YEA were the fuck does my cash that i pay to the fed and shit go. probably into some pregnant dumb fucking teen girls pocket so she can fuck some yuppy hillabilly and not have consequences for gettting knocked up
What I can't understand when it comes to Liberals is the misunderstanding of how Government works. If you have BIG GOVERNMENT you have BIG LOBBYISTS (the CORPORATIONS you hate so much) funding their agendas who put SMALL (insignificant, putrid dick suckers)prostrating idiots in power! SIMPLE... more Gov power, more $ from YOU.
So... you're saying that you wouldn't like bigger Gov? The premise of Penn's argument is that an INDIVIDUAL can come up with a better use of his or her capital than Government. Yeah... there's corruption in government, that's why we don't want more of it...WTF?
Just because you don't know where the money goes, doesn't mean it goes to the worst most useless possible place ( in reference to it lining the pockets of a Washintonian )
I think I know better how to spend my money than anyone else.
If you believe we don't pay enough taxes, make your voluntary check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail to:
You answered your own question: " Where the fuck does that money go? I don't even know where my tax dollars right now go" That is a perfect argument for giving the government less money for everything. Oh, and old George Washington would be spinning over in his grave if he saw how bloated and inefficient the federal govt has become, the founders worked hard to leave their citizens wellbeing in the hands of the states. We have eradicated that vision and not for the good of the country.
you missed the point of Penn's question. people can help themselves better than government. why don't you go grow a fucking dick and send the government a little extra dough if you want them to be more wasteful.
okay, you are just proving his point: washington shouldn't have your trust for being a benevolent thing, so why trust them with doing more, inevitably taking more from you?
2. Every dollar the U.S. government spends is accounted for in an annual review. It's all on paper, with the only exception being what they call "Black Programs". This money is spent on
things like new and secret military weapons and such. So that's where that money goes. The fat cats get their money from lobbyists. Ya know big oil, insurance companies and the drug companies.
You just don't get it, AvgJim. First, it would not matter that money would go to 'newer' programs. The fact of the matter is that it is is that the Federal Government is in serious debt. What you are proposing to do is to rearrange deck chairs on the titanic.
Your solution does not address the issue.
Second, you act as though politicians are merely misguided. Wrong. They have no interest in fixing problems. Why fix problems if you can use them as planks to get reelected?
I never said that I know the best way to use our tax dollars. But yes, I do hope that smarter people take office and use our money more wisely. Isn't that what all citizens should want?
My point is that there are tax funded programs that don't work. What is naive about suggesting to use those funds for a program that does work? You must be suggesting that the gov't is a wasteful entity all together, and I am naive in thinking that they will ever use our funds wisely.
Libertarianism is all about voluntary funding by the community as opposed to global funding by a beuracracy at gun-point. If the politicians don't know how to spend our money then why should they be doing it?
Now, I'm a Canadian so I do naturally put health care in the "should be controlled by the government" section as I file that under "basic security", but education would work better if it was community/industry funded. Small amounts of Government regulation makes sense, but not funding.
So you think that only children of affluent pedigrees are afforded an education? If it were up to communities to fund education there would be, without a doubt, an extreme separation of class in that country. The only just course is to offer an equal opportunity to all individuals for an education that meats at least a minimum standard as set forth by a governing body. This concept is the basis for the foundation of the U.S. All men are created equal and are entitled to L,L,&PoH.
And there isn't an extreme separation of class in this country inspite of 40-50 years of govt controlled education? What are you basing your observations on? Can you point to a country that does not have a public education system that has very extreme separation of "class".. whatever that means.
What makes the governing body wise enough to decide what is right and wrong for the people? You should talk to a politician face to face sometime before deciding that these people are smart, seriously!
There is NOT separation of education based on wealth in the US. US has the 2nd highest per capita literacy rate (to Russia - also state controlled ed system) in the world.
Also notable are migration patterns that show correlation between literacy rate and immigration. Interestingly, those countries with highest immigration also have gov't run ed systems (US, Can, Australia).
India - 147th, 61% literacy rate. Do you care to wager that just as many poor people can read compared to the rich?
Do note that India DOES have a govt provided educational system. But the lives of Indian people is clobbered for 60 years by a govt that strongly regulates their economy - at the expense of people's ability to afford schooling, food or shelter. The 61% is not due to govt edu. system however, it is inspite of it as most schools are private, with a rare govt school being hailed as good.
Do note that it is still not a free market as govt tells private schools what it must teach its students.
I believe that you don't need high school to do well in college. Nowadays you can teach yourself everything you need to know and I have the non-high-school graduate yet somehow post-secondary student friends to prove it. But mostly I believe that education would be a lot more efficient if it was funded by the industries which are seeking to gain from it, and quite possibly cheaper too. Gov't regulations should still be in place to make sure it's still affordable...
And the rich could be made to help fund the poor with min/max standards for private funding. In any case, the internet is all you need until you're ready for college/university, and then all your money's coming from the banks and has to be paid back anyways.
I highly disagree. While some people might be able to prepare themselves for college and beyond by studying the internet all day they represent a negligible fraction of the population.
Milton friedman actually argued that taxes are an appropriated from the poor to pay for the education of the rich and middle class. If you try to tax the rich, they see it as a violation of their rights, and in defense grab control over the power holders - i.e. politicians and bureaucrats.
I think the best way to provide education to students would be to charge a % of their earnings for life, lets say 0.5% over the life time of students. If the student fails, the school starves out of existence
Once you make education privately controlled and independently structured - there will be so much competition, that there is no way - it can get expensive. Please note that govt restricts entry into the field of education - thus creating an artificial shortage of providers, hiking the costs of education today.
wait.... so - "utubehayter - Once you make education privately controlled and independently structured - there will be so much competition, that there is no way - it can get expensive"
WTF???
you mean like the COMPETITION to provide FOOD leads to LOWER COSTS
or the competition to provide DVD players, or computers...
i mean... seriously?
whats wrong with your entire theory is the idea that competition would lead to higher costs
AvgJim .. wants to do good.. but at someone else's expense.
One of the most dangerous things about govt schools is that it is human nature to accept without question while young and naive - and grow up to defend it as if it is absolute reality. We must feel sympathy for such miseducated folks - they really do not know what they are doing.
pay for education? why worry about that? Ask me how do I plan to educate people... the answer is voluntarily. Those that plan to teach can teach - figure out a way to make a living. No state mandates for what is to be taught, no entangling conflicts of interest between teachers and state (hence detox from false ideas like WW2 got the US out of depression).
You dare say my arguments are in the trash bin only to follow up with volunteer educators, and no direction for the curricula? That option is available now -- home schooling. While I neither think that the system is perfect in the US now, nor do I think that the solution is throwing money at it, I will always support using tax dollars to fund schools. You may disagree, but your idea of ideal conditions sets social advancement and human gain 100 years to the past.
How about looking at the human loss in the last 100 years? How about noting the immense growth in the sizes of armies - cultivated through "patriotism" correctly known as nationalism - cultivated right in the "socialized" educational system? How about the jingoism and the interventionism and growth in the idea of spreading democracy?
How about the "pledge of allegiance" - isn't that something that should be stopped in schools right away?
Did people to not begin to believe things like the MSM?
Nationalism is an inevitability and a necessity. This goes back to our primal urge to control our own fate. Nothing is perfect. I don't support using schools to promote polarization, but what's so wrong with giving children a safe environment where they can gain the tools to be able to communicate, understand technology, socailize, and become critical thinkers?
Actually its not. But that is what public schooling will convince you of it. Infact, nationalism is an the complete opposite of "control our own fate". What critical thinker will insist that a man leave his family and friends and life, pick up a gun and travel thousands of miles to fight an enemy soldier who he does not know, who has done him no harm? But nationalism will convince him to do so, trick is to convince him when he is 5 years old that he must obey the state (which is child abuse)
War, occupation, oppression: these are not modern concepts. If you want to pin blame start back before recorded history. Culture and society is what it is because it has evolved by selection.
Look, you don't have to go to school, you don't have to serve in the military, and you don't have to collect social security when you get old. In fact, you don't even have to live in this country.
You reject the system, but reap the benefits? That sir is hypocrisy.
Show me the level of oppression accomplished in wars like those of a state in any anarchic society. You will not find a single example where millions have been killed in absence of a govt. You don't have to serve in the military? Hello? You do register for selective service at 18 years of age don't you? Give me a way to not pay social security - and I shall be happy to reject all social security benefits. Currently only federal govt employees are allowed to opt out of SS - interesting isn't it?
Uh, how about Darfur. I hear it's beautiful this time of year.
Your attempt to escape gov't ends in Antarctica. War free, tax free, religion free, job free. Where there are people there are taxes, wars, jobs, and government. Sorry to disappoint you.
As for Darfur - check out who is fighting and for what..
Antartica is war free alright, but it is also life free (except for the occupation by various nations.. yup Antartica is occupied too)
The only place today that is govt free is Somalia and the black market. You don't disappoint me - if I would have been that easily disappointed - I would not have bothered or ventured into examining the source of my beliefs.
Contrary to your imaginations - I do not reap any benefits of your country. In fact, your country takes advantage of me - and uses my earnings to perpetrate violence against other peoples. I have to ask what benefits may you be providing others, especially your state that I should be grateful for?
As for evolution of culture and society - yes the feudal serfs and landlords would agree with you a 100%, but not me.
I said this in another response but I'll say it again. Technology, medicine, etc. all have their roots in US tax dollars invested in research and development. So while you might be perfectly healthy, you still benefit from policies on industrial hygiene and toxic waste disposal methods developed in the US (among other things)
US tax dollars have contributed to development of drugs for treating AIDS, TB, cancer, CVD, you name it, our finger prints were the first.
No actually they don't. But keep believing what you want - as someone who probably has never, put a foot inside a research lab, it is quite easy to assume such things which are conveniently taught in public education. Maybe if you went to a Christian school, you would also believe that there existed a God that created a flat earth.. its exactly like that. Hence I don't blame you for believing that, but you are solidifying my point about no involvement of govt in education.
Now you are making assumptions about me that are grossly mistaken. I am a full time medical researcher, employed by a major research university, and funded by NIH grants. I have many many colleagues who are paid by gov't grants, and many who work on treatments used all over the world. If there is one thing that I am qualified to comment on it is that. Tax dollars absolutely fuel basic medical research. When NIH funds dry up research stops.
For your information, most medical research is done with private money. If you are going to defend the spending of taxpayer money, there are much better things, like the police and the military.
AvgJim says - "When NIH funds dry up research stops."
ROFL
so BristolMyers wont/dont do their own research? Pfizer? Merk? Johnson&Johnson? they dont do their own research? and certainly wouldnt if NIH didnt either? WTF dude?
not to mention, by your vid, you missed the point of Penn's video entirely
You want to support funding schools through tax payer dollars - good. Just make paying taxes voluntary. If you may so much as entertain checking on systems that are NOT tax funded in foreign countries - you will find that there exists a market that will take care of needs like education. How do you think people in more populated countries like India gain their education? The public schooling system is a garbage dump there (literally), but people still get educated. MAGIC maybe?
Also, how about not forcing any standards on homeschoolers? How about excluding them from paying for services they are voluntarily avoiding use of. What is the logic of making them pay extra when they are obviously spending their own time (and money) to educate their kids? But then you will have to declare exactly what amount is spent on the children in the first place.
Plus - checkout what the restrictions on homeschooling are. A non-parent is not allowed to teach the kids. Why? - I must ask.
Some of these questions I can't answer. I am not a public policy maker. I am also not a tax lawyer, so I can't comment on tax credits for home schoolers, but some states (Virginia) do allow tax credit for people who home school, which satisfies your demand. Beyond that, adopting that particular policy from India violates the basic principles of our nation (right to equality). See my above comment. All people deserve the right to equal education, not just that can afford it.
Actually not. Homeschooling while sticking to the dictates of the state govt is unpaid teacher position for the parent. Unless the govt completely backs out of the homeschoolers - its not free to the govt. The US constitution.. I read it multiple times, it maintains no where that people ought to be educated by the govt. All people should have education - it will never be equal in a free society maybe in a communist society - everyone will receive the same state ed quality of education.
I am not talking about the Constitution. I am talking about the Declaration of Independence where it says all men are created equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That has many interpretations, but how I read it is that everyone has equal opportunity to education which meets at least minimum standards. That is not communism, nor does it take communism. You are free to opt out. Period. But you may not deny others, which is basically what you are suggesting.
Please understand that all men are created equal does not mean they will remain equal. Hence the pursuit of "equality" is futile. There can never be equal opportunity for education unless you eliminate the possibility of education (which is impossible again) - hence even then it will not be equal. You claim that people are free to opt out - I have to ask - opt out of what? Like I have said - make all taxes voluntary and lift the ban on alternate currency, that will take care of the issue for me
You can opt out of public education and not pay taxes that go towards schools. That is the tax credit I spoke of earlier. As for opting out of taxes all together then you must agree never to use energy (technology created by gov't funding), drive (roads created with tax dollars), etc. But I'm sure you use electricity, drive, etc. Therefore you are reaping the benefits of society and advancement. Who do you think funds research for development of technology and medicine?
You obviously misread it because it is the right to PURSUE those things. No one would be stupid enough to guarantee happiness or wealth, etc. Meaning that you have the right to pursue it yourself.
It also seems pretty obvious that you are confusing the American idea of equality with that of Karl Marx, whose idea of equality is appropriate for an anthill.
YEA were the fuck does my cash that i pay to the fed and shit go. probably into some pregnant dumb fucking teen girls pocket so she can fuck some yuppy hillabilly and not have consequences for gettting knocked up
potymouf1 11 months ago
What I can't understand when it comes to Liberals is the misunderstanding of how Government works. If you have BIG GOVERNMENT you have BIG LOBBYISTS (the CORPORATIONS you hate so much) funding their agendas who put SMALL (insignificant, putrid dick suckers)prostrating idiots in power! SIMPLE... more Gov power, more $ from YOU.
logoscreature1 1 year ago
So... you're saying that you wouldn't like bigger Gov? The premise of Penn's argument is that an INDIVIDUAL can come up with a better use of his or her capital than Government. Yeah... there's corruption in government, that's why we don't want more of it...WTF?
logoscreature1 1 year ago
Just because you don't know where the money goes, doesn't mean it goes to the worst most useless possible place ( in reference to it lining the pockets of a Washintonian )
I think I know better how to spend my money than anyone else.
RawwestHide 1 year ago
If you believe we don't pay enough taxes, make your voluntary check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Problem solved.
dread77706 1 year ago
You answered your own question: " Where the fuck does that money go? I don't even know where my tax dollars right now go" That is a perfect argument for giving the government less money for everything. Oh, and old George Washington would be spinning over in his grave if he saw how bloated and inefficient the federal govt has become, the founders worked hard to leave their citizens wellbeing in the hands of the states. We have eradicated that vision and not for the good of the country.
ralph10527 1 year ago
you missed the point of Penn's question. people can help themselves better than government. why don't you go grow a fucking dick and send the government a little extra dough if you want them to be more wasteful.
phrimburger 1 year ago
okay, you are just proving his point: washington shouldn't have your trust for being a benevolent thing, so why trust them with doing more, inevitably taking more from you?
ThePythagoran 1 year ago
1. I think you missed the point.
2. Every dollar the U.S. government spends is accounted for in an annual review. It's all on paper, with the only exception being what they call "Black Programs". This money is spent on
things like new and secret military weapons and such. So that's where that money goes. The fat cats get their money from lobbyists. Ya know big oil, insurance companies and the drug companies.
- Cory
SLAUGHTERFILM 2 years ago
you missed the point so royally.
bsinot1190 2 years ago
You just don't get it, AvgJim. First, it would not matter that money would go to 'newer' programs. The fact of the matter is that it is is that the Federal Government is in serious debt. What you are proposing to do is to rearrange deck chairs on the titanic.
Your solution does not address the issue.
Second, you act as though politicians are merely misguided. Wrong. They have no interest in fixing problems. Why fix problems if you can use them as planks to get reelected?
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Take for example the issue of 'energy independence'. They have been using that as a tool since the Nixon administration.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
public education is a HORRIBLE use of gov funds, its ridiculous.
spawk1993 3 years ago
We have taxation without representation. They squander it. So..... I'll keep my money. Thank you very much:-)
wingitprod 3 years ago
So your conclusion is to hope that smarter people take office and do a better job at distributing the pie?
Talk about being naive....
You talk as if you know the best way to use your tax dollars... doh!
RPFS2008 3 years ago
I never said that I know the best way to use our tax dollars. But yes, I do hope that smarter people take office and use our money more wisely. Isn't that what all citizens should want?
My point is that there are tax funded programs that don't work. What is naive about suggesting to use those funds for a program that does work? You must be suggesting that the gov't is a wasteful entity all together, and I am naive in thinking that they will ever use our funds wisely.
Which is it?
AvgJim 3 years ago
Libertarianism is all about voluntary funding by the community as opposed to global funding by a beuracracy at gun-point. If the politicians don't know how to spend our money then why should they be doing it?
Now, I'm a Canadian so I do naturally put health care in the "should be controlled by the government" section as I file that under "basic security", but education would work better if it was community/industry funded. Small amounts of Government regulation makes sense, but not funding.
TaylorjAdams 3 years ago
So you think that only children of affluent pedigrees are afforded an education? If it were up to communities to fund education there would be, without a doubt, an extreme separation of class in that country. The only just course is to offer an equal opportunity to all individuals for an education that meats at least a minimum standard as set forth by a governing body. This concept is the basis for the foundation of the U.S. All men are created equal and are entitled to L,L,&PoH.
AvgJim 3 years ago
And there isn't an extreme separation of class in this country inspite of 40-50 years of govt controlled education? What are you basing your observations on? Can you point to a country that does not have a public education system that has very extreme separation of "class".. whatever that means.
What makes the governing body wise enough to decide what is right and wrong for the people? You should talk to a politician face to face sometime before deciding that these people are smart, seriously!
utubehayter 3 years ago
There is NOT separation of education based on wealth in the US. US has the 2nd highest per capita literacy rate (to Russia - also state controlled ed system) in the world.
Also notable are migration patterns that show correlation between literacy rate and immigration. Interestingly, those countries with highest immigration also have gov't run ed systems (US, Can, Australia).
India - 147th, 61% literacy rate. Do you care to wager that just as many poor people can read compared to the rich?
AvgJim 3 years ago
Do note that India DOES have a govt provided educational system. But the lives of Indian people is clobbered for 60 years by a govt that strongly regulates their economy - at the expense of people's ability to afford schooling, food or shelter. The 61% is not due to govt edu. system however, it is inspite of it as most schools are private, with a rare govt school being hailed as good.
Do note that it is still not a free market as govt tells private schools what it must teach its students.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I believe that you don't need high school to do well in college. Nowadays you can teach yourself everything you need to know and I have the non-high-school graduate yet somehow post-secondary student friends to prove it. But mostly I believe that education would be a lot more efficient if it was funded by the industries which are seeking to gain from it, and quite possibly cheaper too. Gov't regulations should still be in place to make sure it's still affordable...
TaylorjAdams 3 years ago
And the rich could be made to help fund the poor with min/max standards for private funding. In any case, the internet is all you need until you're ready for college/university, and then all your money's coming from the banks and has to be paid back anyways.
TaylorjAdams 3 years ago
I highly disagree. While some people might be able to prepare themselves for college and beyond by studying the internet all day they represent a negligible fraction of the population.
AvgJim 3 years ago
Milton friedman actually argued that taxes are an appropriated from the poor to pay for the education of the rich and middle class. If you try to tax the rich, they see it as a violation of their rights, and in defense grab control over the power holders - i.e. politicians and bureaucrats.
I think the best way to provide education to students would be to charge a % of their earnings for life, lets say 0.5% over the life time of students. If the student fails, the school starves out of existence
utubehayter 3 years ago
Once you make education privately controlled and independently structured - there will be so much competition, that there is no way - it can get expensive. Please note that govt restricts entry into the field of education - thus creating an artificial shortage of providers, hiking the costs of education today.
utubehayter 3 years ago
wait.... so - "utubehayter - Once you make education privately controlled and independently structured - there will be so much competition, that there is no way - it can get expensive"
WTF???
you mean like the COMPETITION to provide FOOD leads to LOWER COSTS
or the competition to provide DVD players, or computers...
i mean... seriously?
whats wrong with your entire theory is the idea that competition would lead to higher costs
makes no sense
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
OOPS.. i meant "there is no way it can get expensive". Sorry, the hyphen makes it seem the other way around.
utubehayter 2 years ago
oh ok... i get what you were saying now
probably shouldve figured that myself, oh well
but hey... AvgJim is still a fruit-tard
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
AvgJim .. wants to do good.. but at someone else's expense.
One of the most dangerous things about govt schools is that it is human nature to accept without question while young and naive - and grow up to defend it as if it is absolute reality. We must feel sympathy for such miseducated folks - they really do not know what they are doing.
utubehayter 2 years ago
no public ed is NOT a good use of taxpayer money. so the rest of your arguments join it in the trash bin
utubehayter 3 years ago
Well how do you propose we pay for education then?
AvgJim 3 years ago
pay for education? why worry about that? Ask me how do I plan to educate people... the answer is voluntarily. Those that plan to teach can teach - figure out a way to make a living. No state mandates for what is to be taught, no entangling conflicts of interest between teachers and state (hence detox from false ideas like WW2 got the US out of depression).
utubehayter 3 years ago
You dare say my arguments are in the trash bin only to follow up with volunteer educators, and no direction for the curricula? That option is available now -- home schooling. While I neither think that the system is perfect in the US now, nor do I think that the solution is throwing money at it, I will always support using tax dollars to fund schools. You may disagree, but your idea of ideal conditions sets social advancement and human gain 100 years to the past.
AvgJim 3 years ago
How about looking at the human loss in the last 100 years? How about noting the immense growth in the sizes of armies - cultivated through "patriotism" correctly known as nationalism - cultivated right in the "socialized" educational system? How about the jingoism and the interventionism and growth in the idea of spreading democracy?
How about the "pledge of allegiance" - isn't that something that should be stopped in schools right away?
Did people to not begin to believe things like the MSM?
utubehayter 3 years ago
Nationalism is an inevitability and a necessity. This goes back to our primal urge to control our own fate. Nothing is perfect. I don't support using schools to promote polarization, but what's so wrong with giving children a safe environment where they can gain the tools to be able to communicate, understand technology, socailize, and become critical thinkers?
AvgJim 3 years ago
Actually its not. But that is what public schooling will convince you of it. Infact, nationalism is an the complete opposite of "control our own fate". What critical thinker will insist that a man leave his family and friends and life, pick up a gun and travel thousands of miles to fight an enemy soldier who he does not know, who has done him no harm? But nationalism will convince him to do so, trick is to convince him when he is 5 years old that he must obey the state (which is child abuse)
utubehayter 3 years ago
War, occupation, oppression: these are not modern concepts. If you want to pin blame start back before recorded history. Culture and society is what it is because it has evolved by selection.
Look, you don't have to go to school, you don't have to serve in the military, and you don't have to collect social security when you get old. In fact, you don't even have to live in this country.
You reject the system, but reap the benefits? That sir is hypocrisy.
AvgJim 3 years ago
Show me the level of oppression accomplished in wars like those of a state in any anarchic society. You will not find a single example where millions have been killed in absence of a govt. You don't have to serve in the military? Hello? You do register for selective service at 18 years of age don't you? Give me a way to not pay social security - and I shall be happy to reject all social security benefits. Currently only federal govt employees are allowed to opt out of SS - interesting isn't it?
utubehayter 3 years ago
Uh, how about Darfur. I hear it's beautiful this time of year.
Your attempt to escape gov't ends in Antarctica. War free, tax free, religion free, job free. Where there are people there are taxes, wars, jobs, and government. Sorry to disappoint you.
AvgJim 3 years ago
Who wants to escape? Not me.
As for Darfur - check out who is fighting and for what..
Antartica is war free alright, but it is also life free (except for the occupation by various nations.. yup Antartica is occupied too)
The only place today that is govt free is Somalia and the black market. You don't disappoint me - if I would have been that easily disappointed - I would not have bothered or ventured into examining the source of my beliefs.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Contrary to your imaginations - I do not reap any benefits of your country. In fact, your country takes advantage of me - and uses my earnings to perpetrate violence against other peoples. I have to ask what benefits may you be providing others, especially your state that I should be grateful for?
As for evolution of culture and society - yes the feudal serfs and landlords would agree with you a 100%, but not me.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I said this in another response but I'll say it again. Technology, medicine, etc. all have their roots in US tax dollars invested in research and development. So while you might be perfectly healthy, you still benefit from policies on industrial hygiene and toxic waste disposal methods developed in the US (among other things)
US tax dollars have contributed to development of drugs for treating AIDS, TB, cancer, CVD, you name it, our finger prints were the first.
AvgJim 3 years ago
No actually they don't. But keep believing what you want - as someone who probably has never, put a foot inside a research lab, it is quite easy to assume such things which are conveniently taught in public education. Maybe if you went to a Christian school, you would also believe that there existed a God that created a flat earth.. its exactly like that. Hence I don't blame you for believing that, but you are solidifying my point about no involvement of govt in education.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Now you are making assumptions about me that are grossly mistaken. I am a full time medical researcher, employed by a major research university, and funded by NIH grants. I have many many colleagues who are paid by gov't grants, and many who work on treatments used all over the world. If there is one thing that I am qualified to comment on it is that. Tax dollars absolutely fuel basic medical research. When NIH funds dry up research stops.
AvgJim 3 years ago
For your information, most medical research is done with private money. If you are going to defend the spending of taxpayer money, there are much better things, like the police and the military.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
AvgJim says - "When NIH funds dry up research stops."
ROFL
so BristolMyers wont/dont do their own research? Pfizer? Merk? Johnson&Johnson? they dont do their own research? and certainly wouldnt if NIH didnt either? WTF dude?
not to mention, by your vid, you missed the point of Penn's video entirely
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
Funny how they still don't have a cure for aids yet...
Why find a cure if it cuts off your funding?
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nationalism only leads to death, destruction. It serves no useful purpose, except to bigots.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
You want to support funding schools through tax payer dollars - good. Just make paying taxes voluntary. If you may so much as entertain checking on systems that are NOT tax funded in foreign countries - you will find that there exists a market that will take care of needs like education. How do you think people in more populated countries like India gain their education? The public schooling system is a garbage dump there (literally), but people still get educated. MAGIC maybe?
utubehayter 3 years ago
Also, how about not forcing any standards on homeschoolers? How about excluding them from paying for services they are voluntarily avoiding use of. What is the logic of making them pay extra when they are obviously spending their own time (and money) to educate their kids? But then you will have to declare exactly what amount is spent on the children in the first place.
Plus - checkout what the restrictions on homeschooling are. A non-parent is not allowed to teach the kids. Why? - I must ask.
utubehayter 3 years ago
Some of these questions I can't answer. I am not a public policy maker. I am also not a tax lawyer, so I can't comment on tax credits for home schoolers, but some states (Virginia) do allow tax credit for people who home school, which satisfies your demand. Beyond that, adopting that particular policy from India violates the basic principles of our nation (right to equality). See my above comment. All people deserve the right to equal education, not just that can afford it.
AvgJim 3 years ago
Actually not. Homeschooling while sticking to the dictates of the state govt is unpaid teacher position for the parent. Unless the govt completely backs out of the homeschoolers - its not free to the govt. The US constitution.. I read it multiple times, it maintains no where that people ought to be educated by the govt. All people should have education - it will never be equal in a free society maybe in a communist society - everyone will receive the same state ed quality of education.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I am not talking about the Constitution. I am talking about the Declaration of Independence where it says all men are created equal and have the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That has many interpretations, but how I read it is that everyone has equal opportunity to education which meets at least minimum standards. That is not communism, nor does it take communism. You are free to opt out. Period. But you may not deny others, which is basically what you are suggesting.
AvgJim 3 years ago
Please understand that all men are created equal does not mean they will remain equal. Hence the pursuit of "equality" is futile. There can never be equal opportunity for education unless you eliminate the possibility of education (which is impossible again) - hence even then it will not be equal. You claim that people are free to opt out - I have to ask - opt out of what? Like I have said - make all taxes voluntary and lift the ban on alternate currency, that will take care of the issue for me
utubehayter 3 years ago
You can opt out of public education and not pay taxes that go towards schools. That is the tax credit I spoke of earlier. As for opting out of taxes all together then you must agree never to use energy (technology created by gov't funding), drive (roads created with tax dollars), etc. But I'm sure you use electricity, drive, etc. Therefore you are reaping the benefits of society and advancement. Who do you think funds research for development of technology and medicine?
AvgJim 3 years ago
You obviously misread it because it is the right to PURSUE those things. No one would be stupid enough to guarantee happiness or wealth, etc. Meaning that you have the right to pursue it yourself.
It also seems pretty obvious that you are confusing the American idea of equality with that of Karl Marx, whose idea of equality is appropriate for an anthill.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago