Jump to content

U.S. education under attack?


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Have you looked at Trumpy's proposed budget? Chock full of welfare cuts and the like. 

The motive is the same as it's always been. Small government. Government handouts lead to fraudulent Welfare Queens and the like.We can spend trillions on defense, but God forbid we should feed or house a poor.

I view welfare much the same. It hasn't achieved a state of perfection. If parts aren't working or are having adverse effects I'm not opposed to getting rid of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

I view welfare much the same. It hasn't achieved a state of perfection. If parts aren't working or are having adverse effects I'm not opposed to getting rid of them.

Not sure how perfection enters into it. It's about common decency, IMHO. Course corrections and amendments regarding what works and what doesn't work are productive, sure. Wholesale cuts across the board? Not so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Ok I misunderstood, you clearly were not trying to call racism by saying "not in support of ANYONE who isnt white". 

It's weird that I would even think that.

So yeh, I'm back to the education system not being perfect, and possibly not even working at all in some areas. Therefore it shouldn't have immunity to changes.

It is racism--but it isn't about fascism or Klan meetings--racism functions differently now. These are not changes Toth mentioned, these are cuts, and the cuts will disproportionately affect the poor--and most often marginalized, non-white groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how perfection enters into it. It's about common decency, IMHO. Course corrections and amendments regarding what works and what doesn't work are productive, sure. Wholesale cuts across the board? Not so much. 

This is still broad accusation with no detail though. Like what exactly gets cut and which poor people die? starve? or ??? as a result.

As for common decency I refer back to my other point that deciding it's a good thing to help the poor is the incredibly easy part that's less than one percent of the actual work. By the time that righteous thought gets handed off and funneled through the bureaucracy it often can result in something that doesn't help at all or causes even worse problems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how perfection enters into it. It's about common decency, IMHO. Course corrections and amendments regarding what works and what doesn't work are productive, sure. Wholesale cuts across the board? Not so much. 

Color me unsurprised that "common decency" holds little water here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

So just fuck it? Let God sort it out? Talk about incredibly easy.

I've advocated careful study of the logistics and ins and outs and details of whats happening since I entered the thread instead of a much easier proclamation of "its torture porn for rich people". Never did I advise "so just fuck it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I've advocated careful study of the logistics and ins and outs and details of whats happening since I entered the thread instead of a much easier proclamation of "its torture porn for rich people". Never did I advise "so just fuck it"

Well, I'd push back against the idea that deciding to help those less fortunate than yourself is incredibly easy. It certainly doesn't seem to be easy for the GOP in a general sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

By the time that righteous thought gets handed off and funneled through the bureaucracy it often can result in something that doesn't help at all or causes even worse problems

I know I shouldn't even ask but... What "worse problems" are you thinking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I know I shouldn't even ask but... What "worse problems" are you thinking about?

Certainly we should all agree that not every solution to a problem helps the problem. I argue that sometimes, even commonly solutions lead to worse problems. Particularly when solutions are based on emotion without logic or rationale. The Patriot Act is a good example. 

To use an example on topic, I think food stamps are pretty problematic being that they can be used for Mountain Dew and Cheetos and Twinkies or their WIC counterparts. Technically yes this stops poor people from starving but when the inevitable health risks that accompany years of this sort of diet kick in, again it's "hey you are evil and not commonly decent unless you kick in for this healthcare" at some point the responsibility has to be at least shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

To use an example on topic, I think food stamps are pretty problematic being that they can be used for Mountain Dew and Cheetos and Twinkies or their WIC counterparts. Technically yes this stops poor people from starving but when the inevitable health risks that accompany years of this sort of diet kick in, again it's "hey you are evil and not commonly decent unless you kick in for this healthcare" at some point the responsibility has to be at least shared.

Are you bringing this up as on topic due to the complicating factors of food education and food deserts in predominantly lower income areas?

Or not related to education and you believe that we should cut food stamps because 5% goes to soft drinks? Or are you advocating for more government intervention - nanny state, if you will - dictating how people should spend their money?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Certainly we should all agree that not every solution to a problem helps the problem. I argue that sometimes, even commonly solutions lead to worse problems. Particularly when solutions are based on emotion without logic or rationale. The Patriot Act is a good example. 

To use an example on topic, I think food stamps are pretty problematic being that they can be used for Mountain Dew and Cheetos and Twinkies or their WIC counterparts. Technically yes this stops poor people from starving but when the inevitable health risks that accompany years of this sort of diet kick in, again it's "hey you are evil and not commonly decent unless you kick in for this healthcare" at some point the responsibility has to be at least shared.

I agree with your Food Stamp example. I have no problem with dictating what you can get with them. i think that's a reasonable condition. To the best of my knowledge, that's exactly the way WIC works.

Examples of WIC foods include milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruit juice, peanut butter, dried beans/peas, canned beans, whole grain bread, tortillas, brown rice, cannedfish, infant formula, infant cereal, baby fruits and vegetables, baby meats, tofu, soy milk, and fruits & vegetables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Week said:

Are you bringing this up as on topic due to the complicating factors of food education and food deserts in predominantly lower income areas?

No I was answering a question, topic not brought up by me.

Quote

Or not related to education and you believe that we should cut food stamps because 5% goes to soft drinks? Or are you advocating for more government intervention - nanny state, if you will - dictating how people should spend their money?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html

I'm advocating that soda shouldnt be paid for with food stamps. At all. Not even .000001 of a percent.

 

I'm just saying I don't eat like my life is one long child's birthday party, it's certainly not evil for me to not want to buy the poison for other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Week said:

Are you bringing this up as on topic due to the complicating factors of food education and food deserts in predominantly lower income areas?

Or not related to education and you believe that we should cut food stamps because 5% goes to soft drinks? Or are you advocating for more government intervention - nanny state, if you will - dictating how people should spend their money?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html

I have to say I have trouble with some of the food desert arguments. Even in convenience stores you have relatively healthy options. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't been in a 7-11 or AM/PM in my area that doesn't have some small measure of fresh fruit, cereals, milk, juice, bread, peanut butter, etc.

I think it's hard to couch this as dictating how people spend their money, when it's given to them. It's not quite the same thing, ya know?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'm advocating that soda shouldnt be paid for with food stamps. At all. Not even .000001 of a percent.

 

I'm just saying I don't eat like my life is one long child's birthday party, it's certainly not evil for me to not want to buy the poison for other people.

I think some small percentage should be reasonably allowed. Say 10-15%. But the overall goal should be to provide nutrition, so I do think it's reasonable to limit choices insofar as that goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I have to say I have trouble with some of the food desert arguments. Even in convenience stores you have relatively healthy options. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't been in a 7-11 or AM/PM in my area that doesn't have some small measure of fresh fruit, cereals, milk, juice, bread, peanut butter, etc.

Emphasis on small. A lot of cereals and juice nearly as unhealthy as soda. It is a complicated issue with a lot of factors -- access, education, time to prepare food, seeking food that won't spoil, etc. 

How appetizing did the fresh fruit look?

I get that it sounds easy -- for many of us it really is easy. I would hazard a guess that none of us qualify for SNAP benefits where a family of 4 is making <25k per year.

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's hard to couch this as dictating how people spend their money, when it's given to them. It's not quite the same thing, ya know?  

I don't disagree - but the "nanny state" is an argument that conservatives and other intellectually dishonest folk bring out when convenient and then shove back in the closet when another argument is needed (e.g. state's rights, "small town values", importance of certain amendments and rank ignorance of most (all?) others).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Week said:

 

 

I don't disagree - but the "nanny state" is an argument that conservatives and other intellectually dishonest folk bring out when convenient and then shove back in the closet when another argument is needed (e.g. state's rights, "small town values", importance of certain amendments and rank ignorance of most (all?) others).

And this is why my suggestion of learning in detail about what these cuts actually are and what their desired and actual results are is so difficult. Because it's a political issue, therefore every source I've found willing to even acknowledge or report on this is extremely slanted to left or right. Most are willing to outright lie for their cause. theres always going to be some sort of convenient line such as  "anybody that disagrees with this is some Democrat SJW monster or some Republican racist".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Week said:

Emphasis on small. A lot of cereals and juice nearly as unhealthy as soda. It is a complicated issue with a lot of factors -- access, education, time to prepare food, seeking food that won't spoil, etc. 

How appetizing did the fresh fruit look?

I get that it sounds easy -- for many of us it really is easy. I would hazard a guess that none of us qualify for SNAP benefits where a family of 4 is making <25k per year.

I don't disagree - but the "nanny state" is an argument that conservatives and other intellectually dishonest folk bring out when convenient and then shove back in the closet when another argument is needed (e.g. state's rights, "small town values", importance of certain amendments and rank ignorance of most (all?) others).

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, and I'm sure there are good examples of true food deserts where it is only reasonable to allow foer EBT/Food Stamps to be used for Fast Food and the like. The thing is, I see this in my own community where there is no reasonable argument for it, IMHO. For example the McDonald's up the street from my house is right across the street from a major supermarket, and they accept EBT. If you're on EBT/Food Stamps, and you're eating at McDonalds with any sort of regularity, you're not being financially responsible. In my mind, eating out is a luxury. That's something you do when you're flush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think some small percentage should be reasonably allowed. Say 10-15%. But the overall goal should be to provide nutrition, so I do think it's reasonable to limit choices insofar as that goes.

That's way to much. If 10-15% of your diet is what I consider literal poison, that's just a countdown until when you are going to need even more money for your healthcare. Technically a bag of Doritos can save someones life on the brink of starvation but I don't want to pay ANYTHING for that to be a regular part of your diet. I don't eat like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...