For want of a party

[jpm1977]

Actually, you did. When mpi said it was not a right, you challenged him by asking him to “Please elaborate on why you think college is not a right. I think it’s byond that.”

Please read the posts more carefully, aspawloski4th said that, not me.

The rest of your post rests on the assumption that I think its a right, which I don’t, so its not really a good debate, but I would say this:

You can always find examples of people who succeeded without a college degree and people who failed with one, but it cannot be seriously debated that people with more education earn more on average than those with lower education levels. If they earn more, they will necessarily pay more in taxes.

On your other points, we’re obviously not going to agree. I think the government should spend money to increase access and availability of education for everyone who is able to benefit from it. And I think that spending would pay for itself in the long run with increased tax revenue. You think each person should fend for themselves in that regard, (and apparently want to go back and undo the GI Bill) and that’s a perfectly acceptable opinion.

You can debate with aspawloski4th as to whether education is a fundamental right or not. I don’t disagree that it is not. I think what I do as a policy decision, not a fundamental right to be provided to everyone.

 

[Awful_Things]

As far as apprenticeships, that’s a nice thing, but its also a thing of the past.

Hmm. I should tell that to the guy who is building my house, who didn’t go to college but learned his trade from another carpenter and then started his own business. His house is much bigger than mine and he is definitely contributing more to society that I can. And while I’m chatting with him, I’ll tell my nephew, who dropped out of college (with a full scholarship) last semester and started working for that same carpenter, that he needs to give up his hope of having his own construction buisiness and go back to school in time for the Ultimate Frisbee PE class next semester.

Can a father take his son under his arm and teach him to be a computer programmer? Probably, but what if his son doesn’t like computer programming? What if he’s no good at it? What if his calling is to be an English professor, or a lawyer or something that his father knows nothing about?

Sure, and for these kids there is the option of college. But you said that college should be a “requirement”. My nephew doesn’t want to be a computer programmer. And, let’s face the sad fact that some of us don’t get to be what we want to be. Ask McCain. It is unfortunate, but if you are going to argue entitlements, then please tell me why, if John Doe gets his dream of being an English professor, I don’t get my dream of being an astronaut?

In fairness, this should probably be a new thread, though. I think this one has run its course.

It really bugs me when people “call” the end of a thread and they have no moderators label under their names. If it has run its course, then move on.

 

[Awful_Things]

Please read the posts more carefully, aspawloski4th said that, not me.

Sorry, my bad. When you started out with “I’m not saying that it is a right”, I read defensiveness and jumped to a conclusion.

The rest of your post rests on the assumption that I think its a right, which I don’t, so its not really a good debate, but I would say this:

Agreed.

You can always find examples of people who succeeded without a college degree and people who failed with one, but it cannot be seriously debated that people with more education earn more on average than those with lower education levels. If they earn more, they will necessarily pay more in taxes.

I agree. So, my response is to him who supposes it is a requirement to go to college, as if our end goal as a society is to generate more taxes.

On your other points, we’re obviously not going to agree. I think the government should spend money to increase access and availability of education for everyone who is able to benefit from it. And I think that spending would pay for itself in the long run with increased tax revenue. You think each person should fend for themselves in that regard, (and apparently want to go back and undo the GI Bill) and that’s a perfectly acceptable opinion.

Nope. I purposely didn’t respond to your comment on the GI Bill because I don’t have an objection to it. I also do not believe that each should “fend for themselves”. I was reacting to the idea that college as a) necessarily beneficial, b) a right (which you didn’t claim), or c) an entitlement. Encourage? Sure. Ensure as a right. Nope.

Again, my apology for the confusion.

 

[jpm1977]

Hmm. I should tell that to the guy who is building my house, who didn’t go to college but learned his trade from another carpenter and then started his own business. His house is much bigger than mine and he is definitely contributing more to society that I can. And while I’m chatting with him, I’ll tell my nephew, who dropped out of college (with a full scholarship) last semester and started working for that same carpenter, that he needs to give up his hope of having his own construction buisiness and go back to school in time for the Ultimate Frisbee PE class next semester.

Sure, and for these kids there is the option of college. But you said that college should be a “requirement”. My nephew doesn’t want to be a computer programmer. And, let’s face the sad fact that some of us don’t get to be what we want to be. Ask McCain. It is unfortunate, but if you are going to argue entitlements, then please tell me why, if John Doe gets his dream of being an English professor, I don’t get my dream of being an astronaut?

It really bugs me when people “call” the end of a thread and they have no moderators label under their names. If it has run its course, then move on.

I’m just thinking education policy wasn’t the original topic of this thread per the OP. I’m fine with discussing the issue, it just seems like it might be best for a new topic so others can more easily join in the discussion topic.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’m just thinking education policy wasn’t the original topic of this thread per the OP. I’m fine with discussing the issue, it just seems like it might be best for a new topic so others can more easily join in the discussion topic.

I agree. Sorry for contributing to a derailing.

 

[jpm1977]

Back to the original topic, I found an interesting looking book that appears to examine this issue directly. After reading more about these parties in Europe, I really wish there was one here too.

 

[jpm1977]

Here is another interesting take on this issue.

 

[Awful_Things]

I guess since there is no more from Catholichasleft, the thread truly is finished.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Really there is no need for such a party. If you heart is on heaven and things of God, economics is not a big deal and you go with the party that is anti abortion.

 

[jpm1977]

Making that the only issue allows politicians to exploit the pro-life vote and push through policies in every other area that many argue harm those very pro-life voters. The GOP has been anti-abortion since Roe v. Wade and has been in power for dozens of years in that time, and abortion is still legal. Why haven’t they delivered what they’ve promised? With the judicial appointments made by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, Roe should have been overturned long ago, but it wasn’t. (If you want, blame Justices Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor). If three presidents who held office for 20 years total can’t get it done, what make you think it will happen in the future, even if there was a Republican president from 2012 to 2032?

Also, as a thought exercise, What if Satan himself ran against Barack Obama in 2012, and pledged to enact his entire sinister, satanic, sinful program in every way imaginable, except he would make abortion illegal. Who do you vote for?

 

[Awful_Things]

Also, as a thought exercise, What if Satan himself ran against Barack Obama in 2012, and pledged to enact his entire sinister, satanic, sinful program in every way imaginable, except he would make abortion illegal. Who do you vote for?

Well, I didn’t vote for her this time around, so I don’t know why I would in 2012???

 

[AveSantaMaria]

Well, I didn’t vote for her this time around, so I don’t know why I would in 2012???

I think that I am a social conservative on moral issues and a moderate on economic issues. I don’t know enough about economic issues - liberal or conservative - to make an informed decision. However, I’m not sure that I consider the GOP to be conservative on moral issues and conservative on economic issues. President Bush and Presidential Candidate John McCain fall on the side of liberal/moderate etc. on social issues, which is why they receive so much heat from the conservative commentators. Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Guiliani are obviously is a what - I do not know. I would much rather see the entire country become pro-life and the debate on economic issues be incorporated into the GOP.

I do not think it is ok not to vote. There is some Catholic work that tells us we have a responsibility to vote. If you do not vote, it seems that you are saying that economic issues are on an equal par with life issues, which strikes me as untrue. How can you guarantee someone’s economy if that person doesn’t even exist? Now Russia is even PAYING women to have babies. If you want, you can be a voice within the GOP presenting intellectual and logical arguments and grassroots support for candidates that are pro-life but support moral social programs. The abortion issue can be defeated like slavery was defeated. Would it have been morally acceptable for you to say that you didn’t like the economic agenda of the Republican party when it was against slavery and so sit out.

It seems like the parable of the talents. We might be little fish in a big sea so have the power to do little but the one person who dug his talent in the ground was most definitely not lauded by Christ!!

Furthermore, I think many economic liberals miss something important. Is it a fair belief to say that the federal government may not be trustworthy enough to take care of everyone and its responsibility may be to take care of the poorest/weakest among us, making sure that government programs and bureacracies and departments are well-managed and not corrupt, etc and providing overall guidance. It seems if we have elections every 4 years anyways, it seems like a bad institution for responsible management of many things. Rather, the Churches and non-profits might be looked to as the true and genuine source of charity and moral guidance, not the state.

I think that economic conservatives are missing something as well. Ethics are necessary in a Market Economy. See Joseph Ratzinger predicting “economic Armaggedon” in 1985, Market Economy and Ethics acton.org/publications/occasionalpapers/publicat_occasionalpapers_ratzinger.php

 

[AveSantaMaria]

P.S. Slavery was legally defeated in the British empire. William Wilberforce died just 3 days after the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. He first came into contact with anti-slavery absolutionists in 1787. 56 years. Something so heinous as abortion may need to be fought in every way, not just a vote for President. Planned Parenthood needs to end. BOTH parties ought to be pro-life. Everyone needs to not only be against it but understand why it is a great moral wrong. We can’t outsource our responsibility to be against abortion to our political leaders as if they are magicians that can change all of public opinion in 4-8 years.

I suspect that if one expects them to do more then we as a grassroots needs to be behind it as well. If we want them to do more than appoint pro-life judges, then maybe we ought to be designing and sponsoring the initiatives, getting signatures to get widespread support, campaigning, making commercials and speeches, writing in our newspapers!

 

[kristie_m]

Well, I didn’t vote for her this time around, so I don’t know why I would in 2012???