Elite NYC school publishes anti-racism manifesto

[Metaphor]

...
FWIW, there are several reasons I support generous parental leaves. First of all, it helps parent and child form a strong bond. And should the parent need some extra help in that way, it provides the flexibility that a lot of working people don't have in order to access some interventions. I'm thinking about post partum depression, help with breast feeding, learning about appropriate developmental milestones, etc. Secondly: I think that parental leave should be MANDATORY for fathers and for mothers.

I think that's an insane policy.

Not necessarily taken concurrently but the only way to remove the stigma is to make the policy apply equally to men and women. I don't happen to think that's really fair to women who have a lot of physical changes and possibly surgery to recovery from that men do not but the point has been made that new mothers can perhaps recover better if they have a strong and strongly invested partner who is also on leave and who can share some of the work, take on tasks too physically daunting for someone recovering from surgery or just a normal delivery, sleep cycle disruption, etc. Point taken. Not all women have this in a partner, but it can sometimes be fostered if the expectation becomes that men are involved in the infancy of their offspring, not just the mothers. Of course it also should apply to adoptive parents, non-childbearing partner in same sex relationships, etc.

Getting baby off to the best start possible helps all of society, including employers and the coworkers who are not the parents. The returning workers are prepared to actually do the work to the best of their ability and training, are less likely to need time off for a sick baby, and a host of other benefits to parent and company. Of course in my ideal world, a work week would be something like 9-4 with a generous lunch break (which, btw, is standard in some countries). Obviously, some types of work would not be 9-4 or M-F but the same idea: about 30 hrs/week. Yes, this would require more workers. Yes, we have plenty of unemployed people. Sounds like a problem and the solution.

No: paying people for a year while they produce nothing for the company doing the paying isn't a 'solution' to anything. It simply makes the labour cost of production far higher than it needs to be.

BTW, I think that employees should also get generous leaves in order to recover from their own illnesses and injuries or to help loved ones who need the help. I think we are ALL better off when we treat each other better and when we are flexible with one another.

Well...okay? I hope we can one day we can live in a post-scarcity society, but we don't live in that society.

As far as why I mentioned that I know some Dalton alumni, what I meant was that they are just people. None of them are uber wealthy, but some do have more money than others. Dalton today is very much like Dalton of a few decades ago, judging by what I've been told by former students. It was liberal, exclusive and heavily populated by kids from wealthy families then and is now. The amount of money is different but everything is more expensive today. And my take is that people are more crazy about making sure their little darlings have all the advantages today than they were before but maybe not.

Yeah, I know families that make tremendous sacrifices to send their kids to Dalton would be insanely wealthy by worldwide standards. So would I be and so would you be and neither of us would spend that kind of money on a private school even if we had it. Which neither of us do. Hell, when I lived in a 3 room house with my parents and two of my siblings, I was way better off than most of the world THEN. FWIW, I agree with you that is an insane amount of money to spend on preK-12 education. I like to think I'd be more inclined to give that tuition money to public schools or food shelves, or whatever. But I'm not that wealthy so maybe I wouldn't. Maybe spending that kind of money would seem to be perfectly normal and even necessary. I don't think so but that's not my life. I don't think that I get to decide how other people spend their money, so long as it's not on illegal things.

But you are proposing how employers have to spend their money. And you are proposing how people who reproduced ought be forced to take leave. You do not appear to have a problem dictating certain things to certain people.

No, I wasn't telling you that you should just fuck off because you're from someplace far away from Cornell. I am often bemused at the things you think worth posting about and more than a little irritated when multiple people try to explain that you aren't really understanding the situation but you are sure that you are because of some right wing rag, never mind that the article you link is in direct contradiction to what the actual policy or whatever it is you are criticizing about actually says. And you discount people who have actual first hand knowledge or expertise. I honestly don't think you have a very good understanding of the university system in the US or even of the Ivies. I think you would be shocked and in total disbelief if I told you that a degree from Harvard is just not that impressive to most Americans. It is to some, sure. But the Ivy league world is a pretty small world. A lot of extremely bright, extremely well qualified students never even consider applying to an Ivy because of cost or because it's too far away from home or because it's just not a world they are interested in. There are, after all, excellent universities that are not Harvard or Princeton or Cornell. AND depending on what you want to do with your life, a degree from Harvard might be totally inappropriate as well as very expensive.

I would be really interested to learn more about Australia and its educational system and how workplaces are organized, etc.

I think that society would be better off if people worked to live rather than lived to work. If people performed jobs for pay that paid enough and had flexible enough hours/expectations that people could enjoy their lives. Reduction in stress would have great implications in terms of health benefits, and productivity.

And I would love to live in a post-scarcity society with a UBI. But that's not the world we live in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Race is easy to measure. Performance isn't so easy to measure.

They're going to degrade their school in the name of equality.

 

[Toni]

I think that's an insane policy.



No: paying people for a year while they produce nothing for the company doing the paying isn't a 'solution' to anything. It simply makes the labour cost of production far higher than it needs to be.

BTW, I think that employees should also get generous leaves in order to recover from their own illnesses and injuries or to help loved ones who need the help. I think we are ALL better off when we treat each other better and when we are flexible with one another.

Well...okay? I hope we can one day we can live in a post-scarcity society, but we don't live in that society.

As far as why I mentioned that I know some Dalton alumni, what I meant was that they are just people. None of them are uber wealthy, but some do have more money than others. Dalton today is very much like Dalton of a few decades ago, judging by what I've been told by former students. It was liberal, exclusive and heavily populated by kids from wealthy families then and is now. The amount of money is different but everything is more expensive today. And my take is that people are more crazy about making sure their little darlings have all the advantages today than they were before but maybe not.

Yeah, I know families that make tremendous sacrifices to send their kids to Dalton would be insanely wealthy by worldwide standards. So would I be and so would you be and neither of us would spend that kind of money on a private school even if we had it. Which neither of us do. Hell, when I lived in a 3 room house with my parents and two of my siblings, I was way better off than most of the world THEN. FWIW, I agree with you that is an insane amount of money to spend on preK-12 education. I like to think I'd be more inclined to give that tuition money to public schools or food shelves, or whatever. But I'm not that wealthy so maybe I wouldn't. Maybe spending that kind of money would seem to be perfectly normal and even necessary. I don't think so but that's not my life. I don't think that I get to decide how other people spend their money, so long as it's not on illegal things.

But you are proposing how employers have to spend their money. And you are proposing how people who reproduced ought be forced to take leave. You do not appear to have a problem dictating certain things to certain people.

No, I wasn't telling you that you should just fuck off because you're from someplace far away from Cornell. I am often bemused at the things you think worth posting about and more than a little irritated when multiple people try to explain that you aren't really understanding the situation but you are sure that you are because of some right wing rag, never mind that the article you link is in direct contradiction to what the actual policy or whatever it is you are criticizing about actually says. And you discount people who have actual first hand knowledge or expertise. I honestly don't think you have a very good understanding of the university system in the US or even of the Ivies. I think you would be shocked and in total disbelief if I told you that a degree from Harvard is just not that impressive to most Americans. It is to some, sure. But the Ivy league world is a pretty small world. A lot of extremely bright, extremely well qualified students never even consider applying to an Ivy because of cost or because it's too far away from home or because it's just not a world they are interested in. There are, after all, excellent universities that are not Harvard or Princeton or Cornell. AND depending on what you want to do with your life, a degree from Harvard might be totally inappropriate as well as very expensive.

I would be really interested to learn more about Australia and its educational system and how workplaces are organized, etc.

I think that society would be better off if people worked to live rather than lived to work. If people performed jobs for pay that paid enough and had flexible enough hours/expectations that people could enjoy their lives. Reduction in stress would have great implications in terms of health benefits, and productivity.

And I would love to live in a post-scarcity society with a UBI. But that's not the world we live in.

Why couldn't/shouldn't the government/society as a whole pay for parental/family leave? Society is the net beneficiary, after all.

If people's ability to put a roof over their heads and food on their table did not depend on generating an insane level of profit for companies, maybe we could live in a world with less scarcity? Right now, income inequality is insane. The amount of EXTRA profit Jeff Bezos has earned is unconscionable. Particularly given that the workers are not paid particularly well, in some facilities are really mistreated. He could afford to ante up to bring his entire workforce to a living wage, with good health insurance and benefits and not see a tiny dip in his bottom line. Same with any of the billionaires. But we continue to make laws that support the ability of a handful of people to make obscene amounts of money while allowing millions to not have a secure place to live, a secure source of nutritious food, good health care and education.

What seems to be scarce is common sense and a common sense of decency.

 

[Metaphor]

Why couldn't/shouldn't the government/society as a whole pay for parental/family leave? Society is the net beneficiary, after all.

But that's what I proposed: that if a society believes parents should take time off work after a child is born, then society should pay for it, not an employer. Not all employers are equally rich; small businesses, the largest class of employer, are especially not in any kind of position to pay for a year off for their employees.

If people's ability to put a roof over their heads and food on their table did not depend on generating an insane level of profit for companies, maybe we could live in a world with less scarcity?

We will live in a world of less scarcity when automation and AI makes goods and services less scarce.

Right now, income inequality is insane. The amount of EXTRA profit Jeff Bezos has earned is unconscionable. Particularly given that the workers are not paid particularly well, in some facilities are really mistreated. He could afford to ante up to bring his entire workforce to a living wage, with good health insurance and benefits and not see a tiny dip in his bottom line. Same with any of the billionaires. But we continue to make laws that support the ability of a handful of people to make obscene amounts of money while allowing millions to not have a secure place to live, a secure source of nutritious food, good health care and education.

What seems to be scarce is common sense and a common sense of decency.

This has little to do with the OP. But, even if Dalton or Amazon or Netflix can afford to give new parents a year off at full pay, most employers cannot afford it, and nor should they.

 

[Toni]

But that's what I proposed: that if a society believes parents should take time off work after a child is born, then society should pay for it, not an employer. Not all employers are equally rich; small businesses, the largest class of employer, are especially not in any kind of position to pay for a year off for their employees.



We will live in a world of less scarcity when automation and AI makes goods and services less scarce.

Right now, income inequality is insane. The amount of EXTRA profit Jeff Bezos has earned is unconscionable. Particularly given that the workers are not paid particularly well, in some facilities are really mistreated. He could afford to ante up to bring his entire workforce to a living wage, with good health insurance and benefits and not see a tiny dip in his bottom line. Same with any of the billionaires. But we continue to make laws that support the ability of a handful of people to make obscene amounts of money while allowing millions to not have a secure place to live, a secure source of nutritious food, good health care and education.

What seems to be scarce is common sense and a common sense of decency.

This has little to do with the OP. But, even if Dalton or Amazon or Netflix can afford to give new parents a year off at full pay, most employers cannot afford it, and nor should they.

So you and I are in agreement: paid leaves should be paid by the government. I think at full wages for lower earning people, and a portion for those who are more prosperous.

I don’t think we need to wait for more automation and AI to be kinder and more generous towards one another. European countries generally have shorter work weeks/hours now.

 

[Metaphor]

So you and I are in agreement: paid leaves should be paid by the government.

Not quite. I said that if a society thinks parents should have paid parental leave, then society should pay for it.

And I strongly disagree that either parent should be forced to take leave. That is profoundly anti-liberty.

And I strongly disagree that the government should force businesses to provide leave. It is unfair to small business and it is profoundly unfair to the older workers and childless workers, who will be forced to pick up the work slack, or get lower wages going forward, or both, because reproducers get a year off with full pay each time they reproduce. It's unconscionable.

I think at full wages for lower earning people, and a portion for those who are more prosperous.

I do not think it should scale. A fixed amount for a fixed length of time, not means-tested but not scaled with income.

The government should not be paying a man on $200k/year more welfare than a man on minimum wage.

I don’t think we need to wait for more automation and AI to be kinder and more generous towards one another. European countries generally have shorter work weeks/hours now.

There will be a cost. There is always a cost. American working conditions, at least with respect to annual leave, are not that great. Europeans and Australians get more. But, America has a higher GDP because people are working more.

Also, health care needs to be decoupled from working. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009, but Obama failed to create a single payer healthcare system, because single payer wasn't even an option on the table. So while America moistens its panties over how many highly privileged women of colour Biden appoints, ordinary Americans in their 70s refuse to leave work because they won't have adequate health care if they do.

 

[Toni]

Not quite. I said that if a society thinks parents should have paid parental leave, then society should pay for it.

And I strongly disagree that either parent should be forced to take leave. That is profoundly anti-liberty.

And I strongly disagree that the government should force businesses to provide leave. It is unfair to small business and it is profoundly unfair to the older workers and childless workers, who will be forced to pick up the work slack, or get lower wages going forward, or both, because reproducers get a year off with full pay each time they reproduce. It's unconscionable.



I do not think it should scale. A fixed amount for a fixed length of time, not means-tested but not scaled with income.

The government should not be paying a man on $200k/year more welfare than a man on minimum wage.

I don’t think we need to wait for more automation and AI to be kinder and more generous towards one another. European countries generally have shorter work weeks/hours now.

There will be a cost. There is always a cost. American working conditions, at least with respect to annual leave, are not that great. Europeans and Australians get more. But, America has a higher GDP because people are working more.

Also, health care needs to be decoupled from working. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009, but Obama failed to create a single payer healthcare system, because single payer wasn't even an option on the table. So while America moistens its panties over how many highly privileged women of colour Biden appoints, ordinary Americans in their 70s refuse to leave work because they won't have adequate health care if they do.

You sound very Republican.

Also, American workers are still working in their 70’s because they Relied too much on Social Security To find their retirement which it was never designed to do. Medicare kicks in at 65. You do have to pay more for Part B but if you are working you don’t need Part B if you Have insurance through employment.

Two years was not enough time to get enough people on board with single payer. I have an issue with single payer only because Medicare and Medicaid does not pay enough to cover the costs of care because congress would rather find ward and billionaires.

Society benefits from a healthy and well educated population, starting with prenatal care. All of us were children once and needed care then. Most of us will some day need care at the end of our lives. Why not recognize that and help families care for their loved ones? Good benefits build loyalty to the employer.

 

[Metaphor]

You sound very Republican.

Acknowledging reality is "Republican"?

Also, American workers are still working in their 70’s because they Relied too much on Social Security To find their retirement which it was never designed to do. Medicare kicks in at 65. You do have to pay more for Part B but if you are working you don’t need Part B if you Have insurance through employment.

Two years was not enough time to get enough people on board with single payer. I have an issue with single payer only because Medicare and Medicaid does not pay enough to cover the costs of care because congress would rather find ward and billionaires.

Single payer does not cover costs in Australia either, but there are co-pays and private health insurance is not banned either.

If Americans had the political will for single payer it would happen. They don't have the will. Maybe one day they will have the will.

Society benefits from a healthy and well educated population, starting with prenatal care. All of us were children once and needed care then. Most of us will some day need care at the end of our lives. Why not recognize that and help families care for their loved ones? Good benefits build loyalty to the employer.

People do not have children for my benefit. They have them for their own benefit. People have not needed incentive to reproduce, ever. The 40 billion people who have ever lived might be testament to that.

And if society wants parents to have paid time off work, society will pay for it.

If employers want to benefit some employees (reproducers) over others, then that is up to the employer.

 

[Toni]

Acknowledging reality is "Republican"?



Single payer does not cover costs in Australia either, but there are co-pays and private health insurance is not banned either.

If Americans had the political will for single payer it would happen. They don't have the will. Maybe one day they will have the will.

Society benefits from a healthy and well educated population, starting with prenatal care. All of us were children once and needed care then. Most of us will some day need care at the end of our lives. Why not recognize that and help families care for their loved ones? Good benefits build loyalty to the employer.

People do not have children for my benefit. They have them for their own benefit. People have not needed incentive to reproduce, ever. The 40 billion people who have ever lived might be testament to that.

And if society wants parents to have paid time off work, society will pay for it.

If employers want to benefit some employees (reproducers) over others, then that is up to the employer.

Who do you think will take care of you when you are 95 and can't take care of yourself?

Other people's kids, that's who. I'm not just talking about if you need to be in a care home or have a care giver in your home. Who will be your doctor, your nurse? Someone else's kid.

Society functions for people of all ages when people of all ages are valued.

I understand the lack of political will on the part of the American people. My fear is politicians. For example, Congress just passed an omnibus bill that includes COVID relief funding: $600/adult if you make under a certain amount of money. Single payment. I forget how much we've pledged to Space Force but it's many times the amount allocated to help people who have lost their jobs and are about to be evicted. I think in my small town, for $600, you could pay one month's rent on an efficiency apartment. If you were lucky.

 

[Metaphor]

Who do you think will take care of you when you are 95 and can't take care of yourself?

If I should have the fortune to live that long, I expect it will be people, and the same kind of people who 'take care' of me now. No person is an island. I didn't build my own house, but I paid people to do it. I don't make my own food, but I pay people to do it.

Other people's kids, that's who. I'm not just talking about if you need to be in a care home or have a care giver in your home. Who will be your doctor, your nurse? Someone else's kid.

Sure, it'll be someone else's kids. Or maybe automation will be significantly more advanced. So what? Are you saying we've reached a stage in the West that there won't be enough people to take care of the elderly if we don't bribe people to reproduce now?

 

[Toni]

Who do you think will take care of you when you are 95 and can't take care of yourself?

If I should have the fortune to live that long, I expect it will be people, and the same kind of people who 'take care' of me now. No person is an island. I didn't build my own house, but I paid people to do it. I don't make my own food, but I pay people to do it.

Yes, no one is an island and we all rely on one another. Every child deserves the very best start in life that can be provided them for their own sake but society also relies on this as well.

Frankly it's cheaper.

Other people's kids, that's who. I'm not just talking about if you need to be in a care home or have a care giver in your home. Who will be your doctor, your nurse? Someone else's kid.

Sure, it'll be someone else's kids. Or maybe automation will be significantly more advanced. So what? Are you saying we've reached a stage in the West that there won't be enough people to take care of the elderly if we don't bribe people to reproduce now?

I'm saying that we want kind, caring people in society. It makes for a better, healthier, happier society at all stages of life. What we can do to reduce stress helps new parents, sure, but also has a huge affect on their offspring, including and even especially newborns. Also: new parents are often sleep deprived and stressed which is not necessarily a good thing on many job sites. We have a surplus of people who need work. Doesn't it make more sense to have more sane work hours/week? Employ more people? Give people a reasonable amount of time to recover from new parenthood, childbirth? Also deaths in the family, surgery/illness?

When my firstborn was about a year old, I remember looking back at that first year, and especially the first weeks after I returned to work when he was just a few weeks old and thinking: OMG, how on earth did I do that? How am I still standing? Note: I had an ideal pregnancy, I was young and very healthy. My husband was home with me a great deal after our son was born and did the child care two days a week after I went back to work. But I had a caesarean birth which meant I was also recovering from a major surgery in addition to pregnancy and new motherhood. Ours was an easy baby who slept through the night by the time I had to go back to work. It. Was. A. Lot. And we were relatively fortunate. Like I said, when young, healthy, intelligent, well educated, medically sophisticated women hope they have caesareans so they can have more time off with their new baby, something is terribly out of whack. (BTW, I had only the 6 weeks off. No longer maternity leave for me).

 

[ruby sparks]

I understand the lack of political will on the part of the American people. My fear is politicians.

I think it's a bit of both and that to an extent (not completely, obviously) Americans get the politicians and policies they deserve, and the politicians are, to quite an extent, a reflection of what we might call 'the will of the majority'. I say that with caveats about the nature of the so-called democracy that America is supposed to actually be, and isn't, because in the end, money trumps everything.

But, broadly speaking, a part of the national psychology of many Americans (and I would exclude you personally) leans strongly towards valuing helping oneself (and one's family or group) and not 'helping others less fortunate'. This self-reliance, individuality and determination, it is said, is what made and makes America great. And America is great, in some ways, and totally the opposite of great in others. So there is a price to pay for ''the American way".

I admit that as a European, the general cultural differences (and obviously I am only generalising and what I say won't apply to all Americans by any means) do strike me as noticeably odd, when I encounter them, because it's as if many people think the price is one worth paying. And maybe it is, for them. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe everyone, including them, would be better off with something slightly different. I can't help feeling that half the country has been somewhat ideologically hoodwinked though. The mostly unwarranted, shrill cries of 'marxism' and 'communism' at the merest mention of something that could even vaguely be called a 'Social Policy' tell me this fairly clearly I think, and I've been hearing those shrill cries, mostly from America, my whole life, and imo they are often bogus.

Much the same situation applies here, of course, it's just that it's more pronounced in the USA.

And I'm aware that those I meet here at this forum are probably not typical Americans in many ways, and I would exclude many of them from what I just said, including you.

But do American members here 'get' how weirdly imbalanced America seems from afar, to many Europeans for instance, in the ways I describe?

 

[Toni]

I understand the lack of political will on the part of the American people. My fear is politicians.

I think it's a bit of both and that to an extent (not completely, obviously) Americans get the politicians and policies they deserve, and the politicians are, to quite an extent, a reflection of what we might call 'the will of the majority'. I say that with caveats about the nature of the so-called democracy that America is supposed to actually be, and isn't, because in the end, money trumps everything.

But, broadly speaking, a part of the national psychology of many Americans (and I would exclude you personally) leans strongly towards valuing helping oneself (and one's family or group) and not 'helping others less fortunate'. This self-reliance, individuality and determination, it is said, is what made and makes America great. And America is great, in some ways, and totally the opposite of great in others. So there is a price to pay for ''the American way".

I admit that as a European, the general cultural differences (and obviously I am only generalising and what I say won't apply to all Americans by any means) do strike me as noticeably odd, when I encounter them, because it's as if many people think the price is one worth paying. And maybe it is, for them. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe everyone, including them, would be better off with something slightly different. I can't help feeling that half the country has been somewhat ideologically hoodwinked though. The mostly unwarranted, shrill cries of 'marxism' and 'communism' at the merest mention of something that could even vaguely be called a 'Social Policy' tell me this fairly clearly I think, and I've been hearing those shrill cries, mostly from America, my whole life, and imo they are often bogus.

Much the same situation applies here, of course, it's just that it's more pronounced in the USA.

And I'm aware that those I meet here at this forum are probably not typical Americans in many ways, and I would exclude many of them from what I just said, including you.

But do American members here 'get' how weirdly imbalanced America seems from afar, to many Europeans for instance, in the ways I describe?

Re: the bolded part. That part is absolutely true. We Americans tend to (believe that we) identify strongly with our pioneer ancestors and value self reliance. Less true with regards to not helping others. We've always done that but we also tend to distrust helping others that we either don't recognize as needing help or when it's someone we simply don't recognize. Self reliance, determination, individuality: yes, strong characteristics.

But so is this: In my town, there is a Facebook group for neighbors helping neighbors. If people in the town or surrounding area have a need, they will simply ask for help. Often it is help connecting to appropriate services, and fairly often it is needing a ride somewhere or a recommendation for who's a good carpenter, etc. And often, it's for a need for the services of a carpenter, etc. free of charge. Likewise, people who have extra...whatever, will simply post that they have this or that for free. They're moving house or their kids are grown or whatever. The thing is, with all of those requests for help? Within minutes, if not seconds, there is ALWAYS someone and usually a bunch of someones who step up and offer to drive you 30 miles one way to your doctor's appointment or to help you get your ornery cat to the vet or to fix your lawnmower or whatever. Money is not exchanged. People just help.

There is also a Goodwill store in town, and a Salvation Army, Catholic Services and Volunteer Services for greatly reduced high quality clothing and household items. We have a ReStore that supports Habitat for Humanity. A LOT of service organizations. And a lot of need, as well.


A LOT of people in town have been making masks. Some do it as a small business but a lot of people donate masks to whoever needs them. One very kind soul will make a batch of say, 100 masks (all cotton, 3 layers) with a holiday or seasonal theme and announce they have put them on their fence for anybody who wants to stop by and grab one. As far as I've been able to tell, people do just grab...one. Not a dozen. One. And say thanks.

We dig each other out of snow drifts, stop and help fellow travelers who are stranded, buy each other coffee at the corner shop or pay for the car behind us at a drive through window. If someone is so unfortunate as to have a house fire, Red Cross plus a bunch of people are there to offer beds, blankets, clothes, replacement items and cash to help you until you have a safe place of your own again. If I needed to borrow a cup of sugar or a tool or even an extra set of hands, I could go to any of my neighbors. They will take in my packages, help me look for my dog!, wander over if it looks like someone might need help with something. We might crab at how noisy and inconsiderate too many of the local college students are but we also push them out of snow drifts and help jump start their cars when they need it, too.

We give more in aid to other countries than anywhere else in the world (I believe. I could be wrong about that).

But some of us tend to believe that we got where we got entirely on our own merit and hard work and not because unknown and mostly unseen strangers helped us by paying taxes, etc. A lot of us distrust the government and resent taxes. The past 4 or 5 years have seen tremendous divisiveness in our country that is hard to look at.

 

[Rhea]

So, what was the point of telling me you knew Dalton alumni? The only point I could think of was that you were indirectly telling me to shut the fuck up, because it wasn't my place to comment on the policy of places I've never been to. The same thing happened in the Cornell thread.

To be accurate, you were not told to shut up, you were told to listen carefully to the answer given by people familiar with the area instead of fabricating your own answer based on how people elsewhere believe.

But if when you were told, “no, listen, here’s what it is like there,” and instead of hearing what’s true on the ground, you heard, “shut up” then leading you to the knowledge did not help you acquire it, and that is a choice you made.

So in this case, you can gain info from the discussion, OR you can use the thread to just keep stating your opinion and gain nothing from the act of participating except a repitition of you initial view for your own ears.

Others may find themselves learning from the thread.

 

[Rhea]

Also, health care needs to be decoupled from working. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009,

They did not. This is misinformation that you have accepted.


They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

 

[Metaphor]

Also, health care needs to be decoupled from working. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009,

They did not. This is misinformation that you have accepted.

Excuse me, but they did. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

I have not 'accepted misinformation'. I looked up the composition of each chamber.

They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

I did not say Democrats had a 'filibuster proof' Senate. I did not say Obama had "total control", which is a phrase you've used. In any case, this only strengthens my point.

Obama passed 'Obamacare' during the four-month 'total control' window. Why was...whatever the fuck compromise Obamacare is... cooked up and passed instead of actual universal health care? If Democrats wanted universal health care that was the window to do it. American politicians don't have the political will because the American people don't.

 

[Toni]

Excuse me, but they did. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

I have not 'accepted misinformation'. I looked up the composition of each chamber.

They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

I did not say Democrats had a 'filibuster proof' Senate. I did not say Obama had "total control", which is a phrase you've used. In any case, this only strengthens my point.

Obama passed 'Obamacare' during the four-month 'total control' window. Why was...whatever the fuck compromise Obamacare is... cooked up and passed instead of actual universal health care? If Democrats wanted universal health care that was the window to do it. American politicians don't have the political will because the American people don't.

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

If your point is that Americans are dvided re: single payer, you’re right. We are. Even a leftist like me has reservations—because of right wingers who would simply fuck it up and fuck over the medical community and the taxpayers so long as they could maintain their concierge medical care ( rich folks) or be duped that it’s the doctors fault fir not working for free or for $15/hr.

 

[laughing dog]

Excuse me, but they did. Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

I have not 'accepted misinformation'. I looked up the composition of each chamber.

They had “total control” for FOUR MONTHS. That is all.

Here is the explanation.
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

I did not say Democrats had a 'filibuster proof' Senate. I did not say Obama had "total control", which is a phrase you've used. In any case, this only strengthens my point.

Obama passed 'Obamacare' during the four-month 'total control' window. Why was...whatever the fuck compromise Obamacare is... cooked up and passed instead of actual universal health care? If Democrats wanted universal health care that was the window to do it. American politicians don't have the political will because the American people don't.

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

If your point is that Americans are dvided re: single payer, you’re right. We are. Even a leftist like me has reservations—because of right wingers who would simply fuck it up and fuck over the medical community and the taxpayers so long as they could maintain their concierge medical care ( rich folks) or be duped that it’s the doctors fault fir not working for free or for $15/hr.

4 months is not sufficient time to get devise and pass a comprehensive overhaul of something as complicated and large as health care even with overwhelming support. With the entrenched private special interests opposing this, along with the difficulty of getting anything through the US senate without a 60 vote bloc of votes is even more difficult - and that assumes that "Democrat" denotes a hive mind.

All in all, the idea that universal health care could have been implemented within that 4 month window is monumentally naive or ignorant.

 

[Metaphor]

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

Rhea accused me of being 'misinformed' even though I did not say anything that was factually incorrect.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

I did not say anything factually incorrect yet you're doubling down.

My point was there is no political will for single payer healthcare, that's all. Indeed, if there was the political will, it wouldn't matter if the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate for four months or four years. It'd be passed.

 

[Metaphor]

You have an pleasant habit of contradicting people who have information and knowledge and understanding that you do not. Rhea’s link nicely outlined the fallacy that Obama had all this time when his party was in control.

The US and Australia do not have the same political system. Each has subtleties that require more than cursory reading to understand. No one faults you for not being conversant in American politics. Far too many Americans don’t have a good understanding of the overreaching principles much less the subtleties. But Rhea and others On this forum certainly have the background and the links to back up what they post.

You are very much at risk of being that person who does not work sh to be confused by facts because your mind is already made up

If your point is that Americans are dvided re: single payer, you’re right. We are. Even a leftist like me has reservations—because of right wingers who would simply fuck it up and fuck over the medical community and the taxpayers so long as they could maintain their concierge medical care ( rich folks) or be duped that it’s the doctors fault fir not working for free or for $15/hr.

4 months is not sufficient time to get devise and pass a comprehensive overhaul of something as complicated and large as health care even with overwhelming support. With the entrenched private special interests opposing this, along with the difficulty of getting anything through the US senate without a 60 vote bloc of votes is even more difficult - and that assumes that "Democrat" denotes a hive mind.

All in all, the idea that universal health care could have been implemented within that 4 month window is monumentally naive or ignorant.

It certainly couldn't have since it wasn't even on the table.