# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 15
**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, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/281 "2013-10-24T07:32:26Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > 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. So, you _don’t_ want there to be equal opportunity for all? Only for those with high enough scores? > [@](#): > > 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. See above post. > [@](#): > > Social rights are a politically legitimate concept. What politicians use to try to get elected is not an answer to why would anyone expect that some random stranger must pay for anything for their kid. > [@](#): > > 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. If they are, they are wasting money. > [@](#): > > You used income inequality as a way to show that Germany is inferior despite its social spending. No I used it to show that Germany isn’t the wonderful place you seem to think it is. > [@](#): > > Automobile accidents even bad ones are rather more likely than suddenly getting cancer at 25 or 30. I wouldn’t know and am not going to go look for cites. I’ll just say that it would be the rare car accident that would cost any where near what cancer treatment costs. I snipped out the next part because it was a bunch of quotes from different posts and responses that didn’t go with them. You’ll have to rework them to make sense. > [@](#): > > 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. “Professional and unionized sanitation workers” do not need to go to college. Besides, when I said collect trash, I meant the folks that work for the Parks Dept, cleaning up city parks, or the janitors that pick up at businesses. > [@](#): > > 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). Most of this doesn’t seem to go with what you quoted. Why should middle-class kids get aid? If their parents can’t be arsed to set up college funds for them, why should anyone else be responsible? > [@](#): > > Except plenty of political and economically conscious people are demanding their fair share. Fair share of what? Other people’s money? ---
**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, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/282 "2013-10-24T07:43:12Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > 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. There was no deficit in the late 1990s. I meant that there was no continuous deficit. Nevermind also that I said the deficit “primarily” was caused by the recession, not that it was the sole cause and reason. > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, especially considering this is not the sole source of funding. > [@](#): > > Did you read your cite or just the heading? It supports my point of view on what the rich pay, not yours. That just goes to show state and local taxes are generally regressive due to its rates, if those taxes were designed progressively as in the case of the federal income tax, then this fact would be lessened. More and more stuff you want others to pay for and give you. > [@](#): > > You said people coming to work and infecting others, leading to low productivity. Good job on ignoring everything else I said there. No I didn’t. I said previous to this: > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > Your school district doesn’t have near the number of non-English speaking children that the southern schools have. I’m assuming you mean southern as in Southern California or as in the San Diego area? > [@](#): > > “Total costs” isn’t a definition. Do you even know what those costs are? Yes, as pointed out above much of the costs are administrative. > [@](#): > > Why do you think a) the government should do anything at all regarding something like that and b) why should it be reversed? a) Because it is in the government’s interest to do so and b) because it results in labour shortages. > [@](#): > > Unless the law changes, it will be the same. Unless of course I move to say South Carolina (or twenty-four other states by the last count) that hasn’t expanded Medicaid. > [@](#): > > 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. The question is can equality of opportunity be increased? For example do you really think equality of opportunity has not increased since the advent of public education and mass literacy beforehand which much of the population was illiterate? I really don’t understand your attitude that since perfect equality of opportunity is impossible, we shouldn’t do anything to achieve it. > [@](#): > > 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. Lol. I’m hardly a social democrat much less a communist (My ideology personally is a mixture of social liberalism and Christian Democracy). And since you said equality of opportunity unless I have the rich hand over their money is impossible, you’re basically saying that under the current capitalist system any real sort of equality of opportunity is impossible which is basically a Marxist view and leads to the conclusion for many that they ought to impose a new socioeconomic order. > [@](#): > > 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 explains why so many people are poor. > [@](#): > > 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. So how should they live within means? Does this mean they shouldn’t buy a car which they need to drive to work or search for a job? > [@](#): > > That has exactly zero to do with the idea that Florida is actively wooing low paying jobs. Nonsense, the entire point of restricting the freedom of contract via “right to work” laws is to woo businesses by attempting to suppress union power. > [@](#): > > Which have nothing to do with how mishandled government money is. The empirical evidence suggests government money is generally spent effectively. Will there be some waste? Obviously but that’s the case in the private sector too. ---
**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, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/283 "2013-10-24T07:53:39Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > So, you _don’t_ want there to be equal opportunity for all? Only for those with high enough scores? No since by equality of opportunity, I mean those who show similar abilities should have an equal chance at succeeding, not that everyone should go to college since that would be an equality of results. > [@](#): > > What politicians use to try to get elected is not an answer to why would anyone expect that some random stranger must pay for anything for their kid. Ok then, to put in purely selfish terms, if the taxpayer suffers some sort of a hardship or crisis, they shall be entitled to aid also. > [@](#): > > If they are, they are wasting money. Some flues (as I myself experienced) are pretty nasty-in my case I was out of school for weeks freshman year and developed pneumonia on account of it. > [@](#): > > No I used it to show that Germany isn’t the wonderful place you seem to think it is. Again I never said Germany is a utopia, just that it was better than the US in many areas. > [@](#): > > “Professional and unionized sanitation workers” do not need to go to college. Besides, when I said collect trash, I meant the folks that work for the Parks Dept, cleaning up city parks, or the janitors that pick up at businesses. Again, I never said everyone should go to college. > [@](#): > > Most of this doesn’t seem to go with what you quoted. Why should middle-class kids get aid? If their parents can’t be arsed to set up college funds for them, why should anyone else be responsible? Because kids shouldn’t be at the mercy of their parents for college education. > [@](#): > > Fair share of what? Other people’s money? Basic decent living standards to be expected in a rich society. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/284 "2013-10-25T00:23:35Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > There was no deficit in the late 1990s. I meant that there was no continuous deficit. Nevermind also that I said the deficit “primarily” was caused by the recession, not that it was the sole cause and reason. Backpedaling. You said the deficit was caused by our current recession. And it is the _size_ of the current deficit that was caused by that recession, not the fact of having a deficit. > [@](#): > > Yes, especially considering this is not the sole source of funding. Really. You live in a dream world, don’t you? And I’ve only been asking about a fraction of the amount they want to fund Obamacare, which is hundreds of billions of dollars. > [@](#): > > That just goes to show state and local taxes are generally regressive due to its rates, if those taxes were designed progressively as in the case of the federal income tax, then this fact would be lessened. More backpedaling - what you claimed that cite would show was “due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them”. It doesn’t. > [@](#): > > No I didn’t. I said previous to this: And what you said prior to that was “Sick and unhealthy workers end up being less productive or can spread disease or otherwise cause societal costs.” > [@](#): > > I’m assuming you mean southern as in Southern California or as in the San Diego area? Southern California - I am not as far south as San Diego, I’m in Orange County. Where we have a lot of experience with the effect of trying to teach children English in public school. > [@](#): > > Yes, as pointed out above much of the costs are administrative. OK, so you don’t know what you are talking about then. You really shouldn’t be making statements regarding private insurance vs government run insurance. > [@](#): > > a) Because it is in the government’s interest to do so and b) because it results in labour shortages. a) Why? b) Temporarily, but it also means an end to unemployment of anyone who actually wants to work. > [@](#): > > Unless of course I move to say South Carolina (or twenty-four other states by the last count) that hasn’t expanded Medicaid. What does that have to do with Obamacare? > [@](#): > > The question is can equality of opportunity be increased? Sure it can, if you want to live in a [communist](http://www.howstuffworks.com/communism.htm) state where no one is allowed to be significantly better than anyone else. Of course, history shows that such financial setups don’t last long. > [@](#): > > Lol. I’m hardly a social democrat much less a communist (My ideology personally is a mixture of social liberalism and Christian Democracy). And since you said equality of opportunity unless I have the rich hand over their money is impossible, you’re basically saying that under the current capitalist system any real sort of equality of opportunity is impossible which is basically a Marxist view and leads to the conclusion for many that they ought to impose a new socioeconomic order. I don’t care what labels you want to put on it, the bottom line is that you feel you should have, at the very least, middle class advantages even tho you come from a poor family. Without having done anything to earn any of it. > [@](#): > > It explains why so many people are poor. Yup. Also explains why so many people are tired of paying to bail these irresponsible folks out. > [@](#): > > So how should they live within means? Does this mean they shouldn’t buy a car which they need to drive to work or search for a job? Skipped right over that kids part, didn’t you? > [@](#): > > Nonsense, the entire point of restricting the freedom of contract via “right to work” laws is to woo businesses by attempting to suppress union power. Nonsense. I have never worked for a union and neither has my husband, and neither of us has worked a job anywhere minimum wage since we were in our early 20’s. Trying to keep unions from artificially inflating wages and benefits does not translate into wooing low paying jobs. > [@](#): > > The empirical evidence suggests government money is generally spent effectively. OK, you seriously need to come up with a cite for that one. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/285 "2013-10-25T00:39:41Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > No since by equality of opportunity, I mean those who show similar abilities should have an equal chance at succeeding, not that everyone should go to college since that would be an equality of results. OK, then, if you want to back off that far, lets stay with what we have; kids who earn great grades and test high can earn scholarships. Any kid who works and saves money earns the opportunity to pay tuition to go to college. Any kid whose parents were responsible enough to create a college fund reaps the result of that responsibility. Or you can get student loans and start life with a pile of debt hanging over you. > [@](#): > > Ok then, to put in purely selfish terms, if the taxpayer suffers some sort of a hardship or crisis, they shall be entitled to aid also. As long as they didn’t create their hardship or crisis, sure. That what all those safety net programs were supposed to be about. > [@](#): > > Some flues (as I myself experienced) are pretty nasty-in my case I was out of school for weeks freshman year and developed pneumonia on account of it. And you have healthcare, so obviously that didn’t make any difference. > [@](#): > > Again I never said Germany is a utopia, just that it was better than the US in many areas. No, what you said was Germany was able to provide the sort of social programs you want without having to go short on any other expenditures. It looks like the biggest thing they don’t spend money on is military - if you can get the US to quit going to war, maybe we could afford to hand people more stuff. > [@](#): > > Because kids shouldn’t be at the mercy of their parents for college education. Really? So instead, society should be at the mercy of irresponsible parents even more than it is? Besides, you aren’t - I’ve already listed a bunch of ways you can go to college without expecting someone else to pay for it. > [@](#): > > Basic decent living standards to be expected in a rich society. Which you already have. ---
**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 25, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/286 "2013-10-25T02:58:14Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Backpedaling. You said the deficit was caused by our current recession. And it is the _size_ of the current deficit that was caused by that recession, not the fact of having a deficit. [ > [@](#): > > Our deficit is **primarily** due to the current recession. > [@](#): > > Really. You live in a dream world, don’t you? And I’ve only been asking about a fraction of the amount they want to fund Obamacare, which is hundreds of billions of dollars. I don’t think I live in a dream world just because I believe that taxes actually can collect some money. And as I said there are other sources of funding along with savings from current health care costs. > [@](#): > > More backpedaling - what you claimed that cite would show was “due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them”. It doesn’t. Which is true. > [@](#): > > And what you said prior to that was “Sick and unhealthy workers end up being less productive or can spread disease or otherwise cause societal costs.” I mentioned disease as one of several possibilities. > [@](#): > > Southern California - I am not as far south as San Diego, I’m in Orange County. Where we have a lot of experience with the effect of trying to teach children English in public school. I happen to live in Orange County also. Again as I said this really depends on the area-some place like Santa Ana is going to have been trouble integrating non English-speakers than say Newport Beach or Irvine. > [@](#): > > OK, so you don’t know what you are talking about then. You really shouldn’t be making statements regarding private insurance vs government run insurance. [URL=“[Administrative costs - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?_r=0)”][Administrative costs - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?_r=0)]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16778944&postcount=256](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16778944&postcount=256)) > [@](#): > > However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population. > [@](#): > > a) Why? > b) Temporarily, but it also means an end to unemployment of anyone who actually wants to work. a) reduced tax base, smaller population of working adults having to support a larger population of elderly, lack of economic dynamism etc. and b) there may also end up being a lot of jobs with not enough of the positions filled. > [@](#): > > What does that have to do with Obamacare? Since there I might at least sign up for an insurance plan on the national exchange. In addition Medicaid expansion was instituted by Obamacare. > [@](#): > > Sure it can, if you want to live in a [communist](http://www.howstuffworks.com/communism.htm) state where no one is allowed to be significantly better than anyone else. Of course, history shows that such financial setups don’t last long. Yes because apparently increasing equality of opportunity automatically equals communism. :rolleyes: Here’s a simple question: do you think the equality of opportunity in the United States is greater than it was 200 years ago in 1813 and if so do you think this is a good or bad thing? > [@](#): > > I don’t care what labels you want to put on it, the bottom line is that you feel you should have, at the very least, middle class advantages even tho you come from a poor family. Without having done anything to earn any of it. I don’t think these are or should be middle-class advantages (which would be things such as foreign vacations, home ownership, antiques etc. IMO) Yup. Also explains why so many people are tired of paying to bail these irresponsible folks out. > [@](#): > > Skipped right over that kids part, didn’t you? No, I’m just pointing out there are factors besides people breeding like rabbits. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. I have never worked for a union and neither has my husband, and neither of us has worked a job anywhere minimum wage since we were in our early 20’s. Trying to keep unions from artificially inflating wages and benefits does not translate into wooing low paying jobs. Then why would they want to ban certain types of contracts? > [@](#): > > OK, you seriously need to come up with a cite for that one. Most government spending occurs in three areas: the military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. > [@curlcoat](#): > > OK, then, if you want to back off that far, lets stay with what we have; kids who earn great grades and test high can earn scholarships. Any kid who works and saves money earns the opportunity to pay tuition to go to college. Any kid whose parents were responsible enough to create a college fund reaps the result of that responsibility. Or you can get student loans and start life with a pile of debt hanging over you. Scholarships often give out only limited funds (ie a few thousand dollars at best)-there are very few scholarships that are generous enough to entirely cover one’s college tuition and those of course are limited to only a handful of lucky students. And as I said jobs (especially the sort of jobs most college students would get) don’t pay enough to cover tuition either. > [@](#): > > As long as they didn’t create their hardship or crisis, sure. That what all those safety net programs were supposed to be about. And I agree. > [@](#): > > And you have healthcare, so obviously that didn’t make any difference. And suppose someone without healthcare had been under the same circumstance? > [@](#): > > No, what you said was Germany was able to provide the sort of social programs you want without having to go short on any other expenditures. It looks like the biggest thing they don’t spend money on is military - if you can get the US to quit going to war, maybe we could afford to hand people more stuff. And I’m all for cutting military (and other unnecessary spending such as on the Drug Wars or farm subsidies) spending and letting our allies take on more of the burden of military spending. > [@](#): > > Really? So instead, society should be at the mercy of irresponsible parents even more than it is? Besides, you aren’t - I’ve already listed a bunch of ways you can go to college without expecting someone else to pay for it. Society spent plenty of money at the expense of irresponsible bankers too and I pointed out the flaws too. > [@](#): > > Which you already have. I’m not doing it just for myself-there are plenty of people in the United States who do not have decent living standards. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/287 "2013-10-25T03:51:10Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > [ Yes, and? > [@](#): > > I don’t think I live in a dream world just because I believe that taxes actually can collect some money. And as I said there are other sources of funding along with savings from current health care costs. You live in a dream world because you think we are going to get hundreds of billions of dollars anywhere other than just adding to the deficit. > [@](#): > > Which is true. Yes, it’s true that your cite didn’t show “due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them”. > [@](#): > > I mentioned disease as one of several possibilities. Yes, and? > [@](#): > > I happen to live in Orange County also. Funny. Earlier you lived in N Cal. I’m beginning to wonder if you are actually a 16 year old kid as well. > [@](#): > > Again as I said this really depends on the area-some place like Santa Ana is going to have been trouble integrating non English-speakers than say Newport Beach or Irvine. Those places don’t tend to have much in the way of non-English speaking children living there. > [@](#): > > [URL=“[Administrative costs - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?_r=0)”][Administrative costs - The New York Times](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/?_r=0)]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16778944&postcount=256](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16778944&postcount=256)) Again, do you read your cites or just the headings? It says right in it “the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance” Those are not administrative costs. And since your cite seems to pull this out of his butt, it’s anyone’s guess if he is right or not. > [@](#): > > a) reduced tax base, smaller population of working adults having to support a larger population of elderly, lack of economic dynamism etc. Crap. A reduced tax base isn’t going to affect them if they also have a reduced population, and if this lack of breeding has been going on for awhile, they probably don’t have a large population of elderly to take care of. Even if they do, having to deal with that temporarily is far better than creating an unsustainable population just so you have a bunch of (you hope) tax payers running around. > [@](#): > > and b) there may also end up being a lot of jobs with not enough of the positions filled. Could be. OTOH, there will be less need as well, plus young healthy adults won’t have to settle for menial jobs. > [@](#): > > Since there I might at least sign up for an insurance plan on the national exchange. In addition Medicaid expansion was instituted by Obamacare. The hell? You can sign up for Obamacare in any state. > [@](#): > > Yes because apparently increasing equality of opportunity automatically equals communism. :rolleyes: If you keep wanting more and more for doing nothing, that’s where it leads. Did you bother to read the cite? > [@](#): > > Here’s a simple question: do you think the equality of opportunity in the United States is greater than it was 200 years ago in 1813 and if so do you think this is a good or bad thing? Obviously it is greater if for no other reason than black people are no longer slaves. And yes, that is a good thing. > [@](#): > > I don’t think these are or should be middle-class advantages (which would be things such as foreign vacations, home ownership, antiques etc. IMO) Oh really? So people who earn enough money to be able to afford those things shouldn’t be allowed to buy them? What was that you were just saying about how you don’t support communism? You do realize that communism is a financial idea, not a political one, right? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/288 "2013-10-25T03:53:08Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I’m just pointing out there are factors besides people breeding like rabbits. By trying to pretend that a single employed adult cannot afford a car? > [@](#): > > Then why would they want to ban certain types of contracts? For the reasons I already listed. > [@](#): > > Most government spending occurs in three areas: the military, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. That is not a cite, nor does it have anything to do with “The empirical evidence suggests government money is generally spent effectively.” > [@](#): > > Scholarships often give out only limited funds (ie a few thousand dollars at best)-there are very few scholarships that are generous enough to entirely cover one’s college tuition and those of course are limited to only a handful of lucky students. Yup, those kids who get the best grades and score the highest on the tests. > [@](#): > > And as I said jobs (especially the sort of jobs most college students would get) don’t pay enough to cover tuition either. And I said, you can work full time and then go to college. Or you can work part time, and/or get one/two/three of those little scholarships, and/or get student loans. Of course, those things require that you actually earn them, so it’s beginning to look like the problem here is that you don’t want to do any work yourself to get ahead. > [@](#): > > And I agree. Then, you don’t intend to sign up for Obamacare? > [@](#): > > And suppose someone without healthcare had been under the same circumstance? They’d be sick. > [@](#): > > And I’m all for cutting military (and other unnecessary spending such as on the Drug Wars or farm subsidies) spending and letting our allies take on more of the burden of military spending. Cut first, then think about adding things to spend on. > [@](#): > > Society spent plenty of money at the expense of irresponsible bankers too and I pointed out the flaws too. And I straightened you out on that - go back and read it. > [@](#): > > I’m not doing it just for myself-there are plenty of people in the United States who do not have decent living standards. uh huh ---
**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 25, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/289 "2013-10-25T05:21:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Yes, and? It disproves your assertion that I said the recession was the **sole** cause of the deficit. > [@](#): > > You live in a dream world because you think we are going to get hundreds of billions of dollars anywhere other than just adding to the deficit. Then why is the federal government getting increased revenues after the Bush tax cuts expired for those making over 400k? And why did the federal government lose revenue after the Bush tax cuts? > [@](#): > > Yes, it’s true that your cite didn’t show “due to the disproportionate share of the wealth the upper income people, most of the taxes is paid by them”. Even if tax burdens are not disproportionate the amount of the tax revenue that comes from the wealthy is owing to their disproportionate share of the income. > [@](#): > > Yes, and? Thu I was talking of various societal costs that a person without health insurance would cause not just them spreading around a disease. > [@](#): > > Funny. Earlier you lived in N Cal. I’m beginning to wonder if you are actually a 16 year old kid as well. When did I say I lived in N. Cal? > [@](#): > > Those places don’t tend to have much in the way of non-English speaking children living there. I agree which is why I think immigrant populations should be more spread out. > [@](#): > > Again, do you read your cites or just the headings? It says right in it “the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance” Those are not administrative costs. And since your cite seems to pull this out of his butt, it’s anyone’s guess if he is right or not. That merely strengthens my assertion considering that it means most of the costs are the result of private insurance (and “administrative” is here used in the more general sense of spending not related to things actually related to healthcare). > [@](#): > > Crap. A reduced tax base isn’t going to affect them if they also have a reduced population, and if this lack of breeding has been going on for awhile, they probably don’t have a large population of elderly to take care of. Even if they do, having to deal with that temporarily is far better than creating an unsustainable population just so you have a bunch of (you hope) tax payers running around. Tiny percentage of natural increases are not “unsustainable” and the problem is that right now a large number of people are set to retire with few replacements in the labour force. > [@](#): > > The hell? You can sign up for Obamacare in any state. I meant in the context of if Obamacare had not passed. > [@](#): > > If you keep wanting more and more for doing nothing, that’s where it leads. Did you bother to read the cite? No since communism calls for the public (or in reality) the state ownership of major industries. > [@](#): > > Obviously it is greater if for no other reason than black people are no longer slaves. And yes, that is a good thing. Which proves that equality of opportunity can be increased. > [@](#): > > Oh really? So people who earn enough money to be able to afford those things shouldn’t be allowed to buy them? What was that you were just saying about how you don’t support communism? I think I’m being misunderstood here. I meant that stuff like those are real middle class privileges and that stuff like health care should not be considered as such. I don’t mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to buy those things. > [@](#): > > You do realize that communism is a financial idea, not a political one, right? It is a mixture of both and considering I support the capitalist system, I’m not a communist in that sense either. > [@curlcoat](#): > > By trying to pretend that a single employed adult cannot afford a car? Depending on their job they may not be able to especially if they’re for example forced to buy a used car which breaks down easily. > [@](#): > > For the reasons I already listed. Which really means they just want to attract low-wage businesses. > [@](#): > > That is not a cite, nor does it have anything to do with “The empirical evidence suggests government money is generally spent effectively.” And shouldn’t you be the one presenting evidence, since you’ve asserted that government wastes large amounts of money? > [@](#): > > Yup, those kids who get the best grades and score the highest on the tests. How high should that be? To get a full ride one via scholarship pretty much need to get a 4.4 (weighted) and get 2350 on the SAT plus have some distinguishing trait (say set up their own charity or do some innovative work in bioinfometrics) or be one of the best players in a sport in the nation. But there are plenty of intelligent students who get high scores (say a 4.0 and a 2100 on the SAT) who would not be able to get such full rides. > [@](#): > > And I said, you can work full time and then go to college. Or you can work part time, and/or get one/two/three of those little scholarships, and/or get student loans. Of course, those things require that you actually earn them, so it’s beginning to look like the problem here is that you don’t want to do any work yourself to get ahead. As I said before, I’m willing to work part-time to pay for a portion of my college costs. All I’m saying direct grants need to be strengthened along with lower interest rates for student loans. > [@](#): > > Then, you don’t intend to sign up for Obamacare? What does that have to do with anything. > [@](#): > > They’d be sick. And? > [@](#): > > Cut first, then think about adding things to spend on. Not under the current economic conditions. > [@](#): > > And I straightened you out on that - go back and read it. So if you were willing to bail out banks in order to help employees who might lose their jobs then why wouldn’t support helping out kids who lack resources due to the mistakes of their parents? ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/290 "2013-10-25T15:48:32Z")
[quote=“curlcoat, post:278, topic:670301”] 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. > [@](#): > > What do you think college is? Qin has stated many, many times that IF you have the ability to go to college and want to, that your parents ability to pay for it should not be what stops you. Also I have showed may sites and statistics, for people that do well enough, and go far enough and show they have potential, the loans that are given to graduate school students have a very, very low chance of default. 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? > [@](#): > > Actually, the question is why should they get out of paying their fair share. Also, the bill has several sources of funding besides wealthy, like mandating every one have insurance or pay a penalty. 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. > [@](#): > > Statistics I have already provided confirm that they do. Is it 100%? No. But it’s still enough to make the gamble work it. I don’t know, I am neither a banker nor a rich person. > [@](#): > > And apparently you don’t watch the news or pay attention to anything that doesn’t fit into your world view, because that is what happened. Why did taxpayers bail out the top financial firms in the country/world? Because allowing them to fall would have been a harder storm to weather. 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? > [@](#): > > Maybe you have this view because you don’t like kids or are not very fond of them since you have never had your own. Most people believe that helping people raise these children is an investment in the future. If these people are as dumb and lazy as you think they are, it would probably be a lot more easy to bust them for fraud. I am not familiar with using EBT at McD’s. In South Carolina, EBT can only be used at store to purchase unprepared food. 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. > [@](#): > > Ok, well you don’t pay anything for your unemployment insurance. The employer does. And as you have send, money is a finite resource. If you pay taxes on some level you are supporting social programs. 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. > [@](#): > > Flu like symptoms can be an array of things. I never go to the doctor initially for a cold. I stay home. But when I caught the flu and was congested so bad I was literally choking and gagging on the congestion, I had to go to the doctor and get a strong decongestant prescribed. Another time, I had strep throat. My daughter broke out in a rash and was not allowed to go back to school without clearance from a doctor. If I am so sick that I have to miss 3 consecutive days from work, I must provide a doctor’s excuse. I’m not sure how things were back when you worked, but these are how things are for me. 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. > [@](#): > > I get it as little as I can. One of the things this test screens for is cancer (which runs in my family). And no one will be helping me pay for because my insurance should pay a portion of my medical expenses. Paying for that kind of preventative care is way more cost effective than actually getting cancer. Getting this test could catch cancer early, when it’s less likely to be life threatening. I’ll be more likely to recover and continue to work and pay insurance premiums. If the cancer isn’t caught early and not found until it’s a problem, then you are looking a expensive treatments only to have more likely chance of dying and no longer paying into premiums. The stat is how many children people are having on average, not how many we expect them to have. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > [The total fertility rate in the United States after World War II peaked at about 3.8 children per woman in the late 1950s and by 1999 was at 2 children. This means that an imaginary woman (defined in the introduction) who fast-forwarded through her life in the late 1950s would have been expected to have about four children, whereas an imaginary woman who fast-forwarded through her life in 1999 would have been expected to have only about two children in her lifetime. The fertility rate of the total U.S. population is at around the replacement level of about 2.1 children per woman/QUOTE]. > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > No, the cites were fine, you interpreted them incorrectly. Qin’s argument is that Germany offers these things without detrimental effects elsewhere. One of the main things they probably do is run their health care more efficiently without all the administration cost. Another,[this](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending)says that the largest expenditures of the federal budget is healthcare, pensions (\<-is this you? ) and defense. > > And yet, you applaud the government forcing everyone to buy it? > > > [@](#): > > > > The modern business plan of insurance companies is to have a body of low risk/low cost clients to out way and pay for older more needy clients. I don’t know what you health issues are, but I assume they are pretty substantial since you collect disability for them. Do you really believe that if you pay for all more medical care out of pocket you would come out better than you do now? I pay for it now to be able to afford any serious health problems that may arise and to have security for myself and my children. > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > He has said, several times, that IF a student qualifies (and there a lot of tests and challenges before you get to medical school) and IF a student wants to and IF a student has shown that they are capable, that money should not be an obstacle. We have similar opportunities in SC. Students who maintain a B+ average can get a scholarship, but it does not cover the entire tuition cost at a public university. Unless they have changed to amount you can get a year, it doesn’t even cover a community college. However, SC lags behind in these areas. > > I agree, I am just pointing out to **Qin** that never in history has everyone been on the same level. > > > [@](#): > > > > IDK who he knows but some people are on the same level. If someone has the ability and wants to move up the economic ladder, they should be able to. > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > Doctors and lawyers are not rich in general and they work very, very hard for their money. It takes years of school and various apprenticeship type positions to get to where they start making a lot of money and for the most part, it’s upper middle class. If people are content with a blue collar jobs, good for them. I have no intention of spending my life doing something I don’t believe it or feel passionate about. I love my job now and not because I make a lot of money. I know I would not every be wealthy in my field, but I can be find a balance in a comfortable life with my and my children’s needs being met and enjoy my job. I’ll have to be smart with my money, but it’s definitely doable. > > 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? > > > [@](#): > > > > You define minimum wage how you like. I believe if you work a job for 40 hours a week, you should be paid at a rate you can survive at. Even if it’s a job a McDonalds. Corporations have pulled in record profits over the past few decades while not raising the wages of the people that make them their money. > > > > No one is saying you have to go to college to be middle class. Again, the point is, if you are capable and want to go to college, your money should not stop you. Are you saying that we should keep poor, but capable people down so they can do the ‘grunt work’? If anything, the employers couldn’t get anyone to do the fruit picking (or whatever “minimum wage job”) I guess they are going to have to pay people more to make it worth their time. That’s capitalism. People don’t want to do it because the pay is crap and they will find better else where. > > 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? No, you didn’t read your cite very well. Your cite states that kids from low income families are 5 times as likely to drop out of high school than middle and high income kids. This [cite](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/dropout08/figures/figure_01.asp?referrer=report) and this [cite](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/dropout08/tables/table_04.asp?referrer=report) shows drop out rates more clearly and states that by age 24, the drop out rate for low income kids is less than 10%. And again, (I swear, it’s an echo) no one is advocating that these kids should be handed checks along with their diplomas (even Qin). A lot of kids don’t want to go to college. Some kids really can’t hack it. Some only want to go for a certificate or an associates. If they show they are qualified, and colleges screen for that before they accept people, and they want to, then yes, throw money at it because it consistently provides a good return for the investment. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301/291 "2013-10-25T16:45:13Z")
[quote=“curlcoat, post:279, topic:670301”] 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. > [@](#): > > Its great for you guys that you were so prepared. However, I will not judge someone’s situation without any knowledge of it. What if they were unemployed longer than their 6 month’s worth of savings? (a common problem during the recent recession). What if you were “living out of your means” because of medical expenses from an illness or disease (the number one cause of bankruptcy)? Their employer never gave them a raise and the cost of living caught up to them? There are numerous situations where people find themselves with money issues. 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? > [@](#): > > There are all sorts of ways and clearly, the private sector is not managing it. The thing about medical care is, it should not be based on a free market strategy. It’s like paying for air. 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? > [@](#): > > It applies because you take the most extreme and attempt to run with it. If expert advice is to be used, a lot more money would be spent on early childhood education but that’s another thread. Again Qin, doesn’t want the tax payers to send everyone to college. Just ones that are capable and want to. If you wouldn’t assert that because we want anyone to have the opportunity to go to college if they qualify for it to mean that surely tax payers must send all people to college regardless of wants or qualifications. I feel I have to simplify things. So, I post a cite and you don’t even read it. OK. > [@](#): > > I can’t find the post with the cite now. Repost? I usually read them. 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. > [@](#): > > [Federal Student Aid](http://www.ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/attachments/DefaultRates.pdf). The data is only for students that received student loans, so likely students that either didn’t have help or didn’t have enough. Obviously, if the family were paying for their college then they would not be getting loans in the first place. > > [/QOUTE]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. > > > [@](#): > > > > Which colleges and authorities would use that information to decide if they are a good bet however, no decisions about medical school are made by anybody with the exception of the student that makes the decision to work hard and try for it. > > 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? > > > [@](#): > > > > I grew up in a trailer park in South Carolina, so yeah, my entire childhood I was poor. No one knows how many high schoolers that want to be a doctor will be able to make it to med school. If you are capable, and if you want too, your parents inability to pay for it should not stop you. > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > How much do tax payers actually pay? Even if they pay all of it, it’s an investment they are getting a good return on. > > 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. > > > [@](#): > > > > Ok, how do you feel when you are punished for other people’s mistake. And I’m not talking about the small percentage of the taxes you pay that might actually end up going to kids education. I’m talking about, completely innocent, wrong place wrong time, you work hard, follow the rules but are denied because someone else’s mistake. Children have no control over what parents they have. Their parent’s may have been rich but blew all the money, maybe they were middle class until the make source of income was no longer available because of some medical illness (again, number one reason people go into bankruptcy). They are stuck with their whelms. Sorry, but they should suffer for it as little as possible. > > 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. Fair enough, but banks packaged bad loans in such a way that they could quickly resell loans they knew were no good. For what? So the rich could be richer. Screw people’s retirement or anything else that invested in what they thought was a valid deal when they were given false information. Most people don’t default and the more education they have, the less likely they are to. And the result is a college educated person that will contribute more to the community and better themselves and be in a position to bring their own children into the world with better circumstances. Sounds like a better gamble to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-right-wing-conservativism-is-so-great-why-do-their-states-suck/670301.md?page=14)