Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Sadly they will.

The Republican party is split sadly.

This a repeat of the 1914 Elections.

I have read history and sadly the comment of history likes to repeat itself is quite ripe. While the media is focusing on the republicans. The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.

Basically. If we have romney that is.

Melissia wrote:So stating provable facts is now "scare tactics"? What nonsense.

This verges on scare tactics in the sense that it is meant as cautionary with respect to Romney's take on Obama's policies, but given that understanding of "scare tactics" basically all political campaigning is some variation of it.

More obvious forms of scare tactics tend to manifest themselves in the way the whole "death panels" thing did.

The death panels will be held on swiftboats.

Asherian Command wrote:The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.

We'll see. Nationally its a dead heat, in many ways this is likely to look like the 2004 election.

Asherian Command wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women, even though the only things in the story that would solely affect women are fair pay and birth control (even though that sort of helps men as well).

The only issues are whether or not the programs work and do their benefits outweigh the costs, should employers be required to supply birth control, and who is paying for all of this?

There are some people who are extremely anti government and live in constant fear of it growing, but the government is a necessity and as the economy grows so will the government.

Sadly they will.

The Republican party is split sadly.

This a repeat of the 1914 Elections.

I have read history and sadly the comment of history likes to repeat itself is quite ripe. While the media is focusing on the republicans. The Democratic party is taking all the electoral votes. Those matter more than a popular vote count.

Oh, people will certainly stick their heads in the sand and ignore reality. That's what happens when people vote based on their gut feelings and party lines.

Asherian Command wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok, Lets not supply birth control, and have more people with kids that are a drain on society.

Basically. If we have romney that is.

I thought that was the other guy, who attacked Romney for not supporting a bill to let bible beaters ban contraception.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:Oh great, more "Obama's a communist" nonsense.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, women are not a minority in the US. It's pretty stupid to ignore their interests.

As far as population goes, but politically speaking, yeah, we're still a minority.

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

And none of that is the fault of crazy right wing mormon and christian men who think women should do whatever their husbands tell them to do instead of thinking for themselves?

If a woman was raised in a family like what you describe and didn't get to go to college and experience any other way of life then how is she meant to have been able to get the confidence or experience to make her own decisions?

Could someone explain what the Headstart program encompasses. Is it stuff like reading, basic literacy and numeracy, stuff like that?

When did I even imply that?

Amaya wrote:When did I even imply that?

Probably because you have extreme right wing Mormon and Christian woman who are convinced that they should do whatever their husband tells them to do instead of thinking for themselves.

Your language suggests blame on one sex, as opposed to the influence of both. It is often a dominating male figure (be it a father, husband, minister etc.) who installs these views into women.

A better way to put it would be to say "You have extreme right wing mormon and christian people who are convinced that women should do whatever their husband tells them to do."

There are women who have the option to escape such a life, but refuse to do so, and women who are essentially imprisoned by males and forced into a life of servitude.

You can put blame on both genders.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Not sure if serious...

I'm referring specifically to the benefits in Life of Julia btw.

Amaya wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone, in this case particularly women

Yes I can. And I have! Wha'cha gonna do about it? One can argue that it isn' worth the cost, but the benefits are there to be seen whether you live in denial of them or not.

Not sure if serious...

I'm referring specifically to the benefits in Life of Julia btw.

I was quite serious, and I was also referring to the things which the Life of Julia page mentioned.

I don't know why this is so surprising that government programs which reach out to the disadvantaged also reach out to the disadvantaged.

I'm saying that Obama's programs are aimed at creating benefits for everyone, so arguing otherwise is pointless, even though many people do so.

Whether or not they are cost effective is an entirely other issue and the biggest issue I have with them.

Amaya wrote:

Really, I should rely on a single individual's experiences to justify Head Start? Are you serious?

No, I suggested that actual anecdotal evidence from a parent posting in this thread was a lot more real than a cold stat you grabbed somewhere being manipulated to produce a result you wanted to portray.
Guess what, I asked 100 students if they were in favor of the brutal and ineffective method of hunting foxes with hounds and 99 said no, I then asked 100 students if they were in favor of pest control and 70 said yes. Any stat can be produced to support any point of view, given enough spin and prejudice and you've got both in swathes, as your amusing pictures on page one of this thread have adequately qualified.

Amaya wrote:

You are such a great intellectual giant. I am utterly in awe of your flawless argument and superior intellect.

First sensible thing you've come up with.
Well, keep at it young man, despite your considerably shorter time on the planet and limited life experience as a student, I'm sure adult and mature discourse is drawing every closer to your grasp! (see, I can do patronising sarcasm as well, also, I've had many more years to do it and I'm British... we bleed vitriol and piss pure wit )

Amaya wrote:
Of course there are people who will refuse to believe anything, no matter how great the factual support for it. The funny thing is, Head Start doesn't have that. There are no proven lasting benefits and any gains from it are described as moderate to begin with and are minimized by 2nd or 3rd grade. Hell, according to the study it showed reduced math skills in children who had gone through Head Start. At best the program offers minimal gains, at worst it offers temporary benefits that are not improved upon because of America's poor public school system.

So... We could also work to improve the public school system as well... ? Just a wild mad idea, but actively trying to improve the educational chances and futures of children should:
A) be a work in progress and subject to constant revision and improvement.
B) be widened to incorporate the public school system over years.
C) be considered a very noble cause that we, as citizens of a morally judeo-christian society that espouses aiding and supporting others, would support the goals of.
D) be remembered that in every critical statement found, it did not bother to mention that those children then slipped back behind their peers, that there had been a leveling out, not a drop back below the averages.

A) It's been going on for 40 years with no great results.
B) If it isn't producing results, then it should be cut.
C) Not touching this one.
D) The point being not they slipped back below their peers, but that if the peers caught up, perhaps attempting to educate children at a younger age is perhaps, pointless?

I would argue that instead of putting effort into getting 3-4 year olds ready for school, we (Americans) should focus on bettering K-12. So instead of cutting it and moving the funding out of education, cut it and keep the funding in educational programs that are proven to work. However, IIRC, the funding for it is relatively small. I believe it was roughly 22,000 per child with roughly 900,000 to 1 million involved in the program.

Amaya wrote:A) It's been going on for 40 years with no great results.
B) If it isn't producing results, then it should be cut.

Why has it not been cut by successive Republican administrations?

Probably for fear of backlash. Who wants to be the guy (or gal) that cuts off funding for the education of the poor? Even if it isn't effective, the media poostorm would be enormous.

Well yes, of course there's a fear of backlash against removing successful programs to help children.

Melissia wrote:Well yes, of course there's a fear of backlash against removing successful programs to help children.

The problem with it is that it isn't successful. Whatever benefits it provides are short term and of no consequence by the time children are in middle school or American schools are so bad that any potential benefits from the program are prevented from occurring.

Read the study. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/impact_study/executive_summary_final.pdf

Amaya wrote:Whatever benefits it provides are short term and of no consequence by the time children are in middle school or American schools are so bad that any potential benefits from the program are prevented from occurring.

But it isn't the only source. Yes, that's a fun way to manipulate statistics, but I point out the conclusions here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1131110?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698972773987
Relevant quote:

The diminution of effects over time, especially for low-ability children, may reflect differences in quality of subsequent schooling or home environment.

Head Start provides benefits, but the rest of education must build on them.

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone

We can't? I'm sorry, but the fact is, they won't.

Obamanomics is a proven failure, and it's making the country worse off. Sure, as the country gets worse some groups might do better than others in the short term through redistribution, but as the wealth of the nation disappears it's going to hurt everyone.

You really can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone. Because they won't.

edit: I realize you may have been making that point, if so, you're right.

Other studies show the same thing.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1164270?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698972773987


And a 2005 study shows:

[...]recent
meta-analyses of longitudinal studies (Gorey,
2001; Nelson et al., 2003) suggest that effects
persist over time although there may be some
diminution of effects over the long term.
These findings are consistent with the work
done by Barnett, Young, and Schweinhart
(1998), who used causal modeling to show
that long-term effects of early childhood
education are built upon short-term effects.
[...].
Few studies have measured impacts on high
school graduation, but those with the largest
samples reported statistically significant posi-
tive impacts (Barnett, 1998).
[...]
Yet, it seems highly plausible that programs
such as Head Start lack the type of fund-
ing necessary to produce the levels of in-
tensity and quality achieved in better funded
model programs with the direct result that
they are less effective. Several studies provide
direct evidence in support of this argument
(Barnett, 1998).
[...]
Findings from the Abecedarian Project
show that the program produced large ini-
tial effects that persisted long after the inter-
vention ended (Campbell et al., 2001, 2002;
Campbell & Ramey, 1994, 1995). At the age
21 follow-up, Campbell et al. (2002) found
that program effects were strongest for young
adults who had taken part in the (5-year)
preschool phase of the intervention.

biccat wrote:Obamanomics is a proven failure

"Obamanomics" is something that exists only in your head.

biccat wrote:

Amaya wrote:You can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone

We can't? I'm sorry, but the fact is, they won't.

Obamanomics is a proven failure, and it's making the country worse off. Sure, as the country gets worse some groups might do better than others in the short term through redistribution, but as the wealth of the nation disappears it's going to hurt everyone.

You really can't argue that Obama's policies will provide greater benefits for everyone. Because they won't.

edit: I realize you may have been making that point, if so, you're right.

Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

Here in the UK our government is going with the Khorne method (Slash/Maim/Burn) and do you know what has happened? Our economy has gone back into recession, instead of building upon the small growth that was happening whilst government spending was higher.

The economy has to get money from somewhere. In a recession the private sector cuts back to survive. If the government also cuts back then the economy collapses. No money moving around means no trading and no hope of growth.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

The economy started to rebound shortly after the initial drop of the stock market. It wasn't until the "Keynesian" stimulus that the Great Depression actually hit.

Obama is doing the same thing which brought your country out of the Great Depression, increasing public spending to counter less spending by the private sector. Back then people said that cuts were needed. When the government brought in cuts the economy spiralled downwards again. So history supports his method, not the republican one.

Shh, you'll upset the republicans if you try to say we should learn from history.

People operate under the belief that the government had anything to do with ending the Great Depression?

People operate under the delusion that it didn't?

Amaya wrote:People operate under the belief that the government had anything to do with ending the Great Depression?

Well, considering the fact that what finally ended the Great Depression was World War 2 and you wouldn't have gone to a Total War economy without your government declaring war on Japan, Germany and Italy I'd say it had quite a lot to do with ending the Great Depression.

Well thanks to World War 2, we'll never know. Some theorists argue that the government prolonged it, others argue that alleviated the worst of the suffering, and some even claim that government intervention would have ended it eventually.

After the war Congress rejected Truman's proposal to enact FDR's postwar policies. Income tax rates and corporate taxes were reduced. The 'excess profits' tax was repealed. Postwar federal revenue was greater than revenue during the war, but this can be attributed to having millions of potential private sector employees in the military.