not guaranteed by the profit incentive, and causing countless opportunity costs.

    BTW, still disagree about the salary cap/revenue sharing. Until I enetered my "career" job, Every job I had had a maximum pay. From my first job at McDonals's to my last part time job I had doing retail for the st. louis blues. This already exists in many jobs.
    Yes, and they do technically cause shortages which is why companies are always hiring new people to replenish their stock. The thing with employees is that they are human and develop and are worth more skillwise over time generally speaking. Once a skilled worker hits the cap of their current position they either stay happy with that pay/job or move up or out of the company. That people often do move up and out makes it not a true price control cap, however a 'shortage' still manifests at the upper margin in that position, which is why a company will have to rehire people, train them and have them work their way up as others did. The shortage is in a sense unseen because out of everyone who left the system after they hit the cap, a percentage would likely still be there if it was not in place to begin with. It's a shifting pattern and manifests to varying degrees over time due to shifting skill sets, the introduction of new workers, etc. The lower the cap on salary, the more pornounced and immediate the effect is likely to be. You can be sure that, should a company cap the salary for any position below the market rate for such a job, they would experience an immediate and profound shortage. While normal caps you see across companies are common, they do technically cause shortages at the margins and could disrupt employee flow/turnover to a certain extent. They have an advantage though in that through competition the upper and lower levels for certain positions have been discovered and are also allowed to flex over time to incorporate changing market conditions. Government schools have no such advantage nor comparable market discovered price to rely on. A dictated salary cap would be just that, a beauracratic decision.

    Ignoring the probable political impossibility of getting such caps in place in public education, were you to cap those positions you'd see the same employee flow pattern, and were you to cap the top positions, and what's more important cap them at below the price a similar skill set brought them on the open market, you would very quickly see a shortage and possibly a lack of replenishment from the lower levels over time, because people would gradually learn of the slary/career limitations of entering the field to begin with, and so fewer and fewer people would be available.
    Last edited by CDB; 03-06-2006 at 02:05 PM.

  25. If Kerry was still the alternative... absolutely.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Taking Testrenx What would you recomend for post cycle
    By sonofsatan666 in forum Post Cycle Therapy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2006, 02:56 AM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 11:04 AM
  3. PP run, what would you add??
    By ripped22 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-18-2006, 07:20 PM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-16-2005, 07:30 PM
  5. What would you reccomend for me?
    By WAHCHING in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-21-2005, 05:05 PM
Log in
Log in