• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

1985 vs 2015

Was America better off in 1985, or are we better off today in 2015?

  • 1985 was better overall

    Votes: 25 50.0%
  • 2015 is better overall

    Votes: 25 50.0%

  • Total voters
    50
That's not really what I meant by social stratification. In capitalism, some people rise to the top, and some people sink to the bottom. That, in itself, isn't necessarily bad.... so long as productivity is rewarded.

I think the issue with social stratification and privatizing of schools is that kids from poor families would only be able to go to the cheap schools, and kids from wealthier families would tend to go to higher priced schools (even more so than that happens today). So kids of wealthy people would have more advantages (than they already do) and kids of poor people would have even more disadvantages.

You seem to be confusing social stratification with meritocracy. I'm all for meritocracy, but not for having a system where it's harder (than it already is) for those at the bottom to climb.

Education should always be about the students, not the wealth of the families that they come from.
 
I think the issue with social stratification and privatizing of schools is that kids from poor families would only be able to go to the cheap schools, and kids from wealthier families would tend to go to higher priced schools (even more so than that happens today). So kids of wealthy people would have more advantages (than they already do) and kids of poor people would have even more disadvantages.

You seem to be confusing social stratification with meritocracy. I'm all for meritocracy, but not for having a system where it's harder (than it already is) for those at the bottom to climb.

Education should always be about the students, not the wealth of the families that they come from.

That's why we offer scholarships to the brightest kids from poor families.

Being able to send your kids to a good private school is an incentive for people to work harder and be productive. I'm not in favor of removing that incentive. I'm in favor of pouring gasoline on it and ratcheting up the flames. We need more productivity, and less sucking at the government tit.
 
I believe that in order to make our country stronger, we need underperformers to not hold high achievers back.

I'm not interested in forcing an education down the throats of people who don't really want it, or aren't able/willing to do something with that education.

I would rather those resources be spent giving the best possible education to our best and brightest.

Our best and brightest will always achieve, at least if they don't get lost in a culture of failure. Regardless of that, we still need the vast majority of our citizens to be reasonably well educated (at least they should be able to read and do a little math), that is assuming that you don't desire to have an undereducated workforce which would hamper business growth.
 
We send CRIMINALS to prisons.... which is exactly where they belong.

One of the best ways to deter crime is educating people so they can become productive. If we fail, our society pays a price. It is necessary to better our schools for the poor, rather than further stratify them.
 
Our best and brightest will always achieve, at least if they don't get lost in a culture of failure. Regardless of that, we still need the vast majority of our citizens to be reasonably well educated (at least they should be able to read and do a little math), that is assuming that you don't desire to have an undereducated workforce which would hamper business growth.

Our best and brightest will always achieve? How about pouring gasoline on that fire and helping them reach new heights?

I want to incentivize people who will put those resources to actual use, not people who will ditch school and hang out outside 7-11. I don't care about those people.

If you say our best and brightest will "always achieve," as if there is nothing that can be done to further them along, isn't it equally true that our middling and underachievers will always underachieve?
 
I can never shake the feeling that people that want things like public schooling are quitters.
 
Because they're not free?

If I had kids in private school, I would be absolutely against privatization of our school system. First off, I wouldn't want the "trash" from public schools invading my kid's private school (assuming that vouchers or something else made it affordable for them). If you took the student body from a failing public school and swapped them for the kids in the finest private school, nothing would change except for the name of the schools. It's not actually the name of the school, or the word "public/private", or the building that makes a difference, it's the families of the kids that makes a difference.

What would happen is that the price and thus cost of most private schools would increase (over the voucher amount) to effectively shut out those undesirable public school kids, and we would end up with pretty much the same system that we already have, except at a higher price.
 
One of the best ways to deter crime is educating people so they can become productive. If we fail, our society pays a price. It is necessary to better our schools for the poor, rather than further stratify them.

People choose crime. Crime doesn't choose them.

Poor children have plenty of opportunity to study hard and get a college scholarship. It's easier for a black kid from the inner city with a 4.0 GPA who has worked hard to get in to Harvard than it is for a Jewish kid from Boca Raton with a 4.0 to do the same.

We already cater to the "disadvantaged." They just don't take advantage of it. Sorry, but more handouts are not the answer.

Inner city crime has nothing to do with educational opportunities. It has to do with making poor personal choices, and bad family life.
 
Again, in what way are they judging the weak as "undesirable?"

How about some specific examples instead of vague blanket statements.

I made my statements specifically to address your comment that you are against the notion of underacheavers holding the successful people back.

My problem is that I hold a very different viewpoint. Successful people should not be complaining about underachievers holding other people back. They should do everything possible to pull everyone up, to inspire everyone to work for the good of all.

They way I see it, we rise or fall as a group.
 
If I had kids in private school, I would be absolutely against privatization of our school system. First off, I wouldn't want the "trash" from public schools invading my kid's private school (assuming that vouchers or something else made it affordable for them). If you took the student body from a failing public school and swapped them for the kids in the finest private school, nothing would change except for the name of the schools. It's not actually the name of the school, or the word "public/private", or the building that makes a difference, it's the families of the kids that makes a difference.

What would happen is that the price and thus cost of most private schools would increase (over the voucher amount) to effectively shut out those undesirable public school kids, and we would end up with pretty much the same system that we already have, except at a higher price.

The great thing about private school is that you get to choose your school.

As with anything private, competition makes it better.
 
I made my statements specifically to address your comment that you are against the notion of underacheavers holding the successful people back.

My problem is that I hold a very different viewpoint. Successful people should not be complaining about underachievers holding other people back. They should do everything possible to pull everyone up, to inspire everyone to work for the good of all.

They way I see it, we rise or fall as a group.

You will never pull everyone up to the same level without also pulling people down.
 
I made my statements specifically to address your comment that you are against the notion of underacheavers holding the successful people back.

My problem is that I hold a very different viewpoint. Successful people should not be complaining about underachievers holding other people back. They should do everything possible to pull everyone up, to inspire everyone to work for the good of all.

They way I see it, we rise or fall as a group.

Sorry, the high school nerd in study hall at 6pm is not doing anything to hold back the kid skipping class to loiter outside the 7-11.
 
That's why we offer scholarships to the brightest kids from poor families.

Being able to send your kids to a good private school is an incentive for people to work harder and be productive. I'm not in favor of removing that incentive. I'm in favor of pouring gasoline on it and ratcheting up the flames. We need more productivity, and less sucking at the government tit.

If all employees today became 10% more productive and nothing else changed, then they would receive no more compensation for their efforts, as a matter of fact compensation would probably fall as employers would need 10% fewer employees.
 
If all employees today became 10% more productive and nothing else changed, then they would receive no more compensation for their efforts, as a matter of fact compensation would probably fall as employers would need 10% fewer employees.

So productivity is bad? Liberals kill me, lol.
 
Communism was always hanging over our heads then as a threat. But more Americans died because of terrorism than died as a result of communism in my lifetime.

Life was simpler back then. People were less paranoid. We had real fun.

About 80,000 Americans died as a result of communism in Korea and Vietnam.
 
Back
Top Bottom