Understanding the Issues: Education

here's some (but not all) the facts on taxes...
McCain vs Obama on taxes - Fact Checker (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.html?hpid=topnews)

mccain wants to keep the bush cuts, cut a few more taxes and give 2.5k-5k to individuals for health insurance. big on nuclear plants which lead to cheaper energy (and if someone finally decides to create sane nuclear fuel policy reduces the amount of radioactive waste to nothing and makes it even cheaper, probably not happening short term though).

obama wants to expire the bush cuts (would would be the largest tax increase by value since WWII, but only the 5th largest increase by Gross National Product, which is a better indicator), increase capital gains taxes from 15 to 20%, increase taxes quite a bit on those making over 250k a year, and also offer credits to those needing health insurance. he also wants to decrease costs of health insurance with more/stricter regulation (but i strongly doubt that that happens).


obama is thinking in a much shorter term about fixing income inequality, but in the long term its hard to say that increasing the penalty for investing is a good idea. mccain's increasing tax cuts beyond bush may not be the greatest idea either. both want emission credits for polluters, which definitely isn't perfect, but i guess it's better than nothing (florida already does something like that, at least with eglin afb, where they track all use of hazmats and report it, then pay a fee per year for the total pollution created by the base).

but if you really wanted to save money, you'd increase the military to where it was before BRAC and clinton hit it instead of wasting SOOO much more money on contractors. A contracted termite exterminator makes 120k a year in iraq, an army exterminator makes 25k (closer to 40-50k with all bonuses etc). with what we've spent on contractors over the price of the old bigger military, we could have kept the bigger military for 25 more years and still be ahead. terrible economic decision.

farm subsidies is another economic issue that could easily save money, since so many people with no business in agriculture use it as a tax shelter (celebs, bankers, etc). it's like rich person welfare, only it's a lot more money, and none of the non-farmers (and a lot of corporate farmers) don't actually need it. MUCH smaller scale though than the above.

That Guy, start another thread on the tax debate and I'll throw up a poll there. Let's keep this thread about education

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

I can only speak for myself, but I can't say my opinion of the candidates has changed appreciably. This is partly because I think I already have a good understanding of where they're coming from on each issue. But these threads have served to educate me and the discussion has been very intelligent and thought provoking. These threads are a tremendous motivation to get up in the morning and check The Warpath first thing.

While my opinion of the candidates themselves hasn't been appreciably altered, I have learned some details of their stances, and have been surprised at times to discover that there are some democratic things I like, and some republican things I dislike. As a result, these threads have helped me gain an understanding of just how moderate I am.

I couldn't disagree more on single-parents - who deserves help more than a full-time working mother or father? What does the reason why they are doing it alone matter? Now, if they aren't working full-time then, of course, I would agree. I think that criteria would weed out a lot of the bad apples. (one opinionated opinion deserves another, right?)

As for families with two parents, $200/kid (which is not the uniform cost, of course) can be prohibitive if you have a household income of $20k (which accounts for 20% of the US households). Now, I would agree it's a murky area if you have 8 kids. But for those with even 2 kids, there just isn't $4800/year for the care they need.

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.

Whose political platform is "bomb bomb bomb?" McCain's? Bush's current record?

Nobody just "bomb bomb bombs", saden. It's that kind of uneducated generalization that makes me dismiss a lot of your political thoughts because you clearly don't have an understanding of the opposing party's political platform.

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

Wow I hope you make it through life and never make a bad decision. If my tax money went to someone to help them through a bad decision I would be happy. The sad thing is our tax money is mainly wasted on missles being used to kill other people.

As long as your school/teachers are striking the appropriate balance between teaching the core material and teaching how to analyze the questions, then I think the kids are in good shape. Remember, kids don't take these tests every year. They take them in like 1st grade, then 4th, then 7th, then 11th. Or something like that (I don't know the exact years). But my point is there are like 3 or 4 years between tests. In all that time, kids are not spending an inordinate amount of time on the test analysis. They're getting the building blocks over time, then when they come to the year for test time, then they get the analysis stuff.

I'll bet if you ask 4th grade teachers (or whatever year they administer the test), they're probably the ones most aggravated and affected. The other teachers probably don't care much, as they get to focus on core curriculum.

In Virginia, the SOL's are taken every grade level except kindergarten. I'm fairly certain that any state that wants to keep receiving federal money for meeting the No Child Left Behind requirements has to have some form of yearly standardized testing for every grade level.

I agree with what you said on several things except this.

but if you really wanted to save money, you'd increase the military to where it was before BRAC and clinton hit it instead of wasting SOOO much more money on contractors. A contracted termite exterminator makes 120k a year in iraq, an army exterminator makes 25k (closer to 40-50k with all bonuses etc). with what we've spent on contractors over the price of the old bigger military, we could have kept the bigger military for 25 more years and still be

While I agree a contractor makes more money up front than a person in the service the difference is in the benifits. So we pay a contractor 125 k for two years and we are done paying them but a person in the service will receive benifits for a life time making their cost much, much more. I'm not getting into which way is the best but it is much cheaper to use contractors for alot of jobs.

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.
To add on to what he said each time we offer a new benfit to unwed mothers or fathers it just makes it that much easier for them to keep doing what they are doing. Its not like allot of them make this mistake once, they have several children with different dads and just keep combounding the problem knowing that big goverment will do just enough to keep them going.

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?
My opinion of the candidates hasn't been changed, but if I jump into any of these discussion it forces me to do some further research into each candidate's positions...which is a very good thing.

I think these threads are a good idea. They won't change the opinion of supporters on either side, but the posts in the thread that are thoughtful, show some level of research or critical thinking, and make an argument backed up by fact, not rhetoric will be helpful for folks out there who are truly undecided or uninformed.