The way of the gun... United States - Page 10 - Eternal Allegiance

midnightman · 08-19-2003, 12:18 PM

I'm agreeing with you dude, since people are basically good everything should work out. A big problem is all due to one simple thing. You know, complicated problems have simple solutions. Just ask Hitler.

Rigeri · 08-19-2003, 12:55 PM

I´m not talking about some dream world or something.. I´m talking about something that works in many nations and could easily work in the US.

midnightman · 08-19-2003, 09:24 PM

Sigh... some people just don't get it...

Yes, I will give you something here, and that is "works" in other countries. But do you know why it "works" in countries in Europe and not here?

It is how the government is organized, set up, and what the people expect from it. I say to you that government-run health care and education won't work well in the US. Why? Because it would be of very shitty quality, with long waits and everything else that is evident from what is already government-run. Why? Because the government funds it and so it will never run out of money. Politicians want to make people happy, so they throw more money at the problem to get re-elected. This is because, of course, of us living in a democratic republic. If it never runs out of money, there is no need for it to be of high quality since where else will people go if the government runs it all? Also many people will straight-up mooch off of it, which is not hard to do since they can find a "right" to do so or hire a lawyer to find one for them (that happens because of the legal freedom here and how easy it is to use the judiciary to assert your rights, whether you are right or not). Why not fire those people who fuck it up? Because in the US, to prevent an abuse of executive power and threats to liberty, there is an elaborate set of checks and balances set up. Therefore it is EXTREMELY difficult to fire government employees. I also have the nagging feeling that something government-run like this would also be drastically out-of-date. Why? Because it takes long amounts of time for our government to do simple things. Why? Checks and balances on power, pluralistic factions... they prevent abuse and threats to liberty. They prevent our government from doing great amounts of bad in a short time (we have to take time to debate things out and such, unlike dictatorships or even centralized parliamentary regimes), however they also prevent our government from doing great amounts of good in a short time. I won't deny that, but I'm not saying that this should change either. Liberty is the ultimate goal for us, and it is not without a price. Over here, people expect their rights to be respected and protected at all costs above anything else. BLAH and dammit, there was one other thing or spin off of this I was gonna talk about but once again I forgot. But I think this is the gist of it... maybe it'll come back to me.

Now in Europe it's not like this because people aren't as mistrustful of their government as we are. In Europe governments are more centralized and less pluralistic, so lots of stuff can be done at once (good and bad).

So if you are so insistent upon the United States having free health care and education, it would require a series of constitutional amendments that would open the door for great amounts of good (possibly) but also great amounts of bad. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

FantaOrSprite · 08-19-2003, 09:54 PM

^ There ya go Midnightman! Good response!
Geiri-I don't mean to be rude, but the US is,as you are fond of saying the richest superpower country in the world. Obvioulsy we are doing SOMETHING right! What works for your country will not work for ours because our gov. is so different. I really don't believe in your "take from the rich to give to the poor " beliefs either. I'm sorry I'm NOT working MY butt off to have someone sit around and collect benefits because they want to spend their work money on DRUGS! And that is what happens. Its sounds like you want to make everyone in america middle class and eliminate the poor and upper class all together , but it will never work out that way, and you will only make people angry to give out more handouts. I think the programs we have now are fine in terms of help to the poor.
I do agree with your one point on education. I think more money should go to education, def. But you know, alot of people are grateful they had to work through college. They say that it made them more appreciative than if they had had a free ride given to them...
Whre I go to school there is a state aid for people who make under a certain amount. Its called pell grant...it pays for books and tuition, and the remainder of the money you do not use comes to you in a check. I cannot tell you how many people I know who signed up for the minimuim requirements of classes just so they could get that check at the end of the year, and they never attended their classes! It makes me SICk to see this. Thats taking money from kids who could actually use it, or taking money the college could keep to get more computers or books or something. but then thats what happens when you have a system like that. You get taken for a RIDE.

Rigeri · 08-20-2003, 11:20 AM

RaInBoW_bRiTe... before I start writing more about this I just want to make one thing clear.. I NEVER said the government should pay everything for the poor people... I support that we have poor, middle and rich people... AS LONG AS everybody get the same oportunities from the start... with the education I was talking about.

midnightman misunderstood me I think.. I don't wan't people working their ass off so the government can give it to poor people.

The US is only richest because of the huge population and that its a modern country. Norway is the richest country as in what the average person makes.

My main point was the one about education because that is a start.. I believe that if you have the brain, talent or whatever you need... then you should be allowed to study it and later use that education for your society. (paying it back).

I´m seriously against people using the government to get FREE stuff... I see at my school some kids just "hangin around" all day and doing nothing. So thats why its important to change the rules at the same time you change the system... so people that just wanna use it without getting good enough grades get kicked out.

midnightman · 08-20-2003, 01:35 PM

Yeah Geiri, I'm having the feeling that the two sides to this debate are really both talking about and agreeing on the same thing but it is getting clouded in the fog of principle and ideal...

I agree with you on people getting a start with education. As I said before, I'm personally getting such a start from my college. There's just that stigma when something is funded and run by the government that makes it suck... maybe merit-based gov. funding for private schools would work (like the kind my college gets from the federal gov.)

Assuming this works and the people with the brain and talent liquidate this into money (getting a start if they need it), then would it really matter if there was free health care in a particular country? They'd be able to provide for themselves. The poor people that are left (because they didn't have the brain and talent to liquidate into money) would, I suppose (?), have to put up with government-run health care (as is already the case).

I know there are big problems with the US education system. You and I are just confusing each other as to what the problem is and how it should be.

It seems to me that you are suggesting throwing more money and government at the problem, while to you it seems that I'm saying to underfund it and let it go to shit and make poor people slave away for it.

I don't know about this, heh, it seems like a case of misperception. When I try to look at your arguments from an outsider's viewpoint, I see your requests already in action in this country. The system isn't perfect, but most of what you are saying (except minimum salaries; this is debatable though, since we have welfare which many people abuse and make no secret of it) is in place, which might mean that crime isn't absolutely a function of economic background. I dunno.

EDIT: in our school system, you can get straight F's your entire life and you'll never get kicked out of school.

It's even more accommodating, which I think is a big problem and waste of money...

Rigeri · 08-20-2003, 02:34 PM

ohh ok thats probably the biggest problem...

We don't use A or F or whatever you guys use there... we use 0-10 (0-100%)

If you get less than 5 (50%, half correct) many times in a row and fail semester... sure you will maybe get one chance but after that they will kick you out... Because its your problem that you are to lazy to be in school.

So in my opinion they should kick more people out, and use the money that would have been wasted to support people more that actually have the talent and are ready to work hard for their education.

Just having 1 student in a normal school is a lot of money for just one year... a total waste of money if the student doesn't pass the semester.

A good idea for a system would be something like this...

You get a free education as long as you pass most of your classes and are getting somewhere... and if you fail a semester then they will charge you for the next one... and if you pass that one then the free education program will start again. If you will fail again after that then they will charge you more money than the first time for comming back.. Then the 3rd time you would fail... they would kick you out for atleast 1 year.

If then later you would be lucky enough to get back in.. then you would have to pay for the whole education atleast the first year or just go to some private school that the government doesn't support in any way.

This is also really something they should change over here.. yes they kick people out but still there are one and one that "hang out" in schools way 2 long and waste tax money.

FantaOrSprite · 08-20-2003, 08:38 PM

Geiri-I apologize then because I obvioulsy misunderstood your points. I think the points you make on education are good ones. I think more scholorships should be given out to students who work hard in school and have high GPAs, andnot just football players who happen to meet the minimuim amount of requirements to go to the school, but are there so that the football team is guarenteed another winning season. I'm talking about the kids who may potentially be the future Bill Gates of the future, and actually are at college b/c they want to learn. Its a pet peeve of mine that one person can work their butt off to get a 4.0 GPA and a 1200 on their SATS, yet their slot in a major university is given to a sport star with a 2.0 and 850 score. errrr. Yet thats what gets the colleges the alumni money- a winning season.
So anyways-yea I totally agree with you.

Rigeri · 08-21-2003, 05:56 AM

Ok great

We don't have that problem here because we keep education and sports separated

katy_ea · 08-26-2003, 03:14 PM

Education is free in the us, which is why we have become one of the richest countries in the world. If we did not have free education, our economy would go down, homeless numbers would be up, more people in poverty ..etc, its a bad cycle. Even though i dont have kids, i pay for kids to go to school in my neighborhood because i want america to have a promising future, education benefits everyone not just the child going to school.
I dont think that sports and education should be seperate. Most children need that support throughout school in order to succeed and to let out their energy and focus on something fun for them. It keeps kids out of trouble to help them better succeed, it also helps kids learn how to work in groups and teamwork that will benefit them their whole life. Education is not just 1+1=2, its helping children grow into wholesome unique individuals that can benefit the community.