Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
are declining on average. This is not a money problem.

'Scuse me but /you/ were the person who made it a tax-money issue. If
you'd like me to agree that we should be seeing a better result for the
money spent, I can go along with that...

But first, let's decide on what problem we'd like to solve.

Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
majority so elects.

Well again, hang on:

1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
under the purview of the Federal government because it has
no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.

There's no need for a specific constitutional authority, any more than
there is for, say, sanitation. It's sufficient that duly elected
legislators passed legislation authorizing expenditures.

2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".

The last time I looked around, public education was available to all -
and I didn't see any provision for exclusions. Are you aware of someone
who was denied access to that? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing
the story...

You /can/ effect the changes you want, but first you'll need to build
the necessary consensus...

Today's consensus is mooching. This is why I say we are in an
inexorable slide to the loss of liberty and preeminence in the world.

Two statements of opinion - noted as differing from my own opinions.
(Thank you for sharing.)

Within the context of a democracy, each of those things can be
considered goals worth pursuing, and AFAICT your reservations have more
to do with /how/ to best attain those benefits for the greatest number
of participants.
My reservation has to do with the fact that the unwashed masses are
willing to give away their liberty and freedom merely upon the promise
of some politician that what they want will be given them by government.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Franklin

These goals - very much worth pursuing - belong in private life, not
as chits to buy votes.
Since you've referenced one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes, let's
also quote from the document under discussion when he said those words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,..."

I welcome you to the land of the unwashed masses (est. July 4, 1776)

All men are *created* equal, but none of the Framers held that they
actually *were* equal. They merely articulated a baseline set of
inherent rights all citizens ought to enjoy and wrote a legal framework
so that all citizens would be "equal" before the law, under the law,
and from the law. The "equality" in question was not about the
citizen, it was that the government ought to be "equal" in its
behavior.

Yes, that too - and nowhere could I find a distinction between unwashed
masses and any other (privileged) group or person.

Never is a /very/ long time...

Never in time to make a difference to you or me, or likely our children.
Our grandchildren will probably have to learn Mandarin.

Probably a worthwhile endeavor in any case - that's a lot of people not
to be able to share opinions with...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Hang on a second here. Yes, education is expensive. Just how is
it cheaper if it is public? I'd argue that public education - if the
real and complete costs are tallied - is *more* expensive than
private because there is no market feedback to make it efficient.
By some estimates, the US now spends more per student, inflation
adjusted, than at any time since education went public, and the results
are declining on average. This is not a money problem.

'Scuse me but /you/ were the person who made it a tax-money issue. If
you'd like me to agree that we should be seeing a better result for the
money spent, I can go along with that...


Not quite. My argument is:

1) Government has no enumerated power to be in the education business
(at least the Federal govt doesn't).

2) Private is not more expensive than Public if honest accounting
is used.

3) You cannot get good results in a system that inherently has no
accountability or feedback.

Therefore schools should be private, not tax funded, and parents
ought to be held accountable for the education of their children.
For the rather small percentage of the population that actually
cannot afford to do this, there is considerable charity available ...
and there would be even more if the egregious taxation system
were eliminated.

Failing this plan, at the very least, we should kick the Federal
government out of the education space entirely - where, as I said
it has no legal authority to act - an demand that State and local
governments tax as necessary to carry their own water in these
matters.

But first, let's decide on what problem we'd like to solve.

Yabbut - in a democracy "rights" are what the people decide they are,
whether they make sense or seem appropriate to you or not. By choosing
to live in a democracy we accept a social contract to live by the rules
chosen by the majority. One of the good things about our democracy is
that we've incorporated mechanisms to change those rules whenever a
majority so elects.

Well again, hang on:

1) The "rights" everyone is trying to vote themselves are not
under the purview of the Federal government because it has
no enumerated power to grant such gifts. To legally elect
themselves these freebies, the Sheeple ought to change the
Constitution. They won't, moochers are never that honest.

There's no need for a specific constitutional authority, any more than
there is for, say, sanitation. It's sufficient that duly elected
legislators passed legislation authorizing expenditures.

Sorry, that is not the nature of the US Constitution as written and
intended. The *Federal* government was to be limited to a very few so
called "enumerated powers*. All other matters, by direct
Constitutional mandate, were to be managed by the individual citizens
or the several States. To grant the Federal government more power
legally requires a change to the Constitution.

However, ever since FDR, the moochers have been on the upswing and
have found all manner of non-existent Federal jurisdictions by flat
out fraudulent Constitutional interpretations. FDR himself
acknowledged this insofar as he new that the New (bad) Deal was itself
non-Constitutional in many ways. That's why he tried to pack the
Supreme Court. In short, if the population does not demand its
representatives act lawfully, then it makes very little difference
what is written down. Today's Federal leviathan would horrify the
Framers and lives in direct contradiction to the intent of the
Constitution to keep the Federal government small.




2) Some rights - the ones explicated in our Constitution - are
innate and freely distributed to all. My right to free speech
does not diminish your similar right. But the "rights" people
are inventing for themselves are not equally distributed.
They are "rights" granted to some citizens at the expense
of others. This is not a honest theory of rights, its just
stealing under mob rule masquerading as a "right".

The last time I looked around, public education was available to all -
and I didn't see any provision for exclusions. Are you aware of someone
who was denied access to that? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing
the story...

My child was denied the education I could afford to get them
privately because I could not pay for that private program AND
simultaneously be forced to continue to support the debauched
public program. Giving everyone equal access to the lowest common
denominator does not justify calling it an inherent "right". In
my case, my family's "rights" were diminished to the benefit of
another family's. This is a net imbalance in liberty wherein the
government chooses the winners and losers completely absent any
investigation of merit or appropriateness. More generally, any
activity of government beyond the defense of liberty and law itself
pretty much always yields and imbalance like this where there are
beneficiaries and (unwilling) benefactors, and it's always morally
wrong to do so.

Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
other person has. A starving man does not have moral authority to
steal from the wealthy man. The starving mad has moral permission to
ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 18, 6:06*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
snipped a whole bunch of old, tired rhetoric.

Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
other person has.

A starving man does not have moral authority to
steal from the wealthy man.

The starving mad has moral permission to

That HAS to be Freudian.

ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.


Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug. Let me guide out of your rage, and enjoy some humour.

The whole world is NOT trying to steal all your pennies.
Private schools are run by elitist bigots. ( I was educated in one.)
(pssst.. have fun with that line.)
I know of no-one as bitter as you are, Tim.
Take a breath of fresh air and repeat after me:
Robatoy is the light.
Robatoy knows everything.
Robatoy will cure you.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 18, 6:06 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
snipped a whole bunch of old, tired rhetoric.
Even more broadly, someone's need for something - no matter how real,
important, legitimate, or urgent - does not grant them the moral
permission to loot someone else's treasure - no matter how much that
other person has.

A starving man does not have moral authority to
steal from the wealthy man.

The starving mad has moral permission to

That HAS to be Freudian.

ask for help, offer to work when and if able, but there is no moral
get-out-of-jail-free card just because he needs something.


Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around

I am neither angry nor disgusted with life. I am disgusted
with my dishonest fellow citizens, no more, no less. I am,
however, on strike at the moment, committed to doing nothing
whatsoever that benefits said moochers. No reason to work long
hours, help create new companies, and increase the population of the
employed. I too shall retreat to moocher land and resign myself
to working just enough to take care of my own interests. I'm
trying to figure out how to pillage the Federal handout system
legally so I can get back the many dollars it's extracted from
me by force to support things like drum beating classes and
identity politics in universities. I think I am going to like
being on welfare - you meet the nicest people in line.

you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your

I have done no such thing. I simply cannot accept ideas predicated
on theft as morally legitimate. Charity? I'm all for it (when I'm
not on strike). Lending a helping hand up? You bet (when I'm
not on strike). But it's pretty outrageous to watch a significant
portion of my life's income evaporating into asinine programs
run by political con artists that benefit lazy mooches and then
get told, "you're not doing your fair share."

quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug. Let me guide out of your rage, and enjoy some humour.

The whole world is NOT trying to steal all your pennies.

My fellow citizens are trying to steal from anyone who will give
them what they want. I am one of many people thus targeted.
I've never thought it was personal, conspiratorial, or specific
to me. It is merely evil and immoral.


Private schools are run by elitist bigots. ( I was educated in one.)

I was educated in two and observed neither elitism nor bigotry
in either in the total of some 10 years between them I attended.

(pssst.. have fun with that line.)

Maybe the bigotry and elitism wasn't really innate to schools
but adhered more to [some of] the students themselves?

I know of no-one as bitter as you are, Tim.

You don't know me at all.
You are wrong about my being bitter. I am not.
I am playing defense (and I am on strike).

Take a breath of fresh air and repeat after me:
Robatoy is the light.

Robatoy is a fright.

Robatoy knows everything.

Robatoy knows who killed JFK.

Robatoy will cure you.


I don't have fleas.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
SNIP

Do I actually hear Tim Daneliuk advocating /for/ force and coersion? You
can't have it both ways.

Uh, yes I can. *Initiating* force is always wrong. Fraud is always
wrong. In the case of minor children, parents are by default presumed
to be the proper caretakers. When they fail to see to their children's
education, this is an initiation of at least fraud, and arguably
force, because they are condemning their children to fail. The
children - as minors - are legally presumed to be incapable of caring
for themselves and thus the state does have the right to interdict on
their behalf, no different than a policeman arresting someone trying
to break into your house.

As far as "making" teacher earn the respect of parents, I mean this
in a noncoerive way - there should be a marketplace for schools
and teachers as there is anything else. Parents would choose from
that pool based on their perception of the fitness of the school/teacher,
the amount they were willing to pay for it, and how that school
environment mapped to their personal values and ambitions for their
child.

I don't think you'll achieve much traction pushing this issue - not
because I have anything against private education, but because I don't
see any practical means of implementation due to cost.

In a most fortunate twist of fate (I lived in a country with /no/ high
schools, and my stepfather's employer paid for dependents' education at
any accredited boarding school), I got to make my own choice of private
schools (subject to parental veto for cause) high school. My first two
choices (ACS in Beirut and a boarding school in England) were vetoed for
what seemed good reasons, and my third choice was where I went.

I dug around to find a web page with some cost info and came up with:

http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/.../school_id/201

and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!


It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.




... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!


It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.

That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
church high school a few blocks from where I live.

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Dec 15, 9:26*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
There has been. *My point is merely that this is not the central
issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
bail their butts out. *The central issue is their insane labor
costs. *Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
auto marketplace.

Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.

JP

Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!


It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges
on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.

That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
church high school a few blocks from where I live.

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?


In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?

In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.

I wasn't - I was curious as to whether the tuition represented actual
costs as a result of discussion up-thread.

Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check I
just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!

It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school charges
on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.
That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
church high school a few blocks from where I live.

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?


In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is no
external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.


As a Lutheran institution, I would expect your funding is controlled
by the very *highest* level entity


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
and if you scroll down to "Finances" you'll get the same reality check
I just did. Education at retail is bloody awful expensive!

It all depends upon the school. Our Lutheran elementary school
charges on
the order of $4200 per year, our area Lutheran High School in Phoenix
is
approximately $6500 per year. The quality of education is high, the
teacher student ratio is low and the environment much more conducive to
learning.
That sounds good. I think I've heard around $8K for a (not Lutheran)
church high school a few blocks from where I live.

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?


In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to
equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other
donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there is
no external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.


As a Lutheran institution, I would expect your funding is controlled
by the very *highest* level entity


LOL; we certainly think so, and are convinced seeing how things always
work out for the best.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Morris Dovey wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

Out of curiosity, are the schools completely funded from tuition fees or
is there additional funding from other sources?

In the case of the elementary school, we try to set the tuition to
equal
the cost of education. As is the case for all non-profits, other
donations
also help to keep the tuition cost affordable. The high school is also
funded by tuition fees and other donations. In both instances, there
is no
external funding from a higher-level entity if that is what you were
asking.

I wasn't - I was curious as to whether the tuition represented actual
costs as a result of discussion up-thread.

Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).


And therein lies the problem. We do not get truthful accounting from
our fine government agencies about the real costs and expenditures
for programs such as education. It's hard to make policy decisions
when you cannot fairly compare the options and consequences. Absent
a ton of detailed analysis that most of us do not have the time
or even the data to do, we don't know what the real cost of
public education is. My guess - and that's all it is - is that
private education is on par or cheaper, and delivers a better
product on average.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jay Pique wrote:
On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
auto marketplace.

Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles

Not so. We own both Japanese and American vehicles in my household.
Both are very good at what they do. Do I think *all* American
cars are competitive with their foreign counterparts? No. But
there are good models from which to choose. The idea that the
foreign cars are innately better on their face is ... well, an
oversimplification. The Japanese, for example, have had plenty
of quality problems that kind of get glossed over - Izusu and
Mitsubishi leap to mind. As always, research and homework
pay dividends when buying new transportion. That said, I've
never had a Honda product in my hands that was not flawless.
This is both the case as we've owned their vehicles and in
my extensive travels renting them. OTOH, the worst car I've
driven in decades was a Volvo. It was well built but had
abysmal ergonomics.


that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.

We will get something like 12" of snow here in metro Chicago
this very night. My Chevy SUV will walk through it effortlessly
with comfort and stability to spare. So will selected Japanese
vehicles. There is no obvious winner. It depends on what you
buy, how you maintain the vehicle, and most importantly, how you
drive.


And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.

JP

I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
must contend.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Robatoy" wrote in message
Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug.

What he needs is several slaps in the face. (this is where Tim claims to
have a 6th degree black belt in seventeen forms of martial arts). Or ever
better, a debilitating illness that eats away any savings he's squirreled
away and then let him exist solely on charity so he can get the medical care
he needs.

Face it R, some people are incapable of being redeemed, or in this case,
deserve the self-serving petty little world they live in. He can call me and
everybody else in Canada who has received health care evil and thieves all
he wants, but it all comes down to the fact that he's got the social
conscious of a cockroach.

Upscale wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
Tim... how angry and disgusted you must be with life and those around
you. You have slammed all the doors to any and all input from those
who /are/ offering up some new ideas. Yet you are so sunk in your
quicksand, that it is now obvious you are terribly lost. You need a
hug.

What he needs is several slaps in the face. (this is where Tim claims to

First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. The inevitable
endgame of a broken worldview.

have a 6th degree black belt in seventeen forms of martial arts). Or ever
better, a debilitating illness that eats away any savings he's squirreled
away and then let him exist solely on charity so he can get the medical care
he needs.

Face it R, some people are incapable of being redeemed, or in this case,
deserve the self-serving petty little world they live in. He can call me and
everybody else in Canada who has received health care evil and thieves

Receiving from a system you're forced to participate in is not evil.
Defending theft - as you have repeatedly - is evil.

he wants, but it all comes down to the fact that he's got the social
conscious of a cockroach.


Maybe. But I don't want to steal from my neighbors nor do I fantasize
about violence upon strangers I chat with on usenet. As always, your
bad premises lead to bad conclusions and even worse behavior. This
has nothing to do with me.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Dec 19, 9:52*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:


First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. *The inevitable
endgame of a broken worldview.

Is that how it worked when the land and resources were stolen from The
Native Americans? And then killing them because they resisted? Was it
a broken world view that caused all that violence?

I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
must contend.

This is one aspect of the "Amurrrican vs. furrin" car debate that I find
most amusing. Define foreign vs domestic production. More importantly
which situation is more beneficial to the U.S. economy, an American car
(Ford, GM, Chrysler) that is built in another country (or at least a
signifacnt number of the subassemblies) or a foreign car that is built here
in the U.S. paying American workers? One school of thought says that the
money from the American cars go to American companies and benefits America,
while the money from the foreign car leaves the country. However, that only
applies to the 10-20% profit margins (that is a general estimation of profit
margin). The bulk of the money spent when you buy a car goes to the costs.
So the question is, which production situation puts more money into and has
greater benefit to the U.S. economy? (This is not at loaded question by me,
I truly have not heard a solid analysis upon which to form an opinion in the
matter. My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)

SteveP.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jay Pique wrote:
On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in
Detroit.
There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
auto marketplace.

Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a
category
this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty
much
nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they
are
closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.

Nice rhetoric. Now show us how it fits the actual numbers for the
current situation.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).

Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
are few affordable secular private schools.

And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,
especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:52 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

First a defense of stealing, now a call for violence. The inevitable
endgame of a broken worldview.

Is that how it worked when the land and resources were stolen from The
Native Americans? And then killing them because they resisted? Was it
a broken world view that caused all that violence?


Absolutely. The stealing was wrong in the first place. Their
response was predictable in the face of it. Attempting to exterminate
them was the evil outcome of an evil starting point. OTOH, it's not as
if they Amer-Indians lived in peace amongst themselves prior to
arrival of the Europeans. Tribalism and theft have pretty much
always added up to violence.

You don't get durably good results from initially bad premises.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).

Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
are few affordable secular private schools.

Not even remotely true. There are plenty of people home schooling
their children for a fraction of the cost of public- or private
schools. And these home schooled children consistently outperform
their public schooled counterparts academically when they later attend
higher education.

Moreover, I think the real cost of public schools is way, way higher
than most people believe. Something like $3000/yr of my property taxes
go to the school system. But ... this is far from the whole story.
There are state, local, and county sales taxes getting poured into the
educational system. Then there are the many Federal taxes that are
levied (income, excise, import duties, service fees ...) some portion
of which get sent back to the States for education. Then there is the
money sent to the educators from State lotteries and other gambling
sources. Finally, there are private sector institutions and
individuals that donate time, materials, and money to their local
schools. If someone could tally this all up, I'd guess that a public
school education actually costs more than a private education and - on
average - produces a more poorly educated graduate. But, by golly,
those public school grads have been well versed in identity politics,
tolerance (for everything but traditional Judeo-Christian values),
sexual politics, and collectivist political ideology.

A depressing number of Americans are incapable of imagining a world in
which government is not their Mommy and Daddy, There is thus little
widespread interest in exploring private school options for the
masses.



And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,
especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.


There are many implicit and wrong assumptions in this paragraph:

1) You assume that - in the face of a more rational tax system -
there would not be sufficient charity to educate those in genuine
need. I might point out that my undergrad program paid *100%* of
*every* student's tuition once they were accepted to study there.
It was and is a parochial program paid for by the alumni (as opposed
to paying for, say, a football stadium). So, yes, Virginia, it
is possible to have education paid for entirely in the private sector.

2) You assume that tax supported immediately leads to public schools.
Vouchers are one compromise way to improve what we have today
considerably by putting the parents in the position to have real
school choice. You get both tax support and a strong imperative
to move to private education and/or massively improve public schools.
These are opposed notably by the NEA because the teachers' union
does not want their constituency to be meaningfully held accountable
for their work product.

3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
"children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Highland Pairos wrote:
I'm not sure what "foreign" even means these days. Many of the
most lauded cars are built here with US labor. They just don't
have the legacy labor costs with which GM, Ford, and Chrysler
must contend.

This is one aspect of the "Amurrrican vs. furrin" car debate that I find
most amusing. Define foreign vs domestic production. More importantly
which situation is more beneficial to the U.S. economy, an American car
(Ford, GM, Chrysler) that is built in another country (or at least a
signifacnt number of the subassemblies) or a foreign car that is built here
in the U.S. paying American workers? One school of thought says that the
money from the American cars go to American companies and benefits America,
while the money from the foreign car leaves the country. However, that only
applies to the 10-20% profit margins (that is a general estimation of profit
margin). The bulk of the money spent when you buy a car goes to the costs.
So the question is, which production situation puts more money into and has
greater benefit to the U.S. economy? (This is not at loaded question by me,
I truly have not heard a solid analysis upon which to form an opinion in the
matter. My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)

SteveP.

I'm not sure it matters much, and probably will matter less over time.
Markets are increasingly global. Trade has historically benefited all
participants after the initial bumps of adjustment occur. For example,
an F-150 built in Mexico means that some number of Mexican citizens
can find good work at home and US residents can buy a good product at
a better price. Despite all the howling we hear about trade causing a
net loss of jobs, no such thing is true. I don't have the cite handy,
but (and this is rough and from memory) from the Bush 41 Presidency
until today (prior to the recent rise in unemployment) there were
nearly *twice* as many people working in the US. Trade creates greater
markets and greater opportunity for everyone.


See, for example:

http://www.freetrade.org/node/737
http://www.freetrade.org/node/37
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../freetrade.pdf




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Jay Pique wrote:
On Dec 15, 9:26 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I'm not questioning that there has been a quality problem in Detroit.
There has been. My point is merely that this is not the central
issue before us today as they come whining to the rest of us to
bail their butts out. The central issue is their insane labor
costs. Oh, and BTW, I do think Detroit is building a better and
better product - even CR has noted this in some sectors of the
auto marketplace.

Well, I did see that an American car did take top honors in a category
this past year. It was "Best American Sedan". I love that one.
Saying Detroit is making a better and better product says pretty much
nothing. One would certainly hope they aren't turning out vehicles
that are progressively worse! If what you are saying is that they are
closing the gap on foreign competition then I'm not so sure I agree.
And, regardless, the perception is that they are making an inferior
product and the consumers are turning elsewhere.

JP


Like I said, this is not simple:

http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/auto...t-selling-cars


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Highland Pairos wrote:
My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)

The same building in Fremont, CA, builds my "Jap Scrap" Toyota Tacoma,
the Toyota Corolla, and the Pontiac Vibe:

http://www.nummi.com/

The place is even UAW represented.

They've been building Toyota trucks in this plant since 1991.

Go figure...

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:51:28 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:

Your input makes me a bit less resistant to Tim's position that
education should be privatized (but not enough so that I'm willing to
adopt his view without a /lot/ more information).

Private education in this country consists of high end "exclusive"
academies for the rich and schools operated by religious groups. There
are few affordable secular private schools.

And private education for a fee is an unaffordable tax on the poor,

Not getting what you mean by "unaffordable tax", how is somebody else
paying for something a "tax" on the poor?

especially if it remains illegal to not send your kids to school. A
tax supported system is the only chance many poor kids have to get a
smattering of education, even if the school quality is low.

How about giving those poor people an opportunity to choose the school to
which their children go? Voucher systems would make private education
affordable and make the public system get its act together.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
"children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.


Yet the school board just wants more money to fix all those problems. If
you don't agree that you should pay more, you are against children and
un-American. Our school system needs major overhaul and the schools need
discipline and the students need parents that care. We pay the most per
student, but we are ranked #10 in education.

In China the school year is 220 days.
In India, there are more honor students than the USA has students

No matter how hard you wave the flag, there will come a time that the US Is
no longer the most powerful country in the world.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message ...
Highland Pairos wrote:
My personal speculation is that a Camry built in Kentucky does for
America then an F-150 built in Mexico.)

The same building in Fremont, CA, builds my "Jap Scrap" Toyota Tacoma,
the Toyota Corolla, and the Pontiac Vibe:

http://www.nummi.com/

The place is even UAW represented.

They've been building Toyota trucks in this plant since 1991.

Go figure...

Sorta tells one something about the Vibe, don't it??? G

P D Q

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
3) You can't fix education without fixing the lousy parenting that
dominates the culture. This lousy parenting transcends demography
and geography. It isn't just inner city ghetto dwellers ignoring
the education of their children, its the lily white suburbanites
as well. Where children have become an income stream to the
putative poor, they've become a fashion accessory to the affluent.
It's kind of hard to educate a child when their own parents
aren't paying attention. "Tax support" does not fix this in
any way. In fact, it is "tax support" that created the
"children as an revenue stream" problem in the first place.


Yet the school board just wants more money to fix all those problems. If
you don't agree that you should pay more, you are against children and
un-American. Our school system needs major overhaul and the schools need
discipline and the students need parents that care. We pay the most per
student, but we are ranked #10 in education.

In China the school year is 220 days.
In India, there are more honor students than the USA has students

No matter how hard you wave the flag, there will come a time that the US Is
no longer the most powerful country in the world.


NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
to fine quality living.

http://www.freeantennas.com/docs/bailout.jpg

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA to
fine quality living.

Today. Get back to me in 25 to 50 years.

On Dec 19, 8:18*pm, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:


NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
to fine quality living.

For how long?

You are still living in the past, my friend. You seem to think that
what the mighty USA once stood for cannot be superceded from either
the outside or from within.

I do hope that you will get it together and find yourselves again, but
for now, you're getting walked on by the competition.
That kind of onslaught has momentum. It will take years to stave off
the waves before your efforts will once gain (and I hope) make you
leaders of the free world.
You really have no idea the damage that last administration has done
to your once great country.
No idea at all.
And then to think that Obama will somehow rescue you, is folly.
Either one of two things will happen:
The Obama camp will motivate the American public to do with less and
start a recovery
or
You've been had by an imposter who is really no different than any
other blood-sucking overlord.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA to
fine quality living.

Today. Get back to me in 25 to 50 years.



If you can assure me that I will be here in 50 years I will.

Robatoy wrote:
On Dec 19, 8:18 pm, "David G. Nagel"
wrote:

NO matter the numbers in foreign countries, they still come to the USA
to fine quality living.

For how long?

You are still living in the past, my friend. You seem to think that
what the mighty USA once stood for cannot be superceded from either
the outside or from within.

I do hope that you will get it together and find yourselves again, but
for now, you're getting walked on by the competition.
That kind of onslaught has momentum. It will take years to stave off
the waves before your efforts will once gain (and I hope) make you
leaders of the free world.
You really have no idea the damage that last administration has done
to your once great country.
No idea at all.
And then to think that Obama will somehow rescue you, is folly.
Either one of two things will happen:
The Obama camp will motivate the American public to do with less and
start a recovery
or
You've been had by an imposter who is really no different than any
other blood-sucking overlord.

My wife's best friend and her husband are from Indian. My wife's
friend's brother is a General in the Army in India. Her husband had to
come to the US to get a job. All slots for his cast were filled back home.

As to the great damage that the last administration has done to the US,
well they are back for a second chance. Or do you mean the present
administration? Please tell me if you can.