School Propaganda

[WISD0MTREE]

So there is a state *cough* Cali *cough* who has a teacher union that made a nice little video. It is called "Tax the Rich"

Also, there is CNN Student News. Definitely neutral.

 

Should districts/schools/teachers be allowed to use these? I'm not saying that Fox is better (or "Balanced"), but I'm pretty sure that if I played a video called "The Nazi's Were Right" in a school, everyone would be up in arms peaceful protests. 

[Karl Marx]

No, they should not be allowed to use the "Tax the Rich" video. A teacher's job is to present information, not their opinion. On one hand, I agree with the idea of the rich being more heavily taxed (but have my reservations about it, as the government does a lot of wasteful spending), but on the other hand, what they're doing is politically indoctrinating children. At the end of the day, it's not a teacher's job to tell their students what is right and wrong. I mean, can you imagine the backlash that would occur if the video was called "Abortion Should be On Demand" or "Abortion Should be Illegal"? People should be left to form their own opinions based on facts, not a mediocre cartoon with an agenda.

[Lambdadelta]

No, they should not be allowed to use the "Tax the Rich" video. A teacher's job is to present information, not their opinion. On one hand, I agree with the idea of the rich being more heavily taxed (but have my reservations about it, as the government does a lot of wasteful spending), but on the other hand, what they're doing is politically indoctrinating children. At the end of the day, it's not a teacher's job to tell their students what is right and wrong. I mean, can you imagine the backlash that would occur if the video was called "Abortion Should be On Demand" or "Abortion Should be Illegal"? People should be left to form their own opinions based on facts, not a mediocre cartoon with an agenda.

Agreed, to some extent. It's one thing to teach the students about all the different viewpoints that people have (and this is a commendable objective), but to teach one opinion to the exclusion of all others is wrong for the same reasons that theological instruction in state-funded schools is wrong.

 

However, this doesn't extend to things that are matters of scientific fact - evolution and anthropogenic climate change, for example.

These things should (in state-funded schools, at the very least) be taught as a matter of fact, not as opinion.

[WISD0MTREE]

The explanation of the housing crash at the end kills me. 

No Freddie Mac or Fannie May? 

Who blamed (public servants minus politicians)? 

[Sailor Jerry]

On one hand, I agree with the idea of the rich being more heavily taxed (but have my reservations about it, as the government does a lot of wasteful spending), .......

Here we go again.....tax the rich more so they can pay for everything! I'm so tired of hearing this arguement. Why would anyone then bust their ass and work hard just to have it taken away because people are too damn lazy to better themselves. They know stuff will get provided for them so why bother to do anything......they can just sit back and have everything handed to them! I've aways been in favor of a flat tax (to include interest made on capital gains).....no matter what the percent. That would be fair across the board and would still make it so those of us who do bust their ass can make and keep more of it. And this crap that "Well 25-30% tax rate for someone making minimum wage affects them more than 25-30% tax for someone who makes over $100k. That may be true, but then again minimum wage is not and should not be used for the long term. It's designed for entry level and for those possible between jobs. A flat tax would motivate people to work harder and make more for themselves.

 

I could go on and on about this and welfare reform but I don't want to highjack/derail this thread.

[Lambdadelta]

That may be true, but then again minimum wage is not and should not be used for the long term. It's designed for entry level and for those possible between jobs.

Tell that to Walmart. There's an awful lot of people working long-term for minimum wage.

 

Also, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that those on welfare are lazy moochers. I suggest you turn off the Fox News, because most people on welfare are actually employed, just at starvation wage levels so that the real moochers like the Walton family can increase their profits on the taxpayer's dime.

 

Also, do you know what would happen to the rich if we taxed them a bit more? They'd still be rich. Tax the working poor more however, and they become the starving and the homeless.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[Das Bell]

We brainwash our children to believe WWII was all because a single man wanted world domination. We leave out WWI, the political tension and the fact the world itself deserved such a war for its own good.

Its perfectly fine to do anything as long as you can persuade the majority to believe it is okay. So long as those who are being oppressed can't do anything about it, it is perfectly fine.

What's the harm in a simple video? School is propaganda, so I see nothing surprising or incredibly wrong here. Just what nations and societies have always done, and always will do.

[Sailor Jerry]

Tell that to Walmart. There's an awful lot of people working long-term for minimum wage.

Also, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that those on welfare are lazy moochers. I suggest you turn off the Fox News, because most people on welfare are actually employed, just at starvation wage levels so that the real moochers like the Walton family can increase their profits on the taxpayer's dime.

Also, do you know what would happen to the rich if we taxed them a bit more? They'd still be rich. Tax the working poor more however, and they become the starving and the homeless.

Then people should move on from Walmart once they've learned their skill-set. We just recently had a Hobby Lobby open in our little piss-ant town of 16k people and they were starting folks out at $15/hour. I know it's not earth shattering, but its not Walmart and it's better than min. wage. Thats what I mean by improving yourself and moving up the economic ladder. For those tnat are under 34-35, there is the military. They can learn some great skills, see some of the world and get a great college package under the "Post 9-11 GI bill. I did 20 years in the navy, so now I have a monthly pension, free medical for life and I'm now working a job making high 5 figures (including overtime but not the navy pension).......so all said and done, I break the 6 figure mark annually. Since I've busted my ass for close to 30 years now, why should I have to pay a higher percentage of my income then someone who is of an equivalent age who is still working flipping burgers at Burger King?

 

We're saying I make assumtions about folks being lazy, well, you make the assumtion that I watch Fox news....I use to while I was in the navy, but haven't in about 2 years now. Both CNN and Fox are crap anyway. Just my crappy local news for weather and whatnot.

[Lambdadelta]

We brainwash our children to believe WWII was all because a single man wanted world domination.

Depends on the country. I certainly learned about the intertwining history of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the failure of the League of Nations, in my high school history class (in a not-so-great public school in Australia).

 

---

Then people should move on from Walmart once they've learned their skill-set.

The problem with that is that sometimesvery often Walmart (and other minimum-wage employers) are the only ones who will hire them. Finding a job is not a simple matter of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, walking into an employer, dropping off a resume and starting work the next day.

 

We just recently had a Hobby Lobby open in our little piss-ant town of 16k people and they were starting folks out at $15/hour. I know it's not earth shattering, but its not Walmart and it's better than min. wage.

I'm not a fan of Hobby Lobby for other reasons (hiding behind religious beliefs to avoid paying their workers legally-mandated benefits, for example), but there's another problem with this: there still aren't enough such jobs for everyone who needs to be "moving up" from the minimum wage.

 

For those tnat are under 34-35, there is the military. They can learn some great skills, see some of the world and get a great college package under the "Post 9-11 GI bill.

Yes, either stay poor working dead-end jobs forever, or "volunteer" yourself into whatever overseas conflict that your government decides is necessary for "national security" or "global stability". Some choice that is(!)

 

Since I've busted my !@#$ for close to 30 years now, why should I have to pay a higher percentage of my income then someone who is of an equivalent age who is still working flipping burgers at Burger King?

For a few reasons:

 

1) Because you've had the benefit of the opportunities (provided by society) that have allowed you to move up in the world. Many of those struggling today haven't had those same (economic and social) opportunities.

 

2) Because taxes go toward continuing to provide the above opportunities to both yourself and to others.

 

3) Because taxes go toward educating the people of America (not that the school system there is doing a great job of it, mind you, but it's better than nothing) so that you're not living in a country full of people who are barely smart enough to run the machines.

 

4) Because as someone who is financially secure, you can afford to part with more of your income without serious disruption to your standard of living than can someone who earns half as much as you. In addition, as a person of increased economic means, you will more often have the ability to utilise tax-minimisation strategies (such as employing a professional accountant, or using investment packages) than will someone on a lower rung of the socio-economic ladder.

 

5) Because if you don't and, as a result, social services are withdrawn from those who need them to survive, the poor will rise up and eat the rich. Just ask the monarchs of France and Russia how well their policies of impoverishing the poor to make themselves rich and comfortable worked out for them! Progressive taxation is the rent that the well-off pay for the maintenance of a society that prevents the poor from rising up and taking their property by force.

 

---

You should consider paying taxes to maintain the society that allowed you to get where you are today and that allows others to have the same opportunities a patriotic duty because ultimately, a strong social safety-net, good educational systems and plenty of opportunities for people to advance themselves makes a strong country, both economically and socially - the kind the United States once (nearly) was and could be in the future.

 

Unfortunately, you've been hoodwinked (mostly by the very, very rich) into believing that the poor are the enemy (they aren't - the consumer demand they fuel is what creates jobs and powers the economy), that the rich are the job-creators of society (they aren't, they just accumulate wealth and pass it on to their children) and that, to borrow a euphemism, you built that (you did, but you didn't do it alone - you had a lot of help, most of which was paid for by taxes).

Edited June 9, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[Das Bell]

Depends on the country. I certainly learned about the intertwining history of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, as well as the failure of the League of Nations, in my high school history class (in a not-so-great public school in Australia).

American education really does suck.

 

Yes, either stay poor working dead-end jobs forever, or "volunteer" yourself into whatever overseas conflict that your government decides is necessary for "national security" or "global stability". Some choice that is(!)

Besides the fact that you are selling yourself into paid slavery, it actually pays very good and is probably the cheapest, easiest way to explore the world and gain a life long memorable experience. (In Murica anyway).

 

Since I've busted my !@#$ for close to 30 years now, why should I have to pay a higher percentage of my income then someone who is of an equivalent age who is still working flipping burgers at Burger King?

Do you love your country?

[WISD0MTREE]

We brainwash our children to believe WWII was all because a single man wanted world domination. We leave out WWI, the political tension and the fact the world itself deserved such a war for its own good.

Its perfectly fine to do anything as long as you can persuade the majority to believe it is okay. So long as those who are being oppressed can't do anything about it, it is perfectly fine.

What's the harm in a simple video? School is propaganda, so I see nothing surprising or incredibly wrong here. Just what nations and societies have always done, and always will do.

2+2=5

How did that end? 

 

American education really does suck.

 

Besides the fact that you are selling yourself into paid slavery, it actually pays very good and is probably the cheapest, easiest way to explore the world and gain a life long memorable experience. (In Murica anyway).

 

Do you love your country?

Yes it does. 

 

...

 

No because I can't get a non-white only plane seat. "Equal rights" 

[Das Bell]

2+2=5

How did that end?

4*

See? We can not even teach basic math.

 

No because I can't get a non-white only plane seat. "Equal rights" 

What?

[Grillick]

I've never heard of such a thing as a "non-white only plane seat."

[Sailor Jerry]

Too many things to respond to!  Anyway lets see where to start, I'm sure I'm going to miss something.

 

@ LD: I hear too many excuses why people (anyone...it doesn't matter who) for them not being able to do something....its infuriating.  In this case we are talking jobs and taxing those who make more.  If the area where you live is economically depressed (as in where I currently live in S.E. Missouri....the "Bootheel")....then move!  Then the excuss is...."Well, I don't have the money to move"......then join the military....they'll move you for free....and give you clothes and food and a place to sleep and some valuable training.  Then the excuss is..."I don't like being told what to do and wearing a uniform and whatnot."  No one said you have to do 20 years like I did.  You do a 4-6 hitch, get the training, see some of the world and get out with your GI bill and go to school.  Most folks join at 18 right out of H.S., so say you do 4 years in the service...now they're 22, 4 more in college, now they're 26.....and now have a college degree (with no student loan to pay back), valuable work experience and can now start making the climb up the economic ladder.  If I could preach it a different way, I'd tell folks to get with any branch of services Officer Recuiters and see about them paying for you college up front.  When you graduate with your degree you'll be reqiured to Obligated Service (obliserv) for a 4 year hitch, then you're done.  So, go to college at 18, 3-4 years in college (some summer sessions would be reuired), so now you officially enter into military service (assigned to a command) as an officer at 22, do your 4 years of obliserv and are out of the service at 26 with great work experience in a management position!  That sounds pretty sweet to me.  and if you decide to stay past your 4 year hitch and do 20 years as an officer......hell, your retirement/pension is 50% of your base pay!  20 years as an officer will put around the Lt. Commander/Commander (Major/Lt.Colonel for Army & Marine folks)...so that would be about $3-$4k/month in a pension!  Then go out in the civilian sector and get a job for another 20 years and draw another pension!

 

I'm not saying the military is the answer to all the problems, buts its a damn good start.  For those who aren't to keen on being "boots on the ground", join the navy, IMO it's the best branch (not that I'm biased or anything).

 

Lets see now....oh about Hobby Lobby's policies......couldn't tell you anything about them....all I know is they are closed on Sundays....as are most businesses in my area.

 

As to your point #4, because I make more I should give more (percentage wise) because I give MORE away to some accountants and tax attorneys!  Hell, when thats all said and done, I'm almost no better off then the guy flippin burgers!

 

And to point #5.....really, a reference to how things were hundreds of years ago.  The problem with that is back then, people were told they couldn't better themselves and had to just live with their lot in life.....that is not the case in this day and age and for those who it is, in my mind, are just too lazy to go out and fight for what they want.  They want what they want and they want it now....for some odd reason these days, this sence of self entitlement is getting out of control.  You want something, work for it!

 

And lastly....I've haven't been "Hoddwinked" by anybody or anything and I sure as hell don't think that the poor are the enemy.  I grew up in the american southwest back in the 70's and 80's with 8 people (myself, 5 siblings, a stepfather on disablity and my mom who worked 2 and somtimes 3 jobs) living in a 14' x 70' 3 bedroom mobile home.  So don't assume that I think that poor folks are the enemy....I've been there, I've lived it.  There was no silver spoon for me...I had to work to get what I have and I like to keep what I have! 

 

@Das Bell:  Of course I love my country, I think it's one one the greatest places to be!  But....I wouldn't mind living in a few other places that I've been to while I was in the Navy.  I loved Austrailia, Spain, France, Italy, Scotland Japan (stationed there for 2 years...awesome place), Singapore...there are quite a few places I wouldn't mind living.

 

And finally @ WT:  WTF about "non-white plane seats"....what does that even mean?

[Lambdadelta]

As to your point #4, because I make more I should give more (percentage wise) because I give MORE away to some accountants and tax attorneys!  Hell, when thats all said and done, I'm almost no better off then the guy flippin burgers!

Uh, no. You're still way better-off than the guy "flipping burgers".

That's the beauty of progressive taxation - if you earn more pre-tax than someone else, you'll still take home more post-tax.

 

You seem also to have overlooked the point of hiring a tax accountant - the point is that the well-off will often have a net saving for doing so, which would not be true for the less well-off.

 

The problem with that is back then, people were told they couldn't better themselves and had to just live with their lot in life

Which is what they're being told nowadays when the only job opportunities available for them are dead-end minimum wage jobs that don't even cover the basic costs of living (so they have to rely on welfare programs to make up the difference). The only thing that has changed is the way in which the statement is put to the people. Lack of social mobility is a major problem that is crippling the US economy and society.

 

for those who it is, in my mind, are just too lazy to go out and fight for what they want.  They want what they want and they want it now....for some odd reason these days, this sence of self entitlement is getting out of control.  You want something, work for it!

Most of the people on welfare would love to be able to work to better their lot in life. However, as much as the haves of society would like to believe that it is only effort that sets them apart from the have-nots, that is patently not true. It takes more than mere effort to create prosperity - it takes opportunity.

 

It is a fact that there are not enough jobs in the US economy to pay the cost of living for all of the people in the US.

Capitalist economies have a natural rate of employment, after all, since the objective of creating jobs in a capitalist economy is not "providing work for the workers" but instead "creating profit for the capital-holders".

 

and I sure as hell don't think that the poor are the enemy.

Then why are you calling them lazy moochers and telling them that they should starve to death?

 

There was no silver spoon for me...I had to work to get what I have and I like to keep what I have!

Actually, you've benefited for your entire life from government programs funded, in the main, by taxation. Your stepfather benefited from government-funded disability support, you drive on government-funded roads, you breathe air that's not laden with acid rain thanks to government regulations, you most likely went to a government-funded school, you were employed by a government-funded military, you most likely get your electricity, gas and water delivered to you through government-funded infrastructure.

 

From cradle to grave, we are all aided, in one way or another, by the State. Taxation (especially progressive income taxation) is simply the dues you pay for the help you have received from that State (and will continue to receive until the day you die).

 

As much as you would like to think that you built your success with your own hard work alone, it simply isn't true.

 

No man is an island,

Entire of itself,

Every man is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

 

PS: Stop selectively ignoring parts of my posts that you can't refute or I'll stop debating with you.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Lambdadelta

[Sailor Jerry]

Not sure whats going on, but for the last 15 minutes I've been tring to post my dang text wall in reponse to all your points, but the screen justs sits there saying "Saving Post" and does nothing else.  Anyway, to you last P.S. point.  I see how you "SELECTIVELY" didn't respond to my point about joining the military.  "

 

"HEY POT......COME OVER HERE AND MEET KETTLE!!!!"

 

P.S.  Funny how it took this post and not my "Wall-O-Text"

Edited June 9, 2014 by Coach

[Grillick]

Anyway, to you last P.S. point.  I see how you "SELECTIVELY" didn't respond to my point about joining the military.  "

 

"HEY POT......COME OVER HERE AND MEET KETTLE!!!!"

Yes, either stay poor working dead-end jobs forever, or "volunteer" yourself into whatever overseas conflict that your government decides is necessary for "national security" or "global stability". Some choice that is(!)

For what it's worth, Coach, he responded to that point before you even reiterated it in your last post. So really, there was no need for him to respond again with the same answer.

[Sailor Jerry]

 

 

For what it's worth, Coach, he responded to that point before you even reiterated it in your last post. So really, there was no need for him to respond again with the same answer.

 

He keeps bringing up the same points as well.....and by the post you quoted from Lambdadelta, there is an option, no ever said it was the answer to all your world's troubles.  But by that statement it would appear, some folks would rather live in poverty instead of taking a chance.....yes, maybe the only one they get, to move away from where they live and do something move with themselves.  In my 20 years of navy service (Jun'89-Jun'94 then from Mar'97-Mar'12), with all the conflicts that happened during that time frame, did I ever have to serve as "boots on the ground" for anything longer than week long port visits in overseas countries were I was used as pier security.  Never once was shot at and never had to fire a shot from myself or from my ship (besides some warning shots on some somali pirates back in '07, but thats a different story for different time).  So yes, you can be in the military and out of harms way (for the most part).  But it would appear that some folks are just happy keeping their heads down and trudging through life with no ambition.  The choices are out there....it just depends on what you do with them as to how you will come out of it.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Coach

[Firetrout]

4*

See? We can not even teach basic math.

 

What?

 

Pretty sure it was a 1984 reference.

 

American education really does suck.

 

I live in the U.S. and I learned about WWI and most of the related material. It's probably just your district.

[Grillick]

He keeps bringing up the same points as well.....and by the post you quoted from Lambdadelta, there is an option, no ever said it was the answer to all your world's troubles.  But by that statement it would appear, some folks would rather live in poverty instead of taking a chance.....yes, maybe the only one they get, to move away from where they live and do something move with themselves.  In my 20 years of navy service (Jun'89-Jun'94 then from Mar'97-Mar'12), with all the conflicts that happened during that time frame, did I ever have to serve as "boots on the ground" for anything longer than week long port visits in overseas countries were I was used as pier security.  Never once was shot at and never had to fire a shot from myself or from my ship (besides some warning shots on some somali pirates back in '07, but thats a different story for different time).  So yes, you can be in the military and out of harms way (for the most part).  But it would appear that some folks are just happy keeping their heads down and trudging through life with no ambition.  The choices are out there....it just depends on what you do with them as to how you will come out of it.

The point, Coach, is that it isn't reasonable to expect people to have to choose between abject poverty and military service. There should be accessible means of personal growth outside of military service. Military service is great, but it isn't feasible for some, and it isn't only the lazy and the shiftless for whom it won't work (though admittedly, it probably won't work for many of the lazy and the shiftless).

 

Unless you're going to have a system where everyone must perform some military service in their lifetime, isn't fair to say to the poor and the unemployed "Oh, you should just go to the military!" Not only does it ignore the fact that the military does not accept every person who seeks entry, it also creates an underclass who is only entitled to equal treatment after voluntarily placing his or her life in the hands of the government for a period of at least four years. Moreover, it ignores the fact that many (though admittedly not most) of the poor and the unemployed are veterans who joined the military in the hopes that it would give them a leg up in life, and it devalues the military, by creating the impression that it is an occupation of last resort that is - and should be - dominated by the poor.

 

As a military man yourself, I would expect you to be offended by the thought that the military should be a bottom-of-the-barrel choice. It should be one of many legitimate methods of developing the skills, habits, and experience necessary to contribute to society. It should never be someone's last choice: it should be their first, or none at all. Each of the many legitimate methods of developing the skills, habits, and experience necessary to contribute to society should be available for everyone.

 

And to your point about avoiding combat, it should be noted that while you happened to be able to avoid combat, you were not in a position when you signed up to guarantee that you would do so. You chose to join the navy, which maximized your chances of avoiding combat, but not everyone is qualified to join the navy. And even those who are still face the risk of combat (or even of death outside of combat). At the end of the day, every member of the military puts his or her life in the hands of the brass: while individual servicemembers are given the opportunity to express preferences, and the organization may make efforts to take those preferences into account, the final decision is dictated by the needs of the military, and sometimes that means combat. It's not unreasonable for a person to be unwilling to make that kind of sacrifice: it's a huge one.

[WISD0MTREE]

4*

See? We can not even teach basic math.

 

What?

http://www.george-orwell.org/1984

Read it. 

 

Yeah. For equality, we will be denying whites airline seats. (not actual quote) 

 

I've never heard of such a thing as a "non-white only plane seat."

I didn't until I got DENIED

 

Pretty sure it was a 1984 reference.

 

 

I live in the U.S. and I learned about WWI and most of the related material. It's probably just your district.

Yes

 

Nah. I went to public almost my whole life. When I went to private school, I learned so much more. 

 

The point, Coach, is that it isn't reasonable to expect people to have to choose between abject poverty and military service. There should be accessible means of personal growth outside of military service. Military service is great, but it isn't feasible for some, and it isn't only the lazy and the shiftless for whom it won't work (though admittedly, it probably won't work for many of the lazy and the shiftless).

 

Unless you're going to have a system where everyone must perform some military service in their lifetime, isn't fair to say to the poor and the unemployed "Oh, you should just go to the military!" Not only does it ignore the fact that the military does not accept every person who seeks entry, it also creates an underclass who is only entitled to equal treatment after voluntarily placing his or her life in the hands of the government for a period of at least four years. Moreover, it ignores the fact that many (though admittedly not most) of the poor and the unemployed are veterans who joined the military in the hopes that it would give them a leg up in life, and it devalues the military, by creating the impression that it is an occupation of last resort that is - and should be - dominated by the poor.

 

As a military man yourself, I would expect you to be offended by the thought that the military should be a bottom-of-the-barrel choice. It should be one of many legitimate methods of developing the skills, habits, and experience necessary to contribute to society. It should never be someone's last choice: it should be their first, or none at all. Each of the many legitimate methods of developing the skills, habits, and experience necessary to contribute to society should be available for everyone.

 

And to your point about avoiding combat, it should be noted that while you happened to be able to avoid combat, you were not in a position when you signed up to guarantee that you would do so. You chose to join the navy, which maximized your chances of avoiding combat, but not everyone is qualified to join the navy. And even those who are still face the risk of combat (or even of death outside of combat). At the end of the day, every member of the military puts his or her life in the hands of the brass: while individual service members are given the opportunity to express preferences, and the organization may make efforts to take those preferences into account, the final decision is dictated by the needs of the military, and sometimes that means combat. It's not unreasonable for a person to be unwilling to make that kind of sacrifice: it's a huge one.

He said that it helped, not that it was the end all solution to poverty. 

 

Yes, but they could either get a job somewhere (even if it isn't an entry level job) or (assuming that they are injured) go on whatever the programs out there are (were). 

 

I'm not in the military, but I'm considering due to the government benefits like the VA hospital non-government benefits. 

 

You can actually join the military as a non-combatant. They are always hiring... Including in the government shutdown. 

http://www.goarmy.com/

[Shellhound]

Graaaaaaave diiiiiiig. My bad. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by Shellhound