PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,098
These influence culture.
Highest median household income ever ($59,039) in 2016
- Thread starter PhDeac
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
These influence culture.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
I would be willing to bet that the majority of board liberals are not married and do not have children. Some do, of course, but I'd bet the majority do not. To date those people have never had to accept any such personal responsibility in their lives, but they rebut jhmd's posts like they knew all about it.
No question about it.
What we do about those factors, and others, is very much in question. Blaming 2017 behavioral choices on forces set into motion centuries, decades, years or even months ago might even be accurate, but I have yet to be convinced that doing so is effective at reversing trends in those poor choices.
Talking about the choices head-on, unapologetically and out of a concern for preventing the continued fallout from them if they continue is a solution we should not be afraid to embrace.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Nobody is rebutting JHMD's posts about personal responsibility at a micro level. Please keep up.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
I haven't invoked race or slavery or any of that in any of my posts, snowflake.
If the United States was ranked in the top 10 for education spending as a % of GDP, instead of 46th, what would the result be on all races in America? What would the result be on the overall culture?
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
Perhaps you should concern yourself with helping correct past wrongs and removing systemic barriers from African Americans lives, rather than obsessing about their individual life decisions which you have zero control over.
WakeandBake
Well-known member
cue the foot stomping and whining over "other people's money"
hint: we all know that is what drives your argument, not positive or negative results. but go ahead
hint: we all know that is what drives your argument, not positive or negative results. but go ahead
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
WakeandBake
Well-known member
Not spending enough Money isn't our issue (This is college)
Im a dumbshit and can't understand that graph, it has no context. Is that tuition costs for college?
We rank 46th in government spending on education as a % of GDP. That would include primary education.
source?
perhaps this is the problem
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
What is the rationale for tying education spending to GDP, other than trying to find a gauge that makes it looks like we need to spend more? Education spending and GDP have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
Is % of GDP the best way to figure spending on education? Would not dollars per pupil be better? Would more spending on education affect culture?
WakeandBake
Well-known member
It was used in the link I put up a few pages ago, as well as Palam's graph. Use whatever you'd like, the argument is the same: I propose a concentrated increase in investment in education to elevate median incomes in America and bridge cultural gaps. jhmd and others say people are simply not trying hard enough and need to act right.
funny, these are the exact positions Hillary and Trump took in the election. the people spoke. Let's see if those coal mining and air conditioning jobs come back in Michigan and Penn, and which countries' citizens get all the high-tech jobs and other jobs of the future.
Last edited:
I don't know why this point bothers me so much...I mean, if bkf and jh want to be dicks, that's fine. But for the love of Tim Duncan, at least don't be so blatantly obtuse.
No one, in the history of ever, has implied, said, thought, communicated, tweeted, IM'd, or insinuated that A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD IS BETTER FOR CHILDREN THAN A TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD.
Odds one of the two of them brings it up again? 100% or 100%?
No one, in the history of ever, has implied, said, thought, communicated, tweeted, IM'd, or insinuated that A SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLD IS BETTER FOR CHILDREN THAN A TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLD.
Odds one of the two of them brings it up again? 100% or 100%?
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
So, as I understand it, this is the situation: When people fuck up in this country it isn't their fault. It is the government's fault for not spending enough of other people's money to stop them from fucking up. How much of other people's money should the government spend to keep people from fucking up their own lives? As nearly as I can tell, that would be about 100% more than any number one wishes to propose. In other words, the government can never spend enough of other people's money to stop people from fucking up their own lives....no matter how much it decides to spend. Take the "War on Poverty", for example. To date, the government has spent $22 trillion of other people's money to solve that problem (that is $22,000,000,000,000 in actual numbers) and the problem is still there.....and, evidently, getting worse now.
What Americans need to know is that people would not fuck up their own lives if the government would just give them more of other people's money. They would then make better life choices and all of their problems would be solved. All you have to do is look at how they have utilized that $22,000,000,000,000 they have already been given to see that. (And if all their problems haven't yet been solved it is only because that $22,000,000,000,000 wasn't enough....not because they didn't do the right things themselves.)
What Americans need to know is that people would not fuck up their own lives if the government would just give them more of other people's money. They would then make better life choices and all of their problems would be solved. All you have to do is look at how they have utilized that $22,000,000,000,000 they have already been given to see that. (And if all their problems haven't yet been solved it is only because that $22,000,000,000,000 wasn't enough....not because they didn't do the right things themselves.)
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Not really, it is just adding an irrelevant variable. A simple US Dollars per student comparison doesn't need to be "normalized".
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
I'd be interested in seeing the comparative cost to taxpayers of:
1. Providing a safety net when some percentage of the population inevitably screws up (which happens in every society ever known to man anywhere)
and
2. Pulling the safety net away and not accounting for the inevitable percentage of the population who will screw up.
BKF and JHMD make it sound like if we just take away welfare programs, then there won't be as many people screwing up, and it won't cost America more than it does now. I disagree with these positions, but would be interested in seeing the relative costs of the two.
1. Providing a safety net when some percentage of the population inevitably screws up (which happens in every society ever known to man anywhere)
and
2. Pulling the safety net away and not accounting for the inevitable percentage of the population who will screw up.
BKF and JHMD make it sound like if we just take away welfare programs, then there won't be as many people screwing up, and it won't cost America more than it does now. I disagree with these positions, but would be interested in seeing the relative costs of the two.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
Depends on what you're trying to compare.
I believe that JMHD is not so much in favor of removing the safety net but making it so that it does not incentivize single parenthood.
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 156,145
- Reaction score
- 23,098
There are many many many factors in society and people's personal lives that incentivize single parenthood. Isolating the safety net as a factor is silly.
Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
If only people had asked him what policies he supports...