"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know
these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to
break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your
thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important factors
in getting good grades a

1) Competent teachers.
2) Being around peers who value education
3) The big winner: Parents who are educated and pass along their
expectations to their kids. Doesn't matter if the parents are together or
divorced, as long as they are a strong presence in the lives of their
children.

There's no reason to assume that some schools have bad teachers all across
the board, but it's a safe bet that if all your students are getting lousy
grades no matter how hard you try, and you're a good teacher, you're going
to go elsewhere. Nobody likes to work hard and get no results.

Inner city kids are at a disadvantage in parts 2 & 3. The only way to stop
the cycle is to "seed" the group with people who can function as role
models. How do you do that without giving some kids a little juice? Yeah,
affirmative action has problems, but what's YOUR solution to the truths I've
given you here? Bus those awful colored kids to your school? :-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:1z8Wb.20660

I'm ok with that as long as it's equitable and across the board.
That's
why
we should have a flat tax.

I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of
about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax. The national
consumption
tax would be implemented with similar exemptions and exclusions as are
found
in most sales tax structures today.

Just one problem: Cash sales. I'm talking about under-the-table sales
done
by legitimate businesses,

I agree...that's a problem.


as well as transfers of goods outside of that
venue, as between criminal elements.

Those aren't taxed under today's system, either.



Some of their income is taxed, assuming they're big enough to report some
and keep the IRS from getting curious as to how they got their car.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:20:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

Where were you when the color of your skin kept you out of that college?
It wasn't that long ago. Civil rights have come a long way recently, and
Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining, but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Doug Kanter's "improved" list:

increased taxes for the rich
affirmative action for minorities
full marriage rights for gays
abortion on demand
filibuster judges who might overrule Roe v. Wade
*the environment*

That's a helluva platform to run on!



Gay people have absolutely no effect on you, no matter who they
marry.

Frankly, I'm not sure about affirmative action. But, people who know
these
things point out that there's a cycle for poor people that's hard to
break.
Go also seem to be an expert, however, so I'm interested in your
thoughts
on
this subject that nobody else can seem to figure out.

It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important factors
in getting good grades a

1) Competent teachers.
2) Being around peers who value education
3) The big winner: Parents who are educated and pass along their
expectations to their kids. Doesn't matter if the parents are together or
divorced, as long as they are a strong presence in the lives of their
children.

There's no reason to assume that some schools have bad teachers all across
the board, but it's a safe bet that if all your students are getting lousy
grades no matter how hard you try, and you're a good teacher, you're going
to go elsewhere. Nobody likes to work hard and get no results.

Inner city kids are at a disadvantage in parts 2 & 3. The only way to stop
the cycle is to "seed" the group with people who can function as role
models. How do you do that without giving some kids a little juice? Yeah,
affirmative action has problems, but what's YOUR solution to the truths
I've
given you here? Bus those awful colored kids to your school? :-)

That's already being done in Lee County, Florida. They call it "school
choice"...but it's really just an attempt to integrate the various
socioeconomic levels. My wife's friend lives across the street from a
school. However, her kids did not get their "first choice" in the "school
choice" program (the one across from their house)...nor did they get their
2nd, 3rd, or 4th choices. Instead, the kids were bussed to a school 15
miles away. They had 7 year old kids having to wait at 6-something in the
morning, in the dark, so they can get bussed 15 miles...right past a school
that they *should* be going to in the first place. Now, the mom and dad are
paying to send 'em to private school.

There's a theory in education today where it's believed that if you surround
a "bad" kid with enough "good" kids, the good kids' behavior will rub off on
the "bad" kid. Unfortunately, the school administrators ought to listen to
their great, great, great grandparents for ideas..."a bad apple spoils the
bunch".

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:20:38 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It's not about "being an expert". It's about applying commonsense. The
color of your skin shouldn't give you extra points in the admission
process
when you're applying to a College...especially if that college is
taxpayer-funded.

Where were you when the color of your skin kept you out of that college?


The college I am referring to is Michigan. I dunno that the color of ones
skin *ever* kept people out of that college.

It wasn't that long ago. Civil rights have come a long way recently, and
Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining,

I agree...much like unions.


but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.

So you punish some innocent white kid because some ignorant, fat white guy
oppressed a bunch of black people 45 years ago?

"thunder" wrote in message
news
Affirmative Action was just one of the tools used. Perhaps it's
usefulness is now declining, but it was a *small* price to pay to right a
*grievous* wrong.


So instead, we have another "grievous" wrong...used to try to correct a
prior "grievous" wrong.

When Mrs. Wong comes out of the maternity ward carrying a white baby, Mr.
Wong get's very mad. Guess what he says?

(read below)













"Two Wongs don't make a white"

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

.....I'm talking about under-the-table sales done
by legitimate businesses,

oxymoronic

LOL. Very true! I failed to catch that.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
"John Gaquin" wrote...
I disagree here, Doc. I prefer to see a national consumption tax of
about
10%, coupled with total repeal of any income tax.


That doesn't seem like it's going to bring in anywhere near the same
revenue. Unless you are also going to chop off at least half of the
current gov't expenditures, this is just a pie-in-the-sky dream.

One problem I have with having the Feds put on a consumption tax or an
ad-valorum tax or whatever is that it is a serious brake on the economy.
The web of VAT is choking the European economies, we should observe and
learn and do better.



NOYB wrote:
.... I was promoting a flat tax that
phases out at a certain income level.

Ahem... that is a progressive tax, you darn socialist.

If you hadn't snipped the part where I said "...just to be "fair" to our
Democratic colleages", you'd have known that I was fully aware that it's a
progressive tax...but was trying to find *some* common area in which both
sides could agree.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:11:46 +0000, NOYB wrote:


1) Government-controlled Universal Health Care
2) Expand Medicare
3) Lower the threshold for Welfare
4) Keep Social Security non-privatized
5) Disallow tax breaks for those attending private school

I'd agree the first four could be seen as socialistic, in a strict sense,
but #5?


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism. If I send 'em to private
school, I should be able to at least deduct the cost of the private school
from taxes...even if it's a deduction off of AGI instead of a true
"credit".

By not allowing tax breaks, you create such a strong disincentive for people
to send their kids to private school, that they're effectively being forced
by the government to accept a government-controlled program...which is
socialism.