# If right-wing conservativism is so great, why do their states suck? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 3, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301 "2013-10-03T22:04:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/261 "2013-10-22T20:50:14Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > So…when you all going to learn? Curlcoat is “right” and you all are “wrong”. That is how it’s always going to be. That’s how it’s always been in every topic she’s debated in. It doesn’t matter what cites you give…she is the one who is right and you are all wrong, wrong, wrong. > > What it comes down is how long it takes each of you to realize that arguing with her is about as useful and productive as arguing with a brick wall. It’s “how long you feel like arguing with her” that is the question, not “if you will convince her you are right and she is wrong”, because that never happens, as I could cite at least 20 past Pit topics showing. > > You could show her 100 cites that clearly show the facts and that she is wrong, and she will not read a single one of them, stick her fingers in her ears, go “lalalalalalalla, I can’t hear you, I’m riiiiiiight” all day long until she has the last word in this topic, because (and I really do think this is the case, as I’ve said in the past before) she seems to **need** the last word in most every Pit thread she starts in. > > It doesn’t matter what you say…you are wrong, she is right. The circle will only end if you stop replying. End of. I see that, but its still fun and besides, I had some time to burn. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2013, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/262 "2013-10-22T23:36:51Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > No, college aid should be tied to one’s grades and performance in college. No aid until you have actually been to college and gotten the grades? > [@](#): > > Ah I was unaware of the investment tax as it was unlike the individual mandate and the medical devices tax unheralded by either side. Our deficit is primarily due to the current recession. [Really?](http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) > [@](#): > > And I agree that the wealthy often get out of paying a tax, which is why I support cracking down on tax evaders and eliminating loopholes and deductions. Generations of people have supported that, and it hasn’t happened. One reason is because no one can write a law that says that one cannot do what one wants with one’s money, including sending it overseas. This is why the tax burden is mostly on the middle class. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I’m entitled to a better life than you, I think you or anybody else who suffered from poverty should have deserved the same support I suggest now. Why? What did you or I do other than be born to “deserve” (a highly abused word these days) handouts funded by people who earned the money to pay for them? Why do only those in a certain financial strata “deserve” a better life? > [@](#): > > I mean I agree with you those people are irresponsible. OK, then can you see the results of that? Those people demanding to be rescued by the responsible? > [@](#): > > How do you know these people mostly buy expensive consumer goods or spit out babies? And our culture at any rate encourages this sort of conspicous consumption-for example promoting home ownership which is often seen as a good investment. Our culture also promotes that everyone go to college because it guarantees a job with a high salary - what society believes ain’t necessarily true. As for how do I know these folks are buying things other than insurance, well they are doing _something_ with their money other than spending it on insurance premiums. > [@](#): > > Health is a concern of all society. Sick and unhealthy workers end up being less productive or can spread disease or otherwise cause societal costs. If/when you get into the workforce, you’ll find that even in places with great insurance coverage, people come to work sick all the time. Obamacare isn’t going to change that at all. > [@](#): > > No because as I said most parents probably won’t have three or four kids but rather two when they’d have had one. The average is already a bit over 2. > [@](#): > > Not overbreeding and such a birth-rate ensure that the native population’s growth at least somewhat matches that of immigrant population growth (whose birth-rates after a generation will rapidly decline and become assimilated) to further facilitate assimilation and to prevent drastic social changes. Which is what you said last time. And I asked what about the fact that “immigrants” flow over our border daily - do you want “natives” to keep popping out kids to balance the Great Mexican Menace? What drastic social changes? > [@](#): > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/medicare-vs-private-insurance-in-one-graph/2011/08/25/gIQACp0tlP\_blog.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/medicare-vs-private-insurance-in-one-graph/2011/08/25/gIQACp0tlP_blog.html) This isn’t the graph I was thinking of - that one wasn’t in color - but anyway, it has the same problems. For one thing, you do realize that the word Medicare applies to the basic plan that comes from the government, as well as Medigap and Medicare supplement plans, which are purchased from private companies. For this graph, lets assume that the Medicare bar is just basic Medicare; basic pays around 50% so their spending per person is going to be lower than any private coverage, especially since private also tends to cover many more things than basic Medicare, such as prescription drugs, maternity and well child. For Medicaid, I haven’t paid their claims in many years and couldn’t find anything online for current info, but back in the day they paid even less than Medicare. Since I see that it is common for doctors to refuse new Medicaid patients, it is probably still true that they are paying pennies on the dollar. And finally, this doesn’t factor in what else private companies may be funding to benefit their subscribers. HMOs building and maintaining hospitals and clinics springs to mind. Just looking at how much is spent doesn’t translate into “private companies are wasting money”. > [@](#): > > Your responses (at least in the Mexican argument) was basically “I saw otherwise when I visited Mexico”. Nope, I pointed out the problems with your cites there too. > [@](#): > > Funding does not significantly affect anything else. : boggle : Do you think money is in infinite supply? Obamacare is going to cost 10 of billions of dollars - how much is Germany spending on their healthcare system? I also looked around some and found that Germany has a reasonably wide gap between the haves and have nots [under Income here](http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/germany/), that fewer than average residents think their health is good (under “Health”), and that their childbirth rates are quite low (down at the bottom under “Work-Life Balance”). All of these things make a difference and I didn’t even find anything about their infrastructure. > [@](#): > > There are very few incentives but I personally desire healthcare insurance in the instance of an emergency. Of course without Obamacare (or maybe even with it) there may be circumstances where I may be unable to obtain it. With Obamacare, you will have to have insurance or pay the penalty. Without it, we have MediCal. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anybody should “leapfrog” over, rather I think everybody should be at the same starting line. And you don’t understand that is impossible? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/263 "2013-10-23T00:11:51Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > That is the gist of your argument, albeit laden with various anecdotal examples. No, what I have said quite clearly is that we have a ever growing segment of society that gets into financial trouble because they are irresponsible, and a significant number of those expect that someone else will bail them out. > [@](#): > > Those are all true, but the real question how often does it contribute to poverty as opposed to things such as unemployment or wage stagnation or deindustrialization? None of those things happen overnight, nor should they be a surprise. People who end up in poverty just because of the loss of a job or because they aren’t getting raises have been living beyond their means. > [@](#): > > Its quite clear from the context when Governor Scott boasts of his role, he means that he has low taxes and few regulations and the like. It still doesn’t mean that he or anyone else in Florida were actively wooing low wage jobs. If I remember the article correctly, the rise in those jobs started before Gov Scott was even in office. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I am making entirely the opposite point: our healthcare system is the worst, because we throw eight times as much money at it. It was fairly obvious from the context that I was comparing the US to other national healthcare systems, incidentally. You said “the best” healthcare systems, not all other ones. OK, if you believe that our healthcare is the worst because we throw so much money at it, how does adding tens of billions of dollars to that make it better? > [@](#): > > It’s also true of healthcare systems that aren’t the best, like the UK NHS (it’s good, not great). It depends on what you want out of it, but that may have more to do with religious beliefs there. Also, just to be clear, are you saying that people in the US pay more for their insurance coverage than those on the NHS? And, you feel the NHS is better than what we have here? > [@aag3981](#): > > Let me put it in a perspective you may understand better. > Scenario- A smart kid comes from a poor family that could only pay to send him to plumber’s school. He went to plumbers school, worked 30 years and had a lifetime income of $1,230,630 (ave income is about 41K) and the government and over a life time the government collected 369,189 from him in taxes. The kid didn’t cost the government anything by way of welfare. He could pay for his children attendance to trade school. > > Scenario 2- Same smart kid that comes from a poor family did well enough in school and was able to go to medical school at a public school and cost about 150K. He only got a job as an Urgent care doctor (the lowest ave salary) and lifetime income was 4,260,000 and the government collected $1,278,000 in taxes over his lifetime. His education fees were paid for via student loans, which he paid back and the paid an additional 60K in interest. Also, he could afford to pay for his own children to go to college. > > Which do you think is better? It is more which do you think is more realistic? If nothing else, four years of college, four years of med school and then residency isn’t going to be near as low as $150K. How many of those poor kids that the taxpayer shells out 100’s of thousands of dollars on actually end up being a benefit to society? Or, even earlier, how many poor kids do well enough in grade and high school to be eligible for med school? Shoot, how many of them even [get out of](http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2013/05/poverty-dropouts.aspx) high school? Poor kids are generally screwed long before they get to the point where they might be thinking about going to college. For the rare truly gifted kid, there are scholarships available or they can apply for those student loans, but to give those loans to any high school graduate, for any major? All you are doing is saddling them with big debt before they’ve even had a start in life, all because there is apparently some problem with being a plumber. > [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > So…when you all going to learn? Curlcoat is “right” and you all are “wrong”. Says the man who obviously didn’t read any of the thread. Any other lies you care to spread? I forget now which one was your favorite … ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/264 "2013-10-23T01:47:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No aid until you have actually been to college and gotten the grades? Sure! That’s what he means. No one goes to high school. :smack: > [@](#): > > Generations of people have supported that, and it hasn’t happened. One reason is because no one can write a law that says that one cannot do what one wants with one’s money, including sending it overseas. This is why the tax burden is mostly on the middle class. So, your position is that rich people have always done this, deal with it? > [@](#): > > Why? What did you or I do other than be born to “deserve” (a highly abused word these days) handouts funded by people who earned the money to pay for them? Why do only those in a certain financial strata “deserve” a better life? Not necessarily a better life, but an opportunity for it. Do you have so little self worth that you don’t believe you are worthy of the opportunity? That some other child should have it just because his parents have money? Would you rather see a poor, motivated kid get the opportunity or some rich kid that only got it because their parents have bailed them out their entire lives. > [@](#): > > OK, then can you see the results of that? Those people demanding to be rescued by the responsible? Sure, their car gets repossessed, they receive a poor credit rating that makes buying things more difficult down the road and they probably don’t have their care. How many people to you think are on welfare out riding expensive cars? Apparently only about [8% of the population receive some form of welfare, 1.7% receive most of their income from welfare.](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare) So there really isn’t THAT much of the population that receives welfare at all and nearly every thing I found on google reported that it’s. [an](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud). [urban](http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/how-bad-is-welfare-fraud-in-the-usa/). [legend](http://getoutofdebt.org/47479/welfare-and-benefit-fraud-statistics-show-a-disturbing-pattern). > [@](#): > > Our culture also promotes that everyone go to college because it guarantees a job with a high salary - what society believes ain’t necessarily true. As for how do I know these folks are buying things other than insurance, well they are doing _something_ with their money other than spending it on insurance premiums. No a college education does not mean that you are guaranteed a high salary and actually fault my own high school for selling this. I believe they were going for what they believed we wanted to hear, however they didn’t use money curriously enough. They use timetables and charts to show who long it would take you to earn the money to buy (fill in the blank luxury item) to illustrate it. > [@](#): > > If/when you get into the workforce, you’ll find that even in places with great insurance coverage, people come to work sick all the time. Obamacare isn’t going to change that at all. Sure they do, but they don’t have insurance so they are less likely to go to the doctor, more likely to go to work sick thus passing it to others, more likely to have the illness progress to something more serious that requires more extensive treatment and they are more likely to have a longer healing time. > [@](#): > > The average is already a bit over 2. Just barely and when you consider that not everyone has children, it kinda makes since that the folks that have them would need to on occasion have more than just one to maintain the population. > [@](#): > > Nope, I pointed out the problems with your cites there too. Ok, what was your argument again?? > [@](#): > > : boggle : > > Do you think money is in infinite supply? > > Obamacare is going to cost 10 of billions of dollars - how much is Germany spending on their healthcare system? > > I also looked around some and found that Germany has a reasonably wide gap between the haves and have nots [under Income here](http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/germany/), that fewer than average residents think their health is good (under “Health”), and that their childbirth rates are quite low (down at the bottom under “Work-Life Balance”). All of these things make a difference and I didn’t even find anything about their infrastructure. I looked at your cite (yay! a cite!) and you are correct, Germany does have a significant income inequality, but the US’s is twice what their’s is. Germany’s wealthiest 20% are 4 times as wealthy as the bottom 20%, but the US is 8 times so here his argument stands. Also, from what I read 64% reported they were in good health. The US does rate higher here with 69% reporting good health. However, we are a lot fatter than they are. As far as birthrate, Germany must be your kinda place! > [@](#): > > With Obamacare, you will have to have insurance or pay the penalty. Without it, we have MediCal. Right because many young people haven’t bought insurance since for the most part, it’s more cost effective to go without, until they are in some sort of accident or struck with some horrible illness and really start to rack up the medical bills. The tax payer has always been stuck with these bills, the penalty will help here. > [@](#): > > And you don’t understand that is impossible? Again, the logic that it is impossible so why doing anything about it? Why make anything better for anybody.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/265 "2013-10-23T02:47:32Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > None of those things happen overnight, nor should they be a surprise. People who end up in poverty just because of the loss of a job or because they aren’t getting raises have been living beyond their means. If you lost your job, you were likely living with in your means before you lost your job. And I don’t see people increasing their spending when they aren’t getting raises, unless you account for the fact that the cost of living is going up and wages are stagnant, which as been the case for the past few decades. At least for the middle and low classes. > [@](#): > > You said “the best” healthcare systems, not all other ones. OK, if you believe that our healthcare is the worst because we throw so much money at it, how does adding tens of billions of dollars to that make it better? Apparently we are ridiculously inefficient and if Obamacare meets the goals it’s reaching for, it will make our healthcare more efficient. This [poll](http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries) puts the US at 46 with us spending about $8,000 per capita. Way way higher than other nations. > [@](#): > > It is more which do you think is more realistic? If nothing else, four years of college, four years of med school and then residency isn’t going to be near as low as $150K. How many of those poor kids that the taxpayer shells out 100’s of thousands of dollars on actually end up being a benefit to society? Or, even earlier, how many poor kids do well enough in grade and high school to be eligible for med school? Shoot, how many of them even [get out of](http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2013/05/poverty-dropouts.aspx) high school? > > Poor kids are generally screwed long before they get to the point where they might be thinking about going to college. For the rare truly gifted kid, there are scholarships available or they can apply for those student loans, but to give those loans to any high school graduate, for any major? All you are doing is saddling them with big debt before they’ve even had a start in life, all because there is apparently some problem with being a plumber. No one is talking about sending high school drop outs to med school. I just look at average tuition before but look at this example: total loans that covered tuition and living expenses for med school and residency was about $370K but total repayment ended up being about $600K. So that loan almost profited enough to send 2 more people to med school. As far as if it’s worth it to pay for these poor kids, what’s a better investment, sending a poor but capable kid to college or not and let them remain poor. The average amount a student borrows for college is about $27K. People with a college education are more likely to live longer, make more money, get married and have 2 kids. [The returns on college loan investments are double the average return on stock market investments, and five times the average on corporate bonds, home investment and long-term government bonds.](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/yes-despite-student-loan-crisis-college-worth-183044599.html) What is the return investment on people stuck on food stamps? There are rarely kids that do well enough in high school to qualify for medical school, that is absurd. If you only get a pre-med degree, that is basically a biology degree and there is a bunch of stuff you can do with that. Also, it’s very presumptuous to think that poor equals screwed up. If anything, poor kids rule it out because it is something they don’t believe they can afford. You don’t have to be “truly gifted” to go to college. You have to be willing to work hard. I grew up poor and have 3 college degrees now. I joined the Marine reserves after high school and worked throughout college. Sure I have some student loan debt I’m paying off now. In hindsight, with better money management skills (skills I didn’t have at the time), I could have come out better but I’m certainly better off with my education than without. Assuming I only pay the minimum required on my student loans monthly, I will have repaid twice the amount that was loaned to me. I have the ability to make a better income, doing work I love and the government will make money off those loans to be able to loan more money to kids like me who didn’t come from families that could afford to pay their kids college expenses. Also, rather than continuing my “low income” family legacy, I can afford to (and have the money management skills) to save for my children’s college so they don’t have to rely on student loans when they get to that point in their lives. I’m not the exception here. My parents weren’t irresponsible drunks that marred me for life. They were just poor and didn’t know what or how to move up in life because they weren’t educated. Lastly, there isn’t a problem with being a plumber. There is a problem with a kid that wants to be a doctor, has the ability to be a doctor and would make a great doctor, settling for being a plumber because they didn’t come from a back ground that gave them to opportunity to be a doctor. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/266 "2013-10-23T03:07:54Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No aid until you have actually been to college and gotten the grades? No, for college freshmen obviously aid would be tied to standardized test scores and high school grades. > [@](#): > > [Really?](http://zfacts.com/p/318.html) Your article proves my point: > [@](#): > > What about Obama? Notice how the debt accelerated during Bush’s last two budget years. Obama’s debt is a continuation of that trend and neither Bush nor Obama are directly responsible for that acceleration. It happened because of the recession. Bush set the all-time record by increasing the debt by $1.1 trillion in 100 days between July 30 and Nov 9, 2008—but that had little to do with his choices. > Recessions cut tax revenues—in this case, dramatically. That accounts for nearly half of the deficit. So blaming Obama for the full deficit is like blaming him for not raising the tax rate to keep tax revenues up. Most of the increased spending is automatic increases in unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security payments for early retirement. Very little of it is from stimulus spending, and that’s over. > [@](#): > > Generations of people have supported that, and it hasn’t happened. One reason is because no one can write a law that says that one cannot do what one wants with one’s money, including sending it overseas. This is why the tax burden is mostly on the middle class. there are such things as capital controls. And the tax burden is still mostly on the wealthy even with all their lucky breaks. > [@](#): > > Why? What did you or I do other than be born to “deserve” (a highly abused word these days) handouts funded by people who earned the money to pay for them? Why do only those in a certain financial strata “deserve” a better life? As I said, in a society wealthy as this I think the general moral obligations we have as a society demand that everybody be guaranteed at least a certain minimum standard of living. And I think everyone deserves a better life but obviously whether one needs aid to achieve a certain minimum standards is dependent on income. > [@](#): > > OK, then can you see the results of that? Those people demanding to be rescued by the responsible? I think they’re only a small minority from all the poor people I’ve seen both in real life and online. > [@](#): > > Our culture also promotes that everyone go to college because it guarantees a job with a high salary - what society believes ain’t necessarily true. As for how do I know these folks are buying things other than insurance, well they are doing _something_ with their money other than spending it on insurance premiums. > [@](#): > > If/when you get into the workforce, you’ll find that even in places with great insurance coverage, people come to work sick all the time. Obamacare isn’t going to change that at all. I don’t mean people getting a seasonal flu or cold but developing a condition such as cancer they are unaware of or are not prevented due to lack of regular examinations. > [@](#): > > The average is already a bit over 2. 2.1 is the replacement rate not 2 and yes only a slight change (to say 2.4) can bring about noticeable and desirable improvement). > [@](#): > > Which is what you said last time. And I asked what about the fact that “immigrants” flow over our border daily - do you want “natives” to keep popping out kids to balance the Great Mexican Menace? What drastic social changes? No I suspect that mass Mexican migration (and of Latin Americans in general) will slow down in the next few decades. And I mean such as ensuring that immigrant children go to schools where the majority of people to English to encourage assimilation by being exposed to English-speaking settings most of the time. > [@](#): > > This isn’t the graph I was thinking of - that one wasn’t in color - but anyway, it has the same problems. For one thing, you do realize that the word Medicare applies to the basic plan that comes from the government, as well as Medigap and Medicare supplement plans, which are purchased from private companies. For this graph, lets assume that the Medicare bar is just basic Medicare; basic pays around 50% so their spending per person is going to be lower than any private coverage, especially since private also tends to cover many more things than basic Medicare, such as prescription drugs, maternity and well child. > > For Medicaid, I haven’t paid their claims in many years and couldn’t find anything online for current info, but back in the day they paid even less than Medicare. Since I see that it is common for doctors to refuse new Medicaid patients, it is probably still true that they are paying pennies on the dollar. > > And finally, this doesn’t factor in what else private companies may be funding to benefit their subscribers. HMOs building and maintaining hospitals and clinics springs to mind. Just looking at how much is spent doesn’t translate into “private companies are wasting money”. Medicare supplement plans aren’t really comparable to purely private health insurance plans-they are regulated by the government to control costs and define benefits. And for the record I don’t support a pure single-payer system either but rather something like Germany or current Obamacare where the costs of private plans are controlled and benefits are defined to ensure greater access. > [@](#): > > Nope, I pointed out the problems with your cites there too. And I explained them. > [@](#): > > : boggle : > > Do you think money is in infinite supply? > > Obamacare is going to cost 10 of billions of dollars - how much is Germany spending on their healthcare system? > > I also looked around some and found that Germany has a reasonably wide gap between the haves and have nots [under Income here](http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/germany/), that fewer than average residents think their health is good (under “Health”), and that their childbirth rates are quite low (down at the bottom under “Work-Life Balance”). All of these things make a difference and I didn’t even find anything about their infrastructure. Money is certainly not infinite but we have more than plenty here to achieve reasonable health spending. Also tens of billions dollars is a few drops in a bucket in regards to government spending. And as I said before Germany spends less on healthcare due to it being able to negotiated far lower prices. Income inequality is spreading everywhere in the Western world (due to various factors) but its pretty well known that the US is far more unequal in income than virtually any other industrialized country on Earth. And Germans always struck as prone to hypochondria-actual results show them far healthier than the average American (same with Brits and others). Its true German childbirth rates are low and this is a potential problem for them that hopefully the German government will control or reverse. > [@](#): > > With Obamacare, you will have to have insurance or pay the penalty. Without it, we have MediCal. That depends on my income and California already has fairly generous welfare policies anyways. What if circumstances drive me to another state which is far more stringent? > [@](#): > > And you don’t understand that is impossible? Of course absolute equality of opportunity is impossible in this Fallen world. But that’s not my point-by analogy we have police forces to prevent and suppress crime even though we know crime will still occur regardless. We can increase equality of opportunity and past attempts to do so have been successful at doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/267 "2013-10-23T03:12:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, what I have said quite clearly is that we have a ever growing segment of society that gets into financial trouble because they are irresponsible, and a significant number of those expect that someone else will bail them out. And there is no statistical evidence to suppose this. If there is, they’re but following the examples of the wealthy. > [@](#): > > None of those things happen overnight, nor should they be a surprise. People who end up in poverty just because of the loss of a job or because they aren’t getting raises have been living beyond their means. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It still doesn’t mean that he or anyone else in Florida were actively wooing low wage jobs. If I remember the article correctly, the rise in those jobs started before Gov Scott was even in office. Because it has been a policy in Florida for a long time. > [@](#): > > You said “the best” healthcare systems, not all other ones. OK, if you believe that our healthcare is the worst because we throw so much money at it, how does adding tens of billions of dollars to that make it better? Because the money will be spent in a more rational manner. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/268 "2013-10-23T06:16:01Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > Sure! That’s what he means. No one goes to high school. :smack: Back atcha: \*\*Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi \*\* No, college aid should be tied to one’s grades and performance **in college** Emphasis mine. > [@](#): > > So, your position is that rich people have always done this, deal with it? My position is that no one has yet been able to figure out a way to force rich people to give up a significant portion of their income, so planning on funding something that way is probably going to end up the way it always has - at the door of the middle class. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily a better life, but an opportunity for it. Do you have so little self worth that you don’t believe you are worthy of the opportunity? I suppose the difference is our definitions of opportunity. I don’t define it as being handed something. > [@](#): > > That some other child should have it just because his parents have money? Would you rather see a poor, motivated kid get the opportunity or some rich kid that only got it because their parents have bailed them out their entire lives. The difference is, the parents are paying for the rich kid to go to college. Why should anyone _expect_ that some random stranger to should for anything for their kid? > [@](#): > > Sure, their car gets repossessed, they receive a poor credit rating that makes buying things more difficult down the road and they probably don’t have their care. How many people to you think are on welfare out riding expensive cars? We were discussing why people cannot be bothered to be responsible and buy insurance, or how people end up poor. > [@](#): > > Apparently only about [8% of the population receive some form of welfare, 1.7% receive most of their income from welfare.](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare) So there really isn’t THAT much of the population that receives welfare at all There must be states that don’t pay out much (are there any non-welfare states?) because California has [a much higher](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/) percentage > [@](#): > > and nearly every thing I found on google reported that it’s. [an](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_fraud). [urban](http://spritzophrenia.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/how-bad-is-welfare-fraud-in-the-usa/). [legend](http://getoutofdebt.org/47479/welfare-and-benefit-fraud-statistics-show-a-disturbing-pattern). Your cites are a bit weak. The first one has this - “The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that twenty-four percent of new welfare applications in San Diego County contain some form of fraud. However, this statistic was misreported and the actual figure is **probably** considerably lower” (emphasis mine). Your second cite says that “accurate figures are hard to come by” (not surprising) and repeated that “probably” thing. Then he takes a stat about unemployment insurance fraud and translates that into “Less than 2% of all people on welfare in the USA commit fraud”, despite the fact that unemployment insurance isn’t welfare. The last cite was better, tho they included unemployment insurance too, and showed that fraud in food stamps was a problem earlier. Don’t know why I did that since we weren’t talking about fraud, but anyway … > [@](#): > > Sure they do, but they don’t have insurance so they are less likely to go to the doctor, more likely to go to work sick thus passing it to others, more likely to have the illness progress to something more serious that requires more extensive treatment and they are more likely to have a longer healing time. Do you really believe that? How many of your co-workers have gone to the doctor when they get a cold or flu? > [@](#): > > Just barely and when you consider that not everyone has children, it kinda makes since that the folks that have them would need to on occasion have more than just one to maintain the population. I understood that stat to mean that those with children have just over 2. It would be idiotic to look at the whole population and not just those with children, or even those of child bearing age. > [@](#): > > Ok, what was your argument again?? I don’t know, there isn’t enough of the original conversation left to tell. I don’t even know the subject. > [@](#): > > I looked at your cite (yay! a cite!) and you are correct, Germany does have a significant income inequality, but the US’s is twice what their’s is. Germany’s wealthiest 20% are 4 times as wealthy as the bottom 20%, but the US is 8 times so here his argument stands. Also, from what I read 64% reported they were in good health. The US does rate higher here with 69% reporting good health. However, we are a lot fatter than they are. As far as birthrate, Germany must be your kinda place! I’m not trying to compare Germany to the US, I am just picking out things that they may be spending less money on in order to fund the things the kid likes about that country. Not having piles of extra people running around is probably the most important one. > [@](#): > > Right because many young people haven’t bought insurance since for the most part, it’s more cost effective to go without, until they are in some sort of accident or struck with some horrible illness and really start to rack up the medical bills. The tax payer has always been stuck with these bills, the penalty will help here. Generally, young people get health insurance when they start planning on having children (well, those who have any money anyway) because they don’t want to have to spend their own money on pre-natal, delivery and all the well baby stuff. Which ends up being just like those who don’t think insurance is “cost effective” until something happens to incur a pile of bills. For some reason, people will buy auto insurance even tho most never use it, but they cannot apply this same sort of responsibility to their health. > [@](#): > > Again, the logic that it is impossible so why doing anything about it? Why make anything better for anybody.:dubious: He doesn’t want better, he wants everyone to have the same - how did he put it? - starting point? He wants responsible parents to pay to college educate their kids _and_ the kids of those parents who don’t have the money. He thinks we should pay to send every kid to med school whose skills run in that direction. He wants everyone to be at the very least middle class if not wealthy; he’s very fixated on getting money, but not really earning it. Now, has there ever been a time in history when there hasn’t been poor people, mid level people and rich people? Do you think it’s possible that every child born has the potential to go to and do well in college? Is it even a good idea, or do we just keep bringing folks up from Mexico and points south to do the grunt work? How long do you think people will put up with having to pay for all of these things for all of these kids they don’t know and had no hand in creating or raising? Humans cannot be forced into little slots dictated by society or some ruler, not for long anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/269 "2013-10-23T06:37:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Back atcha: > > \*\*Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi \*\* > No, college aid should be tied to one’s grades and performance **in college** > > Emphasis mine. Logical reasoning would indicate that this would obviously not apply to one’s freshman year in college. > [@](#): > > My position is that no one has yet been able to figure out a way to force rich people to give up a significant portion of their income, so planning on funding something that way is probably going to end up the way it always has - at the door of the middle class. Which is false-plenty of tax increases have been laid at the feet of the wealthy. I suppose the difference is our definitions of opportunity. I don’t define it as being handed something. > [@](#): > > The difference is, the parents are paying for the rich kid to go to college. Why should anyone _expect_ that some random stranger to should for anything for their kid? As a social right > [@](#): > > Do you really believe that? How many of your co-workers have gone to the doctor when they get a cold or flu? Plenty > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to compare Germany to the US, I am just picking out things that they may be spending less money on in order to fund the things the kid likes about that country. Not having piles of extra people running around is probably the most important one. In either case income inequality does not help your argument. > [@](#): > > Generally, young people get health insurance when they start planning on having children (well, those who have any money anyway) because they don’t want to have to spend their own money on pre-natal, delivery and all the well baby stuff. Which ends up being just like those who don’t think insurance is “cost effective” until something happens to incur a pile of bills. For some reason, people will buy auto insurance even tho most never use it, but they cannot apply this same sort of responsibility to their health. Maybe because auto insurance is required by law at least in California. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t want better, he wants everyone to have the same - how did he put it? - starting point? He wants responsible parents to pay to college educate their kids _and_ the kids of those parents who don’t have the money. He thinks we should pay to send every kid to med school whose skills run in that direction. He wants everyone to be at the very least middle class if not wealthy; he’s very fixated on getting money, but not really earning it. That’s rubbish-I meant equality of opportunity not equality of results which I’ve pointed out at least a thousand times. And I think those who can’t earn money or are not able to earn enough money should be aided. > [@](#): > > Now, has there ever been a time in history when there hasn’t been poor people, mid level people and rich people? No but we’ve reduced the gap significantly. > [@](#): > > Do you think it’s possible that every child born has the potential to go to and do well in college? No but those children who do have the potential should go to college regardless of income. > [@](#): > > Is it even a good idea, or do we just keep bringing folks up from Mexico and points south to do the grunt work? So then who do you suppose should do the grunt work? > [@](#): > > How long do you think people will put up with having to pay for all of these things for all of these kids they don’t know and had no hand in creating or raising? How long do you think people will put up with having few opportunities for the future and lacking in basic living standards? > [@](#): > > Humans cannot be forced into little slots dictated by society or some ruler, not for long anyway. Neither can humans at least those with political and economic consciousness and living in a wealthy society stand to watch drastic inequality of income. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/270 "2013-10-23T06:59:45Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > If you lost your job, you were likely living with in your means before you lost your job. And I don’t see people increasing their spending when they aren’t getting raises, unless you account for the fact that the cost of living is going up and wages are stagnant, which as been the case for the past few decades. At least for the middle and low classes. Living within your means includes not running up a pile of debt, and having money set aside for an emergency. There are plenty of people who are carrying too much debt and/or have little in savings, so the loss of a job would bankrupt them within 2-3 months if not sooner. > [@](#): > > Apparently we are ridiculously inefficient and if Obamacare meets the goals it’s reaching for, it will make our healthcare more efficient. How is that? If we have been ridiculously inefficient with the huge amount of money we’re already spending, how will throwing even more into that same pot make us more efficient? > [@](#): > > No one is talking about sending high school drop outs to med school. I don’t know, the kid seems to be getting to that. He wants everyone to have the ability to go to college, so if poverty, drugs, crime, etc is keeping poor kids from finishing high school, his next logical step is to want more money used to keep them in high school, and getting grades that will get them in college. > [@](#): > > I just look at average tuition before but look at this example: total loans that covered tuition and living expenses for med school and residency was about $370K but total repayment ended up being about $600K. So that loan almost profited enough to send 2 more people to med school. _If_ he makes it thru med school and residency, _if_ he gets licensed and employed and _if_ he pays off the loan. And the profit from the loan isn’t enough to send even one more to med school, much less two. > [@](#): > > As far as if it’s worth it to pay for these poor kids, what’s a better investment, sending a poor but capable kid to college or not and let them remain poor. They don’t have to go to college to not remain poor. I only made it thru high school, and I am not poor. Of course, a high school education meant more back then. > [@](#): > > There are rarely kids that do well enough in high school to qualify for medical school, that is absurd. Well, yeah - what I meant is how many of them do well enough in high school that med school is even a consideration? > [@](#): > > Also, it’s very presumptuous to think that poor equals screwed up. I didn’t say screwed up, I said screwed - being poor creates all kinds of road blocks to a higher education other than money. They are less likely to graduate high school if nothing else. > [@](#): > > You don’t have to be “truly gifted” to go to college. No, but you should be to earn scholarships. > [@](#): > > You have to be willing to work hard. I grew up poor and have 3 college degrees now. I joined the Marine reserves after high school and worked throughout college. There you go, a way to earn a college education without expecting others to pay for it or running up a pile of debt. > [@](#): > > My parents weren’t irresponsible drunks that marred me for life. They were just poor and didn’t know what or how to move up in life because they weren’t educated. And you think it was a good, responsible thing for them to do, to have children? > [@](#): > > Lastly, there isn’t a problem with being a plumber. There is a problem with a kid that wants to be a doctor, has the ability to be a doctor and would make a great doctor, settling for being a plumber because they didn’t come from a back ground that gave them to opportunity to be a doctor. Piffle. No one has to settle, he would just have to wait a bit longer than someone who can actually afford the tuition. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/271 "2013-10-23T07:31:40Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Your article proves my point: Your assertion was that the current recession is why we have a big deficit, and my cite showed that we’ve carried a deficit for decades. The recession made more deficit, but we’ve been in the red for a very long time before that. > [@](#): > > there are such things as capital controls. And the tax burden is still mostly on the wealthy even with all their lucky breaks. Tens of billions of dollars worth? > [@](#): > > As I said, in a society wealthy as this I think the general moral obligations we have as a society demand that everybody be guaranteed at least a certain minimum standard of living. And I think everyone deserves a better life but obviously whether one needs aid to achieve a certain minimum standards is dependent on income. So, your answer is that simply because you were born, you think that those who have gone forth and earned their money should spend some of it on you? Those minimum standards are more than food, shelter, health care, public education and the ability to get loans for advanced education? > [@](#): > > I think they’re only a small minority from all the poor people I’ve seen both in real life and online. Online is not reality. Your real life experience, all 16? years of it, doesn’t match my several decades worth. > [@](#): > > I don’t mean people getting a seasonal flu or cold but developing a condition such as cancer they are unaware of or are not prevented due to lack of regular examinations. Um, people don’t infect others with cancer. Regular examinations that catch cancer? The only thing I’ve ever had that might come under that heading were the annual exams I had to have while I was still on The Pill. Which women can get for cheap or free thru Planned Parenthood. That’s it, and I’ve had insurance continually since 1982. > [@](#): > > No I suspect that mass Mexican migration (and of Latin Americans in general) will slow down in the next few decades. What do you base that on? > [@](#): > > And I mean such as ensuring that immigrant children go to schools where the majority of people to English to encourage assimilation by being exposed to English-speaking settings most of the time. You are unaware of what a disaster that has been? Our public schools are not there to teach children to speak English. > [@](#): > > Medicare supplement plans aren’t really comparable to purely private health insurance plans-they are regulated by the government to control costs and define benefits. Your claim was that government run health plans were better at controlling costs (without defining what that meant) than private health insurance companies. There are plenty of regulations controlling private plans, so the Medicare ones are not that unique. > [@](#): > > Money is certainly not infinite but we have more than plenty here to achieve reasonable health spending. You keep saying that like there is some pile of money laying around that doesn’t belong to anyone. Besides, what you said was “Funding does not significantly affect anything else.” Whether or not there are a bunch of rich people in this country with money you think they should be spending on others doesn’t have anything to do with you saying that spending tens of billions of dollars on heathcare wouldn’t significantly affect anything else the government funds. > [@](#): > > Its true German childbirth rates are low and this is a potential problem for them that hopefully the German government will control or reverse. Why would you think that? > [@](#): > > That depends on my income and California already has fairly generous welfare policies anyways. What if circumstances drive me to another state which is far more stringent? That has nothing to do with whether or not you will have insurance next year if Obamacare is rolled out. > [@](#): > > Of course absolute equality of opportunity is impossible in this Fallen world. But that’s not my point-by analogy we have police forces to prevent and suppress crime even though we know crime will still occur regardless. We can increase equality of opportunity and past attempts to do so have been successful at doing so. I’m not sure what the police and crime has to do with expecting others to fund your college education. And unless you are advocating forcing the rich to give you money for free, you will never have equal opportunity with their children. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/272 "2013-10-23T07:39:19Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And there is no statistical evidence to suppose this. If there is, they’re but following the examples of the wealthy. Uh huh. No stats on the number of people who were bailed out of mortgages on houses they couldn’t afford? No stats on the number of people who run up credit card debt and then just declare bankruptcy? No stats on the number of people who could have purchased insurance but didn’t and then had big medical bills? Following the example of the wealthy? If the wealthy were doing these things, they wouldn’t stay rich long. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Don’t roll your eyes kid, it’s one of the biggest issues we have these days. [Living within one’s means](http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/personalfinance/savingspending/budgeting/means.php) doesn’t mean they can pay all their bills, it means they aren’t living on credit. > [@](#): > > Because it has been a policy in Florida for a long time. Cite? > [@](#): > > Because the money will be spent in a more rational manner. By the US government? Creator of the $50 hammer? ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/273 "2013-10-23T17:04:38Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Back atcha: > > \*\*Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi \*\* > No, college aid should be tied to one’s grades and performance **in college** > > Emphasis mine. You seem to be completely incapable of thinking logically or have no clue how higher ed works. To go to medical school you obviously have to go and complete undergraduate course work. Sure, you bachelor may be in pre-med, which you can do a lot with even if you opt to not go on to med school. You do well in high school, you can get accepted into college. You do well in college, you can get accepted into grad school if you want. You have to qualify for college. > [@](#): > > My position is that no one has yet been able to figure out a way to force rich people to give up a significant portion of their income, so planning on funding something that way is probably going to end up the way it always has - at the door of the middle class. That’s the thing. It’s not significant. They pay less of the percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. There have been many instances in the past where the rich have paid more of the taxes. It’s the recent past few decades where they have enjoy contributing so little. > [@](#): > > I suppose the difference is our definitions of opportunity. I don’t define it as being handed something. Then call it an investment. In the end, society as a whole benefits from sending capable people to college. > [@](#): > > The difference is, the parents are paying for the rich kid to go to college. Why should anyone _expect_ that some random stranger to should for anything for their kid? Why did the banks expect tax payers to bail them out after they pushed and sold bad mortgages to the point that it caused a recession? Why do rich people believe they should contribute to a society that they profit so much from? > [@](#): > > We were discussing why people cannot be bothered to be responsible and buy insurance, or how people end up poor. > > There must be states that don’t pay out much (are there any non-welfare states?) because California has [a much higher](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/Jul/28/welfare-capital-of-the-us/) percentage > > Your cites are a bit weak. The first one has this - “The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 that twenty-four percent of new welfare applications in San Diego County contain some form of fraud. However, this statistic was misreported and the actual figure is **probably** considerably lower” (emphasis mine). Your second cite says that “accurate figures are hard to come by” (not surprising) and repeated that “probably” thing. Then he takes a stat about unemployment insurance fraud and translates that into “Less than 2% of all people on welfare in the USA commit fraud”, despite the fact that unemployment insurance isn’t welfare. The last cite was better, tho they included unemployment insurance too, and showed that fraud in food stamps was a problem earlier. One of your reasons for not helping poor people is because of your belief that they are lazy and that people on welfare are too busy buying expensive cars and living out of their means, thus frauding the system. My argument is against your basic assumption. If my cites are weak, counter. Why isn’t unemployment insurance welfare? How exactly do you define welfare. > [@](#): > > Don’t know why I did that since we weren’t talking about fraud, but anyway … Yep and this thread is suppose to be about the underperformance of conservative states, so… [QUOTE] Do you really believe that? How many of your co-workers have gone to the doctor when they get a cold or flu? [QUOTE] Depending on how bad it is, plenty. Are you saying that without medical treatment, you will recover just as fast? How many people don’t get yearly exams because they can’t afford it. My insurance does not cover my yearly exam at the gynocologist and that appointment cost about $400.00. Thankfully that will change under Obama care. > [@](#): > > I understood that stat to mean that those with children have just over 2. It would be idiotic to look at the whole population and not just those with children, or even those of child bearing age. No, it’s the average number of children a woman can be expected to have in her life time. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to compare Germany to the US, I am just picking out things that they may be spending less money on in order to fund the things the kid likes about that country. Not having piles of extra people running around is probably the most important one. Well if I recall correctly, Germany came into the conversation as a comparison with the US and how some social factors in place make it comparable or better than that of the US. Besides, the things you pointed out were wrong or it’s worse in the US than there. > [@](#): > > Generally, young people get health insurance when they start planning on having children (well, those who have any money anyway) because they don’t want to have to spend their own money on pre-natal, delivery and all the well baby stuff. Which ends up being just like those who don’t think insurance is “cost effective” until something happens to incur a pile of bills. For some reason, people will buy auto insurance even tho most never use it, but they cannot apply this same sort of responsibility to their health. I don’t know what motivates young people to get insurance. I got it because I got a job where my employer was offering it. I had no immediate reproduction plans. The jobs I had in college didn’t offer it. Considering how much I got sick vs how much my monthly premiums would have cost, and what risk my lifestyle incurred, it wasn’t cost effective. I question the cost effectiveness of it now. When you add the monthly premiums, meet the deductibles and pay the percentage that left over they don’t cover, my insurance provider makes plenty of money off me. If I didn’t have kids, I would be more open to other options. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t want better, he wants everyone to have the same - how did he put it? - starting point? He wants responsible parents to pay to college educate their kids _and_ the kids of those parents who don’t have the money. He thinks we should pay to send every kid to med school whose skills run in that direction. He wants everyone to be at the very least middle class if not wealthy; he’s very fixated on getting money, but not really earning it. From what I’m reading, he believes people should have the same opportunities. Just because people give you money, doesn’t mean you will be better off. Before you even get considered for the money, a college has to accept you and you have to work you butt off learning the material so you can graduate. The point is that society gets a lot more return on the investment when it’s spent on educating and training the population rather than just giving them some food or a place to live. > [@](#): > > Now, has there ever been a time in history when there hasn’t been poor people, mid level people and rich people? No, those groups have always existed, but the community does better when there is so much discrepency between their rich and poor. The more middle class the better. > [@](#): > > Do you think it’s possible that every child born has the potential to go to and do well in college? No and if people are happy with a job that requires otherwise then that is their choice. My brother is perfectly content with a life where he works at a pizza joint with enought money to pay for his rent, video games and marijuana consuption. (And no, he doesn’ t have children). Again, the point is not that all children will go to college but **if you qualify for it and want to, your parents income status should not disqualify you.** > [@](#): > > Is it even a good idea, or do we just keep bringing folks up from Mexico and points south to do the grunt work? As I understand the situation, we weren’t bringing them here, they were coming over illegally and employers were taking advantage of the cheap labor. Maybe if certain employers find a portion of the population in such a legally disadvantaged position that they didn’t even have to pay them minimum wage, they would have to pay American workers a living wage. There will be people around to do the grunt work, if not, a college education doesn’t mean you don’t have to cut your own lawns. > [@](#): > > How long do you think people will put up with having to pay for all of these things for all of these kids they don’t know and had no hand in creating or raising? Humans cannot be forced into little slots dictated by society or some ruler, not for long anyway. Take care of them or no, they aren’t going anywhere. It’s not like if you don’t feed the poor, or give them medical care or send them to college they are no long a problem. The reason people support social measures is because in the long run, it’s a better option than allowing these people to remain ignorant and poor. Food stamps and housing aleast says that the government cares enough for you to make sure you eat and have roof over your head. Education is an attempt to give people the resources to over come their problems. If you do well enough and are willing to work hard enough, you can go to college and learn to become even more valuable to society by being a computer programer or engineer or nurse or maybe even a doctor. There will always be people that are poor and sometimes that will be because they are lazy and irresponsible. They are making a choice, you are correct. But, more often than not, people are not even getting the opportunity, it’s not their choice, they aren’t even getting a chance. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/274 "2013-10-23T18:06:58Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Living within your means includes not running up a pile of debt, and having money set aside for an emergency. There are plenty of people who are carrying too much debt and/or have little in savings, so the loss of a job would bankrupt them within 2-3 months if not sooner. I agree, but you can hardly say someone was living out of their means if that means they were living at a certain rate and then lost their job. Especially if they were living within their means prior to losing their job. Or if it took a long time to find another job. During the recession people were going months or years with no job. > [@](#): > > How is that? If we have been ridiculously inefficient with the huge amount of money we’re already spending, how will throwing even more into that same pot make us more efficient? The point is that other countries spend considerably less and have better health care. It’s going to require a lot of re-adjustment which will initially cost more money, but if we were more efficient with our money, imagine the type of healthcare we could provide to everyone. Besides, one of the biggest reasons for the Obamacare push was because medical care has increased so much causing insurance to be unaffordable and employers to stop offering it. > [@](#): > > I don’t know, the kid seems to be getting to that. He wants everyone to have the ability to go to college, so if poverty, drugs, crime, etc is keeping poor kids from finishing high school, his next logical step is to want more money used to keep them in high school, and getting grades that will get them in college. Not what I read and medical school is like the peak, not the starting point. The starting point would be more associate and bachelor degrees because it is much more beneficial to more people. I know of several people that didn’t graduate high school, mature a little and go back to school in their 20’s or 30’s. There aren’t many people willing to put in the work to get through medical school. And again, you assumption that poor people are riddled with drugs and crime is false. I could get into arrest rates for various classes and races and issues with class treatment in our criminal justice system but that is for another thread. Poor people are not so different. > [@](#): > > _If_ he makes it thru med school and residency, _if_ he gets licensed and employed and _if_ he pays off the loan. And the profit from the loan isn’t enough to send even one more to med school, much less two. This [paper](https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/) states the 10 year completion rate for medical school students is 96%. This [paper](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23363547) states the attrition rate of 5.7% which is pretty close to the other source. [Also, physicians have to lowest default rate on student loans. The director of student aid reports a default rate of 0 for medical school loans.](https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april2012/279208/student-debt.html) However Penn State is near ivy league so before you mention that, Eastern Virginia Medical School reports the same. Here is the national default rate from [05-07](http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/attachments/032609DraftStudentLoanCohDfltRatesFY07Attach1.pdf). Graduate school students reports the lowest drop out rates because it’s much less likely for people to put that much time it, get to that point and then drop it. Your argument is slightly better for 2 or 4 year degrees but only slightly. If you look at proprietary schools, those are a problem, but the goal is to tie student loans to the school’s performance, so these schools with high drop out rates or high rates of unemployed students, will hopefully not be able to get federal funding in the very near future unless their performance improves. > [@](#): > > They don’t have to go to college to not remain poor. I only made it thru high school, and I am not poor. Of course, a high school education meant more back then. True but weren’t you complaining a few pages ago about how you couldn’t get food stamps or medical care when you needed because you weren’t disabled or had children? Anyway, the point is you are right and no one is talking about making college mandatory. It would just be for people that can and want to. > [@](#): > > Well, yeah - what I meant is how many of them do well enough in high school that med school is even a consideration? I don’t know, but I can’t imagine it being very many. In high school, Med school is a distance goal. The kid probably isn’t even sure about med school. They will have time to consider that when they are getting their biology degree as a precursor, it thats what they want. They can decide if they want to, and there they will have to show medical schools that they perform at the necessary level. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say screwed up, I said screwed - being poor creates all kinds of road blocks to a higher education other than money. They are less likely to graduate high school if nothing else. Ok, it’s still presumptious. We are assuming that the person that would get these student loans do not have the other road blocks, meaning they can succeed in college and want to. It’s a poor investment choice to send a high school drop out to college until they have past the necessary test to show they can do it and a college has accepted them. > [@](#): > > No, but you should be to earn scholarships. I imagine truely gifted do. > [@](#): > > There you go, a way to earn a college education without expecting others to pay for it or running up a pile of debt. True, but in the end I still ended up with some. I’m not going to judge others for not taking my path and my options weren’t available for everyone. Especially if at the end of the day, by and large, all parties are better off when everyone has the opportunity to get educated. > [@](#): > > And you think it was a good, responsible thing for them to do, to have children? I personally, really appreciate them having all 4 that they had. (I’m the baby). It really doesn’t matter now. The point is they did and I’m hear. We can start another thread on irresponsble parenting and what to do about teenage birth rate. We may even agree. I don’t believe many people believe a child should suffer for the mistakes of the parent if the community has the opportunity to assist so the parent’s mistakes aren’t repeated. > [@](#): > > Piffle. No one has to settle, he would just have to wait a bit longer than someone who can actually afford the tuition. I don’t believe you can work and go to medical school??? But ok, on the hypothetical plumber’s salary, if all income went to save for medical school, he would be saving for approx 7 years. I used the amount borrowed by the real life example ($370K) which covered all school and living expenses for a student through medical school and his residency. Or, he could spend that 7 years going to med school and finishing his residencency and proceed to his $150K a year job (on the low end) and in the same about of time have school done, 7 years of professional experience and have made $1,050,000 worth of income. Sure it’s a gamble. He might not graduate, or might not find a job, but it’s actually a pretty good gamble for medical school students. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/275 "2013-10-24T03:45:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Your assertion was that the current recession is why we have a big deficit, and my cite showed that we’ve carried a deficit for decades. The recession made more deficit, but we’ve been in the red for a very long time before that. We haven’t had a deficit for “decades”, considering we ran a surplus for several years under President Clinton. And the deficit’s primary cause is the recession. > [@](#): > > Tens of billions of dollars worth? I’m not sure what you mean here, but yes due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them. [http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/](http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/) > [@](#): > > So, your answer is that simply because you were born, you think that those who have gone forth and earned their money should spend some of it on you? Those minimum standards are more than food, shelter, health care, public education and the ability to get loans for advanced education? It’d include a few other things such as means of communication and access to information to help find jobs (although those can perhaps just be included in a minimum income or negative income tax). > [@](#): > > Um, people don’t infect others with cancer. Regular examinations that catch cancer? The only thing I’ve ever had that might come under that heading were the annual exams I had to have while I was still on The Pill. Which women can get for cheap or free thru Planned Parenthood. That’s it, and I’ve had insurance continually since 1982. When did I say such conditions were contagious. Such conditions however do lead to high medical costs and people being unable to work. > [@](#): > > What do you base that on? Because of EVerify and similar programs along with the rising prosperity of most Latin American countries. > [@](#): > > You are unaware of what a disaster that has been? Our public schools are not there to teach children to speak English. This really depends on the school district (which turns this into a question of funding). My school district has integrated non-English speakers fairly well for example. > [@](#): > > Your claim was that government run health plans were better at controlling costs (without defining what that meant) than private health insurance companies. There are plenty of regulations controlling private plans, so the Medicare ones are not that unique. I meant total costs. And that is why I support regulated private plans (which is what the German system and Obamacare is)-not necessarily just public health plans. > [@](#): > > You keep saying that like there is some pile of money laying around that doesn’t belong to anyone. Besides, what you said was “Funding does not significantly affect anything else.” Whether or not there are a bunch of rich people in this country with money you think they should be spending on others doesn’t have anything to do with you saying that spending tens of billions of dollars on heathcare wouldn’t significantly affect anything else the government funds. I mean the wealthy are not significantly affected by having say 45% of their income taxed rather than 35%. > [@](#): > > Why would you think that? What do you mean? Why would I think German birthrates are so low or why would I think that the German government would try to reverse it? > [@](#): > > That has nothing to do with whether or not you will have insurance next year if Obamacare is rolled out. But what about the year after or a decade later? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what the police and crime has to do with expecting others to fund your college education. And unless you are advocating forcing the rich to give you money for free, you will never have equal opportunity with their children. I mean even though we can never supress crime totally we fund police forces to keep in under control as much as possible. Similarly policies to expand equality of opportunity will never fully achieve it, but we can (and have) made great improvements. And the last sentence is something I’d expect a Communist to say. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh huh. No stats on the number of people who were bailed out of mortgages on houses they couldn’t afford? No stats on the number of people who run up credit card debt and then just declare bankruptcy? No stats on the number of people who could have purchased insurance but didn’t and then had big medical bills? No stats on the number of unemployed? No stats on wage stagnation? On growing income inequality? > [@](#): > > Following the example of the wealthy? If the wealthy were doing these things, they wouldn’t stay rich long. Not if they just bankrupt other people. > [@](#): > > Don’t roll your eyes kid, it’s one of the biggest issues we have these days. [Living within one’s means](http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/personalfinance/savingspending/budgeting/means.php) doesn’t mean they can pay all their bills, it means they aren’t living on credit. It doesn’t take into account that some jobs may only pay enough to survive paycheck to paycheck or that something like a fire or an illness may occur to wipe out any existing savings. > [@](#): > > Cite? Florida, for example, is a “right-to-work” state indicative of such policies: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work\_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law) > [@](#): > > By the US government? Creator of the $50 hammer? And the atomic bomb and the interstate freeways and landing man on the moon. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/276 "2013-10-24T04:17:14Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Logical reasoning would indicate that this would obviously not apply to one’s freshman year in college. Well, beyond the fact that I never assume anyone is coming from a position of logic, it is entirely possible you were suggesting that students actually prove they can hack college and are going to do well before we give them money. > [@](#): > > Which is false-plenty of tax increases have been laid at the feet of the wealthy. I didn’t say that taxes hadn’t been assessed on the wealthy, I said no one has yet been able to figure out a way to force rich people to give up a significant portion of their income. You should check out the ways that folks can sidestep paying all the tax they owe. > [@](#): > > As a social right That isn’t an answer. > [@](#): > > Plenty You do not have co-workers. > [@](#): > > In either case income inequality does not help your argument. And yet, you never mentioned it until I did. And it is my _questions_ that you fail to address, not an argument I haven’t made. Not that income inequality has anything to do with it, other than it is apparently your hot button. > [@](#): > > Maybe because auto insurance is required by law at least in California. A bare minimum, that many folks don’t even bother to get. Intelligent, responsible people buy more than the minimum requirements because it’s a good hedge against having to pay 100’s of thousands of dollars because of an accident. Yet these same folks won’t buy health insurance, especially if they are young and childless. > [@](#): > > That’s rubbish-I meant equality of opportunity not equality of results which I’ve pointed out at least a thousand times. And I think those who can’t earn money or are not able to earn enough money should be aided. What’s rubbish is that I didn’t say anything about results. I said that you want everyone to have that equality of opportunity, except I said starting point, and if someone doesn’t have the money to be equal, you expect they should get it from strangers, whether they want to or not, whether the recipient has earned it or not. > [@](#): > > No but we’ve reduced the gap significantly. Uh, you just got done complaining about the widening gap between the haves and have nots … > [@](#): > > No but those children who do have the potential should go to college regardless of income. On their own dime, sure! > [@](#): > > So then who do you suppose should do the grunt work? Kids like you, to work your way thru college, or to earn extra money while still in high school. You are not seriously suggesting that we import a bunch of poor uneducated Mexicans so we have people to mow our lawns and collect our trash are you? > [@](#): > > How long do you think people will put up with having few opportunities for the future and lacking in basic living standards? According to the cite I posted awhile back, people living in poverty - especially those born in it - tend to just give up. For those who still want to make something of themselves, there are a lot of opportunities for improving their standard of living that don’t include someone else paying for it. Of course, almost all of them mean that the kid born to poverty won’t end up being a doctor, but that is the lot of many middle class kids as well. When I left my parents house, they were middle class but there still wasn’t any money to send me to college, or trade school for that matter. > [@](#): > > Neither can humans at least those with political and economic consciousness and living in a wealthy society stand to watch drastic inequality of income. Piffle. You don’t want to be poor? Go forth and fix that. Be responsible for yourself. Humans with “political and economic consciousness” aren’t interested in being whined at by someone demanding they be made rich. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/277 "2013-10-24T05:28:08Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, beyond the fact that I never assume anyone is coming from a position of logic, it is entirely possible you were suggesting that students actually prove they can hack college and are going to do well before we give them money. No, their high school record and standardized test scores (which in the case of the SAT is explicitly designed to predict college-readiness) would give a good indication. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say that taxes hadn’t been assessed on the wealthy, I said no one has yet been able to figure out a way to force rich people to give up a significant portion of their income. You should check out the ways that folks can sidestep paying all the tax they owe. The wealthy are not gods who can’t be made up to give over their treasure, they can and have been taxed a large chunk of their income. > [@](#): > > That isn’t an answer. Social rights are a politically legitimate concept. > [@](#): > > You do not have co-workers. Classmates then. 16 and 17 year old are not little children they they do miss school and go to the doctor’s when they have a cold or flu. > [@](#): > > And yet, you never mentioned it until I did. And it is my _questions_ that you fail to address, not an argument I haven’t made. Not that income inequality has anything to do with it, other than it is apparently your hot button. You used income inequality as a way to show that Germany is inferior despite its social spending. > [@](#): > > A bare minimum, that many folks don’t even bother to get. Intelligent, responsible people buy more than the minimum requirements because it’s a good hedge against having to pay 100’s of thousands of dollars because of an accident. Yet these same folks won’t buy health insurance, especially if they are young and childless. Automobile accidents even bad ones are rather more likely than suddenly getting cancer at 25 or 30. > [@](#): > > What’s rubbish is that I didn’t say anything about results. I said that you want everyone to have that equality of opportunity, except I said starting point, and if someone doesn’t have the money to be equal, you expect they should get it from strangers, whether they want to or not, whether the recipient has earned it or not. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t want better, he wants everyone to have the same - how did he put it? - starting point? He wants responsible parents to pay to college educate their kids and the kids of those parents who don’t have the money. He thinks we should pay to send every kid to med school whose skills run in that direction. He wants everyone to be at the very least middle class if not wealthy; he’s very fixated on getting money, but not really earning it. > [@](#): > > Uh, you just got done complaining about the widening gap between the haves and have nots … I was speaking in the context of decades (ie comparing now to say the 1960s and '70s) in that case and in the context of centuries (ie comparing someone in the Victorian Age to now) right now. > [@](#): > > On their own dime, sure! That’s nice slogan but most people would disagree. > [@](#): > > Kids like you, to work your way thru college, or to earn extra money while still in high school. You are not seriously suggesting that we import a bunch of poor uneducated Mexicans so we have people to mow our lawns and collect our trash are you? No. Professional and unionized sanitation workers should collect our trash. As for other menial work, those can be done by youths on the side and/or other unskilled workers. > [@](#): > > According to the cite I posted awhile back, people living in poverty - especially those born in it - tend to just give up. For those who still want to make something of themselves, there are a lot of opportunities for improving their standard of living that don’t include someone else paying for it. Of course, almost all of them mean that the kid born to poverty won’t end up being a doctor, but that is the lot of many middle class kids as well. When I left my parents house, they were middle class but there still wasn’t any money to send me to college, or trade school for that matter. Maybe this is why they give up? After all if improvement is so uncertain and little that it won’t even give a bright kid a college education, why bother? Middle-class kids obviously also should get education aid (again the amount being dependent on various factors). > [@](#): > > Piffle. You don’t want to be poor? Go forth and fix that. Be responsible for yourself. Humans with “political and economic consciousness” aren’t interested in being whined at by someone demanding they be made rich. Except plenty of political and economically conscious people are demanding their fair share. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/278 "2013-10-24T05:32:05Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > You seem to be completely incapable of thinking logically or have no clue how higher ed works. To go to medical school you obviously have to go and complete undergraduate course work. The hell? Go back and look at what you quoted, if not the discussion that led up to it. **Qin** was talking about getting funds to go to college, that’s it. It had nothing to do with med school or a BA or any of the other thinks you went on about. > [@](#): > > That’s the thing. It’s not significant. They pay less of the percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. There have been many instances in the past where the rich have paid more of the taxes. It’s the recent past few decades where they have enjoy contributing so little. Which means you are agreeing with what I said - if rich folks have a long history of being able to get out of paying their full tax, why would any intelligent person expect to get tens of billions of dollars from them for a new program? > [@](#): > > Then call it an investment. In the end, society as a whole benefits from sending capable people to college. Capable? Probably. Do you know for sure that all or even a majority of the kids that get handed things end up being a benefit to society? You are assuming that just because they go to college, they are going to end up well. > [@](#): > > Why did the banks expect tax payers to bail them out after they pushed and sold bad mortgages to the point that it caused a recession? Why do rich people believe they should contribute to a society that they profit so much from? I don’t know, I am neither a banker nor a rich person. > [@](#): > > One of your reasons for not helping poor people is because of your belief that they are lazy and that people on welfare are too busy buying expensive cars and living out of their means, thus frauding the system. My argument is against your basic assumption. If my cites are weak, counter. Why isn’t unemployment insurance welfare? How exactly do you define welfare. No, I am against willy-nilly handing people things just because they fall into a certain strata of income, and I am definitely against the fact that almost all welfare revolves around paying to raise children. There is also a lot of fraud (which of course is hard to cite because, you know, fraud is illegal) but that isn’t the only reason why I think at least California’s welfare system should be radically redone. Like, WTF is it allowing EBT to be used at McD’s? Welfare is what people get for nothing; you don’t have to have worked a day in your life to receive it. Unemployment insurance is paid into by your employer when you work, and is only available under certain terms. I think the employee also ends up paying taxes on the amount the employer pays but I’m not sure about that part. > [@](#): > > Yep and this thread is suppose to be about the underperformance of conservative states, so… Threads wander around all the time, but addressing things at a poster that the poster hasn’t been addressing themselves doesn’t make any sense. > [@](#): > > Depending on how bad it is, plenty. Are you saying that without medical treatment, you will recover just as fast? For a cold or what people call the flu? Yes, if you mean going to the doctor type of treatment. Most of the time when I used to get those bugs at work and felt like living crap, I’d call my dr’s nurse and be told there wasn’t anything they could do about it because it was a virus. > [@](#): > > How many people don’t get yearly exams because they can’t afford it. My insurance does not cover my yearly exam at the gynocologist and that appointment cost about $400.00. Thankfully that will change under Obama care. As I said, you can get your yearlys from a doctor at Planned Parenthood. Or not get them. Neither my husband nor I have every had a yearly exam other than when forced to do so because of medication, but if you want to go in for that yearly, great have at it. Too bad others are now going to help you pay for it. > [@](#): > > No, it’s the average number of children a woman can be expected to have in her life time. The stat is how many children people are having on average, not how many we expect them to have. > [@](#): > > Well if I recall correctly, Germany came into the conversation as a comparison with the US and how some social factors in place make it comparable or better than that of the US. Besides, the things you pointed out were wrong or it’s worse in the US than there. If they were wrong, take it up with my cite. **Qin** wanted to compare Germany to the US, but only in the narrow area he is interested in, and was trying to claim that paying for those things couldn’t possibly be taking money from other things governments pay for, which is completely illogical. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what motivates young people to get insurance. I got it because I got a job where my employer was offering it. I had no immediate reproduction plans. The jobs I had in college didn’t offer it. Considering how much I got sick vs how much my monthly premiums would have cost, and what risk my lifestyle incurred, it wasn’t cost effective. I question the cost effectiveness of it now. When you add the monthly premiums, meet the deductibles and pay the percentage that left over they don’t cover, my insurance provider makes plenty of money off me. If I didn’t have kids, I would be more open to other options. And yet, you applaud the government forcing everyone to buy it? > [@](#): > > From what I’m reading, he believes people should have the same opportunities. Just because people give you money, doesn’t mean you will be better off. Before you even get considered for the money, a college has to accept you and you have to work you butt off learning the material so you can graduate. The point is that society gets a lot more return on the investment when it’s spent on educating and training the population rather than just giving them some food or a place to live. Well sure! But our boy here thinks that “same opportunities” means he should be sent to medical school. And that every poor kid should be given the opportunity to gamble with taxpayer money by going to college - here in California, if you graduate high school/get a GED you can pay the tuition and go to [community college](http://home.cccapply.org/colleges/requirements). In some cases, you don’t even have to have the diploma/GED. I really don’t think it’s a good investment to pay to send kids who barely stumble out of high school to college. > [@](#): > > No, those groups have always existed, but the community does better when there is so much discrepency between their rich and poor. The more middle class the better. I agree, I am just pointing out to **Qin** that never in history has everyone been on the same level. > [@](#): > > No and if people are happy with a job that requires otherwise then that is their choice. My brother is perfectly content with a life where he works at a pizza joint with enought money to pay for his rent, video games and marijuana consuption. (And no, he doesn’ t have children). Again, the point is not that all children will go to college but **if you qualify for it and want to, your parents income status should not disqualify you.** So you think that if poor kids are fixated on being rich, and won’t be happy unless they are doctors and lawyers, we should give them the money to go to college? God forbid that anyone be unhappy in their job, I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who will be content to be plumbers, garbage men and bus drivers their whole lives. I spent almost 40 years as a keypuncher more or less, and it was boring as hell but it paid well. Not all jobs are fulfilling. > [@](#): > > As I understand the situation, we weren’t bringing them here, they were coming over illegally and employers were taking advantage of the cheap labor. Maybe if certain employers find a portion of the population in such a legally disadvantaged position that they didn’t even have to pay them minimum wage, they would have to pay American workers a living wage. There will be people around to do the grunt work, if not, a college education doesn’t mean you don’t have to cut your own lawns. They are legal and illegal, and unless they are picking fruit or hanging out at Lowes, they are making at least minimum wage (which isn’t supposed to be a living wage). The guy that cuts our lawn works very hard but makes well over minimum wage, the guy next door drives a forklift in a warehouse, the guy across the street and down one is a mechanic. None of this required a college education and these folks are all solidly middle class. But if we are going to send all of our poor “natives” to college, who is going to do these other jobs? > [@](#): > > Take care of them or no, they aren’t going anywhere. It’s not like if you don’t feed the poor, or give them medical care or send them to college they are no long a problem. The reason people support social measures is because in the long run, it’s a better option than allowing these people to remain ignorant and poor. Food stamps and housing aleast says that the government cares enough for you to make sure you eat and have roof over your head. Education is an attempt to give people the resources to over come their problems. If you do well enough and are willing to work hard enough, you can go to college and learn to become even more valuable to society by being a computer programer or engineer or nurse or maybe even a doctor. There will always be people that are poor and sometimes that will be because they are lazy and irresponsible. They are making a choice, you are correct. But, more often than not, people are not even getting the opportunity, it’s not their choice, they aren’t even getting a chance. They are getting all kinds of chances and because it all comes without them having to earn it, far too many just figure they are entitled to a free ride. We already pay to educate them thru high school, yet I think it was a majority? of them can’t even do that. Handing people things without them having to do anything at all to earn them hasn’t been working; don’t you think that throwing even more money at this problem isn’t likely to do anything positive? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/279 "2013-10-24T06:19:08Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > I agree, but you can hardly say someone was living out of their means if that means they were living at a certain rate and then lost their job. Especially if they were living within their means prior to losing their job. Or if it took a long time to find another job. During the recession people were going months or years with no job. Losing one’s job has nothing to do with whether or not they were living within their means prior to that. The loss of the job only shows up how the person was living prior to that - if beyond their means, they are going to have bills coming in that there is no way they can pay. People living within their means have money set aside for emergencies, such as job loss and [experts](http://www.360financialliteracy.org/Topics/Budgeting-Spending/Budgeting-and-Saving/How-much-money-should-I-keep-in-a-savings-account-for-emergencies) say it should be 3 - 6 months worth of living expenses. When the recession first started, both my husband and I were out of work having both been laid off. We made the eight months without having to liquidate anything out of our retirement because we tightened our belts, and didn’t really have much we had to pay on. No credit card bills, no car payments, no home equity loan or second mortgage. And we still live that way, even tho if my husband gets laid off after next April, he could just retire if it looked like he wasn’t able to get another job. There is always a chance something will happen. > [@](#): > > The point is that other countries spend considerably less and have better health care. It’s going to require a lot of re-adjustment which will initially cost more money, but if we were more efficient with our money, imagine the type of healthcare we could provide to everyone. Besides, one of the biggest reasons for the Obamacare push was because medical care has increased so much causing insurance to be unaffordable and employers to stop offering it. Everyone keeps saying that somehow the US government is going to change it’s ways and be efficient with our money, which I seriously doubt could ever happen, but no one ever says what they mean by that. What is supposed to happen that will make us more efficient? > [@](#): > > Not what I read and medical school is like the peak, not the starting point. The starting point would be more associate and bachelor degrees because it is much more beneficial to more people. I know of several people that didn’t graduate high school, mature a little and go back to school in their 20’s or 30’s. There aren’t many people willing to put in the work to get through medical school. You aren’t following the conversation here. I said that **Qin** wants taxpayers to pay to send everyone to college and pointed out all of the stumbling blocks there are for poor kids, which included my cite for how many don’t even finish high school. You picked out just that last part and said we aren’t talking about sending high school dropouts to college. OK, fine, I go with that (should have kept you on point) and said what you quoted, about how the next logical step in the welfare chain would be to spend money on making sure poor kids stay in high school and get good enough grades to go to college. Then you respond with the above? How does any of that apply? > [@](#): > > And again, you assumption that poor people are riddled with drugs and crime is false. I could get into arrest rates for various classes and races and issues with class treatment in our criminal justice system but that is for another thread. Poor people are not so different. So, I post a cite and you don’t even read it. OK. > [@](#): > > This [paper](https://www.aamc.org/download/102346/data/) states the 10 year completion rate for medical school students is 96%. This [paper](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23363547) states the attrition rate of 5.7% which is pretty close to the other source. > > [Also, physicians have to lowest default rate on student loans. The director of student aid reports a default rate of 0 for medical school loans.](https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/april2012/279208/student-debt.html) However Penn State is near ivy league so before you mention that, Eastern Virginia Medical School reports the same. Here is the national default rate from [05-07](http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/attachments/032609DraftStudentLoanCohDfltRatesFY07Attach1.pdf). > > Graduate school students reports the lowest drop out rates because it’s much less likely for people to put that much time it, get to that point and then drop it. Your argument is slightly better for 2 or 4 year degrees but only slightly. If you look at proprietary schools, those are a problem, but the goal is to tie student loans to the school’s performance, so these schools with high drop out rates or high rates of unemployed students, will hopefully not be able to get federal funding in the very near future unless their performance improves. Any information on where those students came from? Those stats mean nothing if it turns out that a vast majority of them came from families who had college funds for them and/or they worked to raise the money, as opposed to students who have had everything handed to them along the way. > [@](#): > > True but weren’t you complaining a few pages ago about how you couldn’t get food stamps or medical care when you needed because you weren’t disabled or had children? Anyway, the point is you are right and no one is talking about making college mandatory. It would just be for people that can and want to. No, I wasn’t complaining, I was merely stating fact - I also stated that I wouldn’t have taken welfare. And I didn’t say anything about making college mandatory; what I said was college isn’t necessary to not be poor. > [@](#): > > I don’t know, but I can’t imagine it being very many. In high school, Med school is a distance goal. The kid probably isn’t even sure about med school. They will have time to consider that when they are getting their biology degree as a precursor, it thats what they want. They can decide if they want to, and there they will have to show medical schools that they perform at the necessary level. They don’t have to decide in high school but they do need to have good enough grades to be considered to move up the ladder of schooling if they later want to be a doctor. > [@](#): > > Ok, it’s still presumptious. We are assuming that the person that would get these student loans do not have the other road blocks, meaning they can succeed in college and want to. It’s a poor investment choice to send a high school drop out to college until they have past the necessary test to show they can do it and a college has accepted them. You still aren’t responding to what I say - I have said absolutely nothing about sending high school dropouts to college. You have no idea what it’s like to live below the poverty level, do you? > [@](#): > > True, but in the end I still ended up with some. I’m not going to judge others for not taking my path and my options weren’t available for everyone. Especially if at the end of the day, by and large, all parties are better off when everyone has the opportunity to get educated. Some debt is not a pile of debt, and everyone does have the opportunity to get educated - the issue at hand is the idea that the taxpayer should be responsible for kids past high school. > [@](#): > > I personally, really appreciate them having all 4 that they had. (I’m the baby). It really doesn’t matter now. The point is they did and I’m hear. We can start another thread on irresponsble parenting and what to do about teenage birth rate. We may even agree. I don’t believe many people believe a child should suffer for the mistakes of the parent if the community has the opportunity to assist so the parent’s mistakes aren’t repeated. God I’m tired of that argument. OK, how about not rewarding people for bringing children into poverty? Can we at least quit doing that? Because as long as we keep doing it, the parents mistakes are going to be repeated - history has shown us that. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe you can work and go to medical school??? Probably not, but you can work, save and then go to school. > [@](#): > > But ok, on the hypothetical plumber’s salary, if all income went to save for medical school, he would be saving for approx 7 years. I used the amount borrowed by the real life example ($370K) which covered all school and living expenses for a student through medical school and his residency. Or, he could spend that 7 years going to med school and finishing his residencency and proceed to his $150K a year job (on the low end) and in the same about of time have school done, 7 years of professional experience and have made $1,050,000 worth of income. Sure it’s a gamble. He might not graduate, or might not find a job, but it’s actually a pretty good gamble for medical school students. I’d rather he not gamble with my money. You know, like the banks did? You all who want to pay to send these folks to school, there are lots of scholarship funds you can donate to. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2013, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/280 "2013-10-24T07:15:46Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > We haven’t had a deficit for “decades”, considering we ran a surplus for several years under President Clinton. And the deficit’s primary cause is the recession. I take it you ignored the cite I just gave you that shows we have been running a deficit for decades? Oh wait, you didn’t ignore it because you responded to it. Go back and look again. It clearly shows that, while it’s gone up and down, the deficit’s primary cause is not the current recession. The current size, sure; the fact it exists? No. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean here, but yes due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them. I am asking you if you realistically think you will be able to get tens of billions of dollars out of the wealthy in the next 10 years to fund Obamacare. > [@](#): > > [http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/](http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/) Did you read your cite or just the heading? It supports my point of view on what the rich pay, not yours. > [@](#): > > It’d include a few other things such as means of communication and access to information to help find jobs (although those can perhaps just be included in a minimum income or negative income tax). More and more stuff you want others to pay for and give you. > [@](#): > > When did I say such conditions were contagious. Such conditions however do lead to high medical costs and people being unable to work. You said people coming to work and infecting others, leading to low productivity. Good job on ignoring everything else I said there. > [@](#): > > This really depends on the school district (which turns this into a question of funding). My school district has integrated non-English speakers fairly well for example. Your school district doesn’t have near the number of non-English speaking children that the southern schools have. > [@](#): > > I meant total costs. “Total costs” isn’t a definition. Do you even know what those costs are? > [@](#): > > What do you mean? Why would I think German birthrates are so low or why would I think that the German government would try to reverse it? Why do you think a) the government should do anything at all regarding something like that and b) why should it be reversed? > [@](#): > > But what about the year after or a decade later? Unless the law changes, it will be the same. > [@](#): > > I mean even though we can never supress crime totally we fund police forces to keep in under control as much as possible. Similarly policies to expand equality of opportunity will never fully achieve it, but we can (and have) made great improvements. None of this shows that you have any idea why it is there cannot be equality of opportunity in any society - there will always be some who are better off or smarter or faster or whatever than others. > [@](#): > > And the last sentence is something I’d expect a Communist to say. No, actually, your stance that the rich should give money to the poor so that everyone is on essentially the same plane is far closer to communism than anything I’ve said. > [@](#): > > No stats on the number of unemployed? No stats on wage stagnation? On growing income inequality? None of that has anything to do with people being irresponsible with their money, except its a great example of how such people think. It’s always someone or something elses fault, never that they’ve been blowing money like crazy. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t take into account that some jobs may only pay enough to survive paycheck to paycheck or that something like a fire or an illness may occur to wipe out any existing savings. Shit happens, but I imagine you are more thinking of people who are raising children on jobs at WalMart or McDs. Those people are living _well_ beyond their means, so it’s really only a matter of when and not if they have an issue that drop them right into poverty. > [@](#): > > Florida, for example, is a “right-to-work” state indicative of such policies: > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work\_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law) That has exactly zero to do with the idea that Florida is actively wooing low paying jobs. > [@](#): > > And the atomic bomb and the interstate freeways and landing man on the moon. Which have nothing to do with how mishandled government money is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301.md?page=15)