On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years. I would
also point out, that a handful of whites not getting into the college of
their choice, doesn't compare with black oppression. So, on a scale, I'm
relatively unconcerned. Again, affirmative action was a tool that,
perhaps, has outlived it's usefulness.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

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


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

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



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

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

Depends on what he meant by "phases out at a certain income level".

I have always thought that a flat tax should start above the poverty
line. I don't know off the top of my head what annual income is the
official threshold for poverty (realistically, it isn't the same
everywhere in the country), but lets just say that everyone can make
$25,000 a year tax free. You pay the flat tax rate on money you make
after that.

It works out to look like progressive tax, but it doesn't have the
bracketing that is used that's used for politcal purposes. Everyone
pays the same rate after $25K.

One thing that has to go with a flat tax system is deductions. That
would include home mortgage interest and (to stay on topic) boat loan
interest deductions. I don't have a problem with that. But many
charities and other industries that leverage tax deductions would
fight it --- even though it would probably increase the treasury by
huge somes.


Nobby, can you post *anything* you believe in that doesn't reek of
hypocrisy?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
In the real world, it's been established that the 3 most important
factors
in getting good grades a

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

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

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

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

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

How odd. A few weeks ago, my son had 5 friends over to watch a movie. When
it was over, I asked them why they all got good grades. They said the main
reason was that they all helped each other when they didn't understand
something. They acknowledged that parents' expectations were important, but
also said that because we're all really old, our knowledge wasn't as
important as just wanting to do well.

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

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

A quote from my neighbor, who is NOT unusual: "Hey...I got nothin' against
them, but I'm not too wild about them buyin' houses on this street. And
didja see some of them at the school concert last week? Some of 'em look
like animals, not people".

This is Rochester, NY.

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

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


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

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


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:28:24 +0000, NOYB wrote:


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

Let's see, Affirmative Action has been around maybe 20-30 years,
oppression of blacks has been around maybe several hundred years.

Don't you mean "oppression of blacks *HAD BEEN* around for several hundred
years"? You don't buy into the crap that they're still oppressed, do you?

A quote from my neighbor, who is NOT unusual: "Hey...I got nothin' against
them, but I'm not too wild about them buyin' houses on this street. And
didja see some of them at the school concert last week? Some of 'em look
like animals, not people".

This is Rochester, NY.



Yes, people of color are still oppressed in this country. If you think
otherwise, you've got your head buried deep in Rush Limbaugh's butt.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

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


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

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


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

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

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


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

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


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

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

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


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

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


It's not as blatant a form of a socialist economy as the other 4, but
it
is
socialism to some degree. For instance, if $5000 of my money goes to
education via taxes, then I'm being forced by the government to pay for
my
kids to go to public school. That's socialism.

And if there were no private schools? Who would you expect to pay
teachers'
salaries?



Nobby's concept of socialism is based upon too many whiffs of dental
laughing gas.

Tax breaks for those attending "private school" is a buzz phrase for
using public funds to support Christian schools.

The funds are only "public" because some "private" citizen was forced to
give them to the government. There is no such thing as "public" funds...so
let's just call them publicly held private funds.



You need to get your head out of newsmax.

--
Email sent to is never read.