What would you ask Howard Dean?

One of my issues with vouchers is what happens to the students who stay behind at the inner city school? Should they just be abandoned? If not money that would have gone to that school has gone to vouchers and those students are still left at an underperforming school with even less funding than before?

The other thing about funding is that middle class schools usually have it the worst, at least in CA. They don't get the govt. help that the poorer schools have, nor do they have the parents pouring in money like kids in the richer schools. With that being said, I know that the poorest schools really don't have enough money. There aren't enough text books for kids, there isn't enough supervision for students, and there is a lack of support staff for the teachers.

 

there's another poll you left out, one conducted november 2nd. Bush did pretty well in that one.

 

That poll only proves the point. People disagree with Bush's message (SS in this case) but the person, and the way he delivered that message got the job done.

 

The fact that Dean is now leading the DNC just confirms that the Democrats learned nothing from last November's election. Good move Dems, pick a guy to lead the DNC who was too liberal for the Democratic primaries. Fantastic choice.

 

This post only shows that you don't understand Dean's positions and record since he was less liberal than the person who won the Democratic primary.

Fantastic post.

 

Thanks for the reply. I'd be interested in any more information and your insight as you cover the topic more.

I'm leaning towards being against vouchers for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but I'm not dead set 100% against them. I know of some cases where they were used and were beneficial to the students who received them, and some cases where they weren't. I couldn't find studies on the schools that were left behind.

I will say stripping a needy school of more money in hopes that that will force it to become more efficient and better will be a hard sell. Schools like that will be have an incredibly difficult time attracting highly qualified teachers to go there. Teachers aren't going to want to stay for a any time and definitely for a long time at a school under those situations. As is there isn't enough for textbooks, copies, repairs, experienced teachers etc. Taking more money away from these schools may not help it.

 

Batman, et al:

My two cents:

First, it's Catholic's that preach abstinence. There is a difference. I'm pro-life, myself, but I've been down the pro-choice road. I see this as middle ground for the vast majority of young American's. ie. non-issue.

On Healthcare:

There's no two ways about it. In Utopia, we'd all get free health care subsidized by our government. And if we all want to go to Ben Taub's from now on, we can have it, although it will get progressively worse.

The problem is we are the ONLY Country that is consistently creating new vaccines and cures. Why? Capitalism. We get the best and the brightest that know they can get rich by coming up with the next best thing. Canada and Europe take our research on our drugs and replicate it. Unfortunately, it wouldn't even exist without Capitalism. At least not now. Maybe in 100 years, socialism will make its natural shift. But Society is not ready. And y'all need to realize that.

Social Security: I don't even know where to start with y'all. In the 60's, Social Security was in the Trillions. Our Government had statistical experts verify that SS wouldn't even scratch the surface of SS for well over two generations. So the Gov. decided to dip into SS for other "needs" crap. Within ten years, it was wiped out.

Pardon me, but I'm not looking forward to the Gov. ever touching my money again.

Also, Since its inception, the S&P 500 has earned an average of 8.62%/year. That means your initial investment will double every 8 1/3 years. With dollar cost averaging, it is significantly higher.

That is one fund every citizen can easily invest in, no matter how stupid.

Beats the return SS ever did.

 

Health care provided to all of America's citizens is not the same thing as abandoning capitalism. We'd just be a capitalist society that also provided health benefits to all of its citizens.

FDR wanted to have nationalized healthcare, but couldn't make any more enemies than he already had. The doctors had already tried to stop medicare, and medicaid. Truman was then in favor of nationalized healthcare as well, but that was the start of the cold war. The Doctors were able to convince folks that it was akin to communism, or a slide towards a socialist U.S. Sadly that label has stuck since then, and we've gone generations without nationalized health care.

 

Only Catholics promote abstinence?

 

Capitalism is needed so that we get the best and the brightest to be Doctors. If we nationalize it, you lose the innovations that Capitalism creates.

During WWII, there was a salary freeze. Companies couldn't attract competing workers by giving them a raise, because it wasn't allowed.

Due to this, companies started giving other benefits, such as health care and retirement plans.

I'm not sure why FDR would want nationalized health care at a time when companies were giving it away.

The largest problem has become drug advertising in health care. Making drug advertising illegal would solve a lot of the rising health care costs.

 

Agreed. It is disgusting that we now have commercials on TV that tell people to go talk to their doctors about drugs that doctors should be recommending.

 

As a group? Yes. Most conservatives don't have any problem with birth-control.

As far as giving condoms to high school kids, I'm against it. If you're too stupid to buy a condom before sex, having a condom at hand probably isn't going to help much.

I'm OK with condom machines in high school bathrooms, though.

 

I'm confused.

Conservative Christians are only allright with certain birth control methods after marriage. Catholics believe in the "Catholic Method" for birth control after marriage. So I don't understand your point.

Pretty much every major conservative Christian organization I know preaches abstinence with the "no sex until marriage" mantra.

 

If capitalism gave us the best medical system in the world I would buy your argument. Instead we are 7th or 8th. I can't remember which.

But as I said it isn't about doing away with capitalism. It is about having national health care plans for everyone. That doesn't mean that we would no longer be a capitalist country.

 

Capitalism gives us the best doctors. It gives us the best hospitals. It gives us the best research and medicine.

You're judging our system as a whole. I'm assuming Ben Taub is around 7th or 8th in the world.

I'd rather go to Memorial Hermann or St. Jude's or UTMB over any of the so-called 6 other countries with "better" health care.

In America, if you can afford it, you are going to get the best physicians in the world.

 

OK, I'll help you with this analogy:

Conservative Christians who promote abstinance as the only form of birth control is to Conservatives as PETA is to liberals.

They're both on the far end.

 

And if you can't afford it, you are completely screwed.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that way when GWB and Co. promote "abstinance only" as the only types of programs they will fund, not just in the US, but around the world as well.