The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Cincinnatus on October 10, 2013, 12:01:05 am
-
More problems. 88finger point
The president’s much touted health care plan continues to be plagued by embarrassing technical glitches, despite three years of preparation, the latest being where they are now resetting individual passwords.
In the days and weeks prior to the healthcare exchange going live on Oct. 1, president Obama consistently and adamantly insisted that the website would be ready to go and be up and running by the deadline. Critics across the industry attempted to sound the warning that despite the president’s proclamations, the websites were not ready to go and should not go live; however the president brushed aside their concerns.
Since that day, the website has become a nightmare for the administration as well as those attempting to use it. Individual attempting to log on frequently complain about it taking hours to merely create an account. The administration attempted to downplay these reports by saying it was due to the fault of the American people by too many people trying to log on at once.
However, critics pointed out that the administration had three years to get the system up and running and nearly unlimited taxpayer dollars to get it right. Over the weekend, officials said if the traffic to the site were reduced the system works just fine. In an attempt to resolve these issues the government brought the site down over the weekend, however it appears their fixes only made this problem worse.
It is now being reported that registrants are having to contact phone support after learning that all user passwords are being reset as part of a process to help resolve login issues with the site. Additionally, tech support is apparently telling some registrants they will have to completely reregister under a new username because their previously chosen names are stuck in a type of authentication limbo.
If the website problems persist, which all indications suggest that they will, into the near future it could prove extremely problematic for the Obama administration. While much has been focused on the public relations aspect of the failure of the site to meet expectations set by the president himself, there are real world practical considerations vital to the future of the law itself to be considered.
[emphasis added with great glee]
http://usfinancepost.com/obamacare-website-resets-all-passwords-8223.html
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
err....like Lady Gaga said: "It was BORN THAT WAY"
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
A lot of big businesses would simply not accept the poor quality which is now routinely accepted and defended by this government.
This administration is amateur.
Where is the transparency? Remarks from systems people, to the user-public?
-
err....like Lady Gaga said: "It was BORN THAT WAY"
I'm not familiar with much of what Lady Gaga says.
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
System load is the least of the problems with a $600 million site. http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/
They've already said that hardware has been added to handle the load but it hasn't helped.
I work in the website business. I know a guy who has a single ecommerce server that handles 1 million requests per day, and he's what's considered small-time.
Network bandwidth and web server capacity are the easiest things to augment if a site is designed properly. This site is not designed properly.
Wanna know what's worse than the current debacle? When a website is built, security is almost always an afterthought, compared to the attention paid to getting the site features working. If the site sucks this bad, I can only imagine how bad the security is.
-
Some have already found out how bad the security is... and in addition to the poor security how about all the additional data they are gathering in these signups to send over to the IRS and heaven knows who else.
-
System load is the least of the problems with a $600 million site. http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/
They've already said that hardware has been added to handle the load but it hasn't helped.
I work in the website business. I know a guy who has a single ecommerce server that handles 1 million requests per day, and he's what's considered small-time.
Network bandwidth and web server capacity are the easiest things to augment if a site is designed properly. This site is not designed properly.
Wanna know what's worse than the current debacle? When a website is built, security is almost always an afterthought, compared to the attention paid to getting the site features working. If the site sucks this bad, I can only imagine how bad the security is.
I want to know how it costs over half a billion dollars to design a website.
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
Uh huh, L_S, only thing is they had THREE years to get it right, spent $630 MILLION to get it wrong ( http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115869.0.html ), and have received strong criticism by experts on how poorly the site is structured ( http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115581.msg465715.html#msg465715 ).
So I'm afraid the talking points of too many people trying to log on at once and the bugs to be expected 'cause it's new is not going to fly.
Accept it for what it is: a major blunder due to poor planning.
-
The website will probably have quite a few technical issues in the time to come. Lots of people trying to use the service all at once is going to bog the website down a lot.
Uh huh, L_S, only thing is they had THREE years to get it right, spent $630 MILLION to get it wrong ( http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115869.0.html ), and have received strong criticism by experts on how poorly the site is structured ( http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115581.msg465715.html#msg465715 ).
So I'm afraid the talking points of too many people trying to log on at once and the bugs to be expected 'cause it's new is not going to fly.
Accept it for what it is: a major blunder due to poor planning.
I think the amount of money spent on that website is obscene. The planning for this was definitely not what it should have been, especially considering the money spent. For that much money you should have been able to hire a team of the best designers on the planet to create a website so beautiful it brings a tear to your eye.
-
I want to know how it costs over half a billion dollars to design a website.
Agreed. You can get mid- to senior-level developers for $100k in most cities outside of California. For $200 million a year, the services of 2000 quality software developers could have been purchased for the last 3 years. It's not as simple as this, of course. A baby can't be born in 1 month if 9 women are assigned to the task, for example. :-) However, there's no reason this thing should have cost so much.
-
No offense lib, but liberals love to waste tax payer money - especially if they get a lot of it back in kickbacks. Look at what Colorado just 1.5M for .. anyone on this site could have done better than this for almost nothing!
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/01/check-out-colorados-new-1-5m-clip-art-logo/
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/20130829_120838_New-Colorado-Logo1-e1378082812866.jpg)
-
For that much money you should have been able to hire a team of the best designers on the planet to create a website so beautiful it brings a tear to your eye.
To be sure, L_S, but the hitch here is that this was a government project so therefore it will cost too much and probably won't do what it is supposed to do.
That is true of almost governmental endeavors and is one of the things that separates Conservatives (like me) from Liberals (like you). Liberals, at least theoretically, prefer government solutions and control, even though historically it can be seen the private sector almost always does a better job at lower cost. This is but one instance.
-
For that much money you should have been able to hire a team of the best designers on the planet to create a website so beautiful it brings a tear to your eye.
To be sure, L_S, but the hitch here is that this was a government project so therefore it will cost too much and probably won't do what it is supposed to do.
That is true of almost governmental endeavors and is one of the things that separates Conservatives (like me) from Liberals (like you). Liberals, at least theoretically, prefer government solutions and control, even though historically it can be seen the private sector almost always does a better job at lower cost. This is but one instance.
Where I differ from a lot of liberals is I actually do support the shrinking of the government and being frugal with money wherever it is beneficial to do so. I am pro guns and am completely against any movement towards restricting our access to them. Where I differ from Republicans is I do not support cutting government where it involves helping people. When minimum wage is so low that a parent working full time can't support their kids, that's a problem, and I support that person getting food stamps so their family can survive. I feel a better solution would to get our economy out of the trash can so so many Americans don't NEED all that government assistance just to get by, but that seems to be a less and less tangible dream.
-
Where I differ from a lot of liberals is I actually do support the shrinking of the government where ever I feel it is beneficial to do so. I am pro guns and am completely against any movement towards restricting our access to them. Where I differ from Republicans is I do not support cutting government where it involves helping people. When minimum wage is so low that a parent working full time can't support their kids, that's a problem, and I support that person getting food stamps so their family can survive. I feel a better solution would to get our economy out of the trash can so so many Americans don't NEED all that government assistance just to get by, but that seems to be a less and less tangible dream.
I have to ask - what makes you think you ARE a liberal?
-
I have to ask - what makes you think you ARE a liberal?
I don't think people should have to pay unreasonable amounts of money to stay healthy. I don't think a young person should have to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt just for seeking education. I don't think we need to spend more money on military than the rest of the world combined.
-
I don't think people should have to pay unreasonable amounts of money to stay healthy. I don't think a young person should have to go tens of thousands of dollars into debt just for seeking education. I don't think we need to spend more money on military than the rest of the world combined.
Why should I be required to pay healthcare for you or your family? Especially those who smoke, drink, do drugs, live on junk food and more?
I paid for my own college education, why should I be required to pay for your college education, after all I helped pay for K-12 and I have no children.
-
and.. BTW most doctors will discount your visits if you pay cash. Before Obama screwed up the HC system a young person could purchase a major medical policy at a relatively low rate and then pay cash for visits... better yet as Dr. Carson has recommended - have Health Savings Accounts. And, the POOR in this country have always received FREE healthcare - it is called MEDICAID - and a hospital never turns anyone away,
Another thing one reason the cost of healthcare has gone through the roof - especially in the border states - is illegal immigrants coming here and overwhelming the system with visits and not paying the bill, those costs are then passed on to those who DO have insurance.
-
Why should I be required to pay healthcare for you or your family? Especially those who smoke, drink, do drugs, live on junk food and more?
I paid for my own college education, why should I be required to pay for your college education, after all I helped pay for K-12 and I have no children.
None of those uninsured people can pay for their medical bills anyway is the way I see it. They go to the ER last minute, once it is so painful that they can't put it off anymore, get charged tens of thousands of dollars for a procedure that would have been way easier to manage if they'd had insurance to take care of it before it got bad, and then never pay it, ever. The government is already picking up the tab on that. That's not even the main problem though. The main problem is the actual cost of the healthcare. Did you know there are vials of antivenom that can cost in excess of a million dollars? Just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting bit by a snake. Pretty much all of the price tags on anything medicine related are OUTRAGEOUS, and the same is true for the colleges. 50-60 years ago people were able to afford to pay their loans out of pocket. People don't make enough money to keep up with how much all of this costs.
-
Obamacare Website: BORN THAT WAY
(excerpt from Ace of Spades HQ)
First, let's talk about how awful this thing is built.
Five outside technology experts interviewed by Reuters, however, say they believe flaws in system architecture, not traffic alone, contributed to the problems.
...
One possible cause of the problems is that hitting "apply" on HealthCare.gov causes 92 separate files, plug-ins and other mammoth swarms of data to stream between the user's computer and the servers powering the government website, said Matthew Hancock, an independent expert in website design. He was able to track the files being requested through a feature in the Firefox browser.
Of the 92 he found, 56 were JavaScript files, including plug-ins that make it easier for code to work on multiple browsers (such as Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer and Google Inc's Chrome) and let users upload files to HealthCare.gov.
It is not clear why the upload function was included.
"They set up the website in such a way that too many requests to the server arrived at the same time," Hancock said.
In case you missed it, @johnekdahl noted last night that the administration has reset everyone's passwords in an effort to... I don't even know what. It's a drastic step, though.
Well, I suppose that's one way to try fix this. Generally speaking, the "your username got eaten by the computer machine or lost in the interwebs tubes so choose a different one, and no, we don't know what happened to the original" isn't a best practice solution. If I were a cynic, I might suggest they're just wingin' it at this point.
In other words, the software architecture was set up so as TO PERFORM A DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK ON ITSELF! So that it will NEVER work as promoted, no matter how many passwords are changed.
-
None of those uninsured people can pay for their medical bills anyway is the way I see it. They go to the ER last minute, once it is so painful that they can't put it off anymore, get charged tens of thousands of dollars for a procedure that would have been way easier to manage if they'd had insurance to take care of it before it got bad, and then never pay it, ever. The government is already picking up the tab on that. That's not even the main problem though. The main problem is the actual cost of the healthcare. Did you know their are vials of antivenom that can cost in excess of a million dollars? Just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting bit by a snake. Pretty much all of the price tags on anything medicine related are OUTRAGEOUS, and the same is true for the colleges. 50-60 years ago people were able to afford to pay their loans out of pocket. People don't make enough money to keep up with how much all of this costs.
You do realize that the hospitals are for PROFIT - they are not government run.
You do realize the more government gets involved the more costs increase - when you allow private industry to work and there is competition - prices go down.
Do you realize one of the reasons cost of insurance is so high is different states hang a lot of requirements on insurance companies like a Christmas tree... and someone has to pay for those goodies - you know like free contraceptives.
You do realize that unlike auto insurance health insurance companies are prevented from selling policies across state lines - because of the above mentioned requirements from the states.........
You do realize one of the reasons things like the vaccines are an issue today can be traced back directly to Hillarycare - most of the vaccine manufacturing ended up offshore...
You do realize it costs MILLIONS to develop new drugs and those pharmaceuticals have to make back those costs - which is one reason there is a limit of the time someone can produce a drug in a generic form?
-
But you still didn't answer why I should be required to pay for your healthcare? If a person wants to have a family then they need to stop and think... :pondering: :pondering: :pondering: diapers - check! food - check! insurance - check! money for college - check!
-
You do realize that the hospitals are for PROFIT - they are not government run.
You do realize the more government gets involved the more costs increase - when you allow private industry to work and there is competition - prices go down.
Do you realize one of the reasons cost of insurance is so high is different states hang a lot of requirements on insurance companies like a Christmas tree... and someone has to pay for those goodies - you know like free contraceptives.
You do realize that unlike auto insurance health insurance companies are prevented from selling policies across state lines - because of the above mentioned requirements from the states.........
You do realize one of the reasons things like the vaccines are an issue today can be traced back directly to Hillarycare - most of the vaccine manufacturing ended up offshore...
You do realize it costs MILLIONS to develop new drugs and those pharmaceuticals have to make back those costs - which is one reason there is a limit of the time someone can produce a drug in a generic form?
Well, we all know where this conversation goes from here. You and I have the realization that we are two different people that see the world in dramatically different ways. I could continue this conversation to its conclusion if you want, but I feel it will just lead to people getting annoyed with me and pushing the admin to ban me from the forums. That's not really what I'm here to do. You asked what makes me a liberal and I told you.
-
Unfortunately there isn't much you can add since like most liberals you don't believe in personal responsibility and think the government is the solution while most conservatives believe the exact opposite.
-
Unfortunately there isn't much you can add since like most liberals you don't believe in personal responsibility and think the government is the solution while most conservatives believe the exact opposite.
I respect that you feel that way. :)
-
Unfortunately there isn't much you can add since like most liberals you don't believe in personal responsibility and think the government is the solution while most conservatives believe the exact opposite.
Oh, yikes! The liberal spy guy is spouting about government health care??
Heaven help us all!
(Bet he doesn't have a clue as to what's in this HIDEOUS bill! Liberals NEVER do!)
-
oops. remove that.
-
(Bet he doesn't have a clue as to what's in this HIDEOUS bill! Liberals NEVER do!)
Unfortunately their solution to too much government - is MORE government.
-
Oh, yikes! The liberal spy guy is spouting about government health care??
Heaven help us all!
(Bet he doesn't have a clue as to what's in this HIDEOUS bill! Liberals NEVER do!)
You shouldn't assume things about me just based on your preconceived notions about liberals. I haven't said anything about being for or against the ACA, but I'd love to hear your input on why it is terrible.
-
groan....
-
None of those uninsured people can pay for their medical bills anyway is the way I see it. They go to the ER last minute, once it is so painful that they can't put it off anymore, get charged tens of thousands of dollars for a procedure that would have been way easier to manage if they'd had insurance to take care of it before it got bad, and then never pay it, ever. The government is already picking up the tab on that. That's not even the main problem though. The main problem is the actual cost of the healthcare. Did you know there are vials of antivenom that can cost in excess of a million dollars? Just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and getting bit by a snake. Pretty much all of the price tags on anything medicine related are OUTRAGEOUS, and the same is true for the colleges. 50-60 years ago people were able to afford to pay their loans out of pocket. People don't make enough money to keep up with how much all of this costs.
Sorry for the long post. Hopefully someone will find it beneficial.
There are a number of reasons why the government shouldn't be involved in health care or insurance, except to take action against force or fraud committed between consumers and providers. The founding fathers codified the structure of the federal government via the Constitution, which sets the limits of said government. It does not grant rights to the people. The people, using their natural rights, created a federal government, not the other way around. The natural rights of the people predate all governments in all of their forms.
What is the primary difference between private organizations/businesses and the government? Government has the right to use force to accomplish its proper aims. The federal government has the right, delegated by the citizens (a collection of individuals), to use force to defend this collection of individuals. I, as a citizen, have delegated to the federal government the use of my right to self defense in order to form an army to protect me against those I can't effectively defend myself against. Good government is based on the natural rights of the individual, not on majority rule. Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Or, if you prefer a real-world example of majority rule: it's is when the majority decides who has to be the slaves. In our earlier history, the people with lighter skin decided that the ones with darker skin would be slaves. This majority continued to illegitimately force its will on the minority for many decades via Jim Crow.
One test of whether or not a law is legitimate--I first heard it in "The Law" by Bastiat--is to "see if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
Applying this question to health care and insurance, is it legitimate to use the government to take money from person A and give it to person B for the purpose of providing health care or insurance for person B? If I have a doctor bill for $10,000, could I legitimately (or even legally) go to your house and force you to give me the $10k so I can pay the bill? No.
If I pay $1200 per month in health insurance premiums, can I go to your house every month and force you to give me all or part of of the $1200? No.
If I as an individual can't go to your house & legitimately or legally demand money for these things, could I go to the police force and ask them to go to your house and demand the money in my behalf? No.
Because I, as an individual, do not have the right to go to your house and demand money I have not earned, I cannot delegate such a right to the government.
When people decide that a given good or service is so important that the government has to get involved in providing it, problems invariably result. Usually the biggest problem is that the government does not allocate resources as efficiently as individuals do and the cost rises.
You mentioned the cost of things like health care and education. The costs have risen because of government regulation and other involvement. And what is government's solution to the problems created by too much regulation? More regulation, of course! Insurance regulation has reduced competition, for example, by restricting the states where companies can sell their insurance products. Fewer options (reduced supply) in a state results in higher prices in that state. If you're an individual who sells insurance in Texas and you decide you want to sell in OK, I have no right as an individual to prevent you from doing so. The federal government shouldn't have the power to do so, either. If you want to offer or refuse coverage for birth control, I don't have the natural right to force you one way or the other. Neither should the federal government.
So far I've focused on the legitimacy of government involvement in things like education and health insurance. The economic reasons for their escalating costs are interesting and could occupy a lot of space on a message board :-) but the simple explanation is this: the more money that's thrown at something, the more expensive that something will become. If a third-party person or entity with deep pockets is paying all or part of the bill (including the costs associated with providing loans), the product or service will get much more expensive.
There's a whole lot more I could say but the post is already too long for a message board. If I get replies I'll respond as appropriate.
-
Long quote by rb224315
So what is the solution in your eyes? How do we fix the problem of people not making enough money (some of them even working 2 full time jobs) to survive and be healthy without any government assistance? Do we just let these people starve and die painful deaths because they can't afford food and healthcare? How does the United States change in a way that these people have a way and a chance to survive and live their lives? I'm not being condescending here; I would really like to know how your endgame fixes these problems.
-
Why should I be required to pay healthcare for you or your family? Especially those who smoke, drink, do drugs, live on junk food and more?
I paid for my own college education, why should I be required to pay for your college education, after all I helped pay for K-12 and I have no children.
Unfortunately, healthcare and education are two areas with massive government intervention.
And liberals think that even more intervention will make things better?
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1381321_639009786129556_1447284811_n.jpg)
liberallogic101.com
Yes, they really are that stupid...
-
So what is the solution in your eyes? How do we fix the problem of people not making enough money (some of them even working 2 full time jobs) to survive and be healthy without any government assistance? Do we just let these people starve and die painful deaths because they can't afford food and healthcare? How does the United States change in a way that these people have a way and a chance to survive and live their lives? I'm not being condescending here; I would really like to know how your endgame fixes these problems.
I'd base my fix on two facts: 1) forcing people to provide for others is not a workable long-term solution, and 2) the dole is a pernicious, addictive master.
Whatever the fix, I'd focus on ways to leverage the natural human compassion of those who have resources, and I would put a high priority on helping those who receive benefits to also maintain their dignity. Receiving money and goods without earning them takes away their dignity. I'm aware of only 1 exception to this: if a person is unable to provide for themselves their dignity is not compromised if they receive something without giving something in exchange.
If the government were involved, I'd move all aid to the state or local level and get the federal government out of the charity business.
I'd look at the magnitude of the actual problem. We have what, 47 million people on food stamps right now? I guarantee that an astonishingly small percentage of them are not less than a week away from starving, let alone 1 meal from it. Compared to the number of people who are self-reliant, there's just not that many people who are in the situation you describe. So, I'd first determine how many people are legitimately in need.
I would not necessarily implement a "system". Knowing how many people are self-reliant vs. the number who can't make it on their own, the haves will help the have-nots. The system of neighbor helping neighbor, family helping family, friend helping friend, mutual aid societies, etc. will work.
I haven't thought it completely through, but I think if I were to involve the government, it would be only to incent people to charity. I get tax benefits based on the number of dependents I support, for example. The same benefit could (and currently does apply) to donations to help others who receive assistance from a charitable organization. Government involvement has sapped the resources which could otherwise be used for charity, and the government presence has crowded out the charities. If a person in need can go to the government and have their needs met, the charities go away. We should be encouraging the reverse--stronger charities with smaller government.
If I were to use government in any capacity, it would be to encourage or incent behaviors which are likely to keep people out of poverty. People who finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20 are many times less likely to end up in poverty and will spend less time there than those who don't do those 3 things. Research results vary on the numbers. William Galston, former Clinton advisor, determined that 8% who do all 3 will pass through at least 1 period of poverty, while 79% of those who don't do these things will experience poverty. The Heritage Foundation's numbers are expressed differently, but they both agree that certain individual behaviors reduce the risk of poverty.)
To summarize: I'd encourage people to do the things which are associated with staying out of poverty. I would encourage people to help those who are truly less fortunate, possibly via tax breaks or similar incentives. No aid would come through the federal government either in direct payments to individuals or payments to state governments.
-
:amen:
-
Speaking of food stamps. LIB by any chance did you watch Food Stamp Nation on Fox last week? If not you should watch it. A lot mire on assistance are like "surfer dude" than you know.
As to part time jobs. Obamacare is driving the low hours thing...McDonald's was never meant to be full time to support a family... and wasn't until progressives got a foothold in our society and taught people that they will care for you so don't worry. Today people make mire in money and from other benefits than many can make working and they are content to live that way rather than work.
Why do you think our inner cities are such a mess? Who runs those cities? Look at Detroit if the past and then look at it today. LIBERALS dud that, not conservatives. Want to know how Detroit happened? There is an excellent book out that traces exactly what happened. I recommend reading it.
-
Speaking of food stamps. LIB by any chance did you watch Food Stamp Nation on Fox last week? If not you should watch it. A lot mire on assistance are like "surfer dude" than you know.
As to part time jobs. Obamacare is driving the low hours thing...McDonald's was never meant to be full time to support a family... and wasn't until progressives got a foothold in our society and taught people that they will care for you so don't worry. Today people make mire in money and from other benefits than many can make working and they are content to live that way rather than work.
Why do you think our inner cities are such a mess? Who runs those cities? Look at Detroit if the past and then look at it today. LIBERALS dud that, not conservatives. Want to know how Detroit happened? There is an excellent book out that traces exactly what happened. I recommend reading it.
No, I didn't see it; I might check it out. Liberals and Democrats are not mutually exclusive. You may be disgusted with the elected Democrats, but they are not the poster boys for liberalism; not even close.
-
Sorry, a liberal is a liberal... there isn't any parsing it. They believe in letting government take care if them and it us destroying what has been the greatest nation in the world. It is responsible for the majority if black babies being born without a daddy... want another view if it, look at Katrina.. thousands of young black mothers walking out of the flood begging to be told what to do. So used to being told what to do they were unable to think for yourselves and prepare ahead if the storm fir their babies and no husbands to help them. THAT is what welfare has wrought on our society. The black leaders have kept these people in slavery they just use different terms for it, but it is liberalism.
-
Sorry, a liberal is a liberal... there isn't any parsing it. They believe in letting government take care if them and it us destroying what has been the greatest nation in the world. It is responsible for the majority if black babies being born without a daddy... want another view if it, look at Katrina.. thousands of young black mothers walking out of the flood begging to be told what to do. So used to being told what to do they were unable to think for yourselves and prepare ahead if the storm fir their babies and no husbands to help them. THAT is what welfare has wrought on our society. The black leaders have kept these people in slavery they just use different terms for it, but it is liberalism.
Good post, Rap!
Just one addition. Liberalism is not only responsible for the majority of black babies not having a father, but even worse, the majority of black children are killed before they are born (4 out of 5 in NYC!).
Liberalism is responsible for the mass death of black children, the massive poverty that blacks live in - part of the permanent underclass that has been created by liberal (racist) policy.
Liberalism hurts women. Liberalism hurts the poor. Liberalism kills.
-
Good post, Rap!
Just one addition. Liberalism is not only responsible for the majority of black babies not having a father, but even worse, the majority of black children are killed before they are born (4 out of 5 in NYC!).
Liberalism is responsible for the mass death of black children, the massive poverty that blacks live in - part of the permanent underclass that has been created by liberal (racist) policy.
Liberalism hurts women. Liberalism hurts the poor. Liberalism kills.
Exactly true. Sorry for all the typos, I was on my Kindle and it insists of correcting what I type to what it thinks I should type....
-
Sorry, a liberal is a liberal... there isn't any parsing it. They believe in letting government take care if them and it us destroying what has been the greatest nation in the world. It is responsible for the majority if black babies being born without a daddy... want another view if it, look at Katrina.. thousands of young black mothers walking out of the flood begging to be told what to do. So used to being told what to do they were unable to think for yourselves and prepare ahead if the storm fir their babies and no husbands to help them. THAT is what welfare has wrought on our society. The black leaders have kept these people in slavery they just use different terms for it, but it is liberalism.
So how do we fix the problems plaguing African American communities?
-
So how do we fix the problems plaguing African American communities?
Education - but with the unions controlling public education I see little hope of this happening. The single worst two things that happened to public education in this country was the public sector unions and Jimmy Carter. Now under Obama they have Common Core - which is only going to make things worse, schools have gone from educating to indoctrinating. Could YOU pass the 6th and 8th grade exams from the mid 1800's today? Answer - few high school graduates or college graduates today could and sadly few of their professors could, either.
Blacks have been taught they are victims. Contrast their situation all these years after Lincoln - they have gone backward. Then look at the Vietnamese who came here at the end of the Vietnam war. Could not speak English, most had no money (though many did have gold and diamonds they had secreted away). They came here, lived in family groups, went to school, started businesses and most became quite successful in our capitalistic society. They are an example of what we should expect not only of immigrants to this nation (vs so many of those from Mexico who come here for the freebies we hand them), but of our own citizens regardless the color of their skin.
Instead of hanging in gangs the blacks should have been getting educated. Some did - Dr. Carson is a great example of a black child born to a poor black mother who had not gone past 3rd grade and could not read or write. She was ashamed of her plight in life and when her boys started having trouble in school one day she stepped in and said "okay - no more TV or goofing off" she told them they needed to choose two TV programs PER WEEK - that was all. She also demanded they start reading anything and everything in the library and whats more they were required to give her a book report (they did not know she could not read it). This was a life-changing move for both her boys... and Ben Carson became one of the preeminent brain surgeons in this country as a result of what his mother insisted on when he was a child.
Every child is only as good as that child's parents insist he or she should be. If you have low expectations you will receive low results, you have high expectations you get good to excellent results. This is not a low or high IQ thing as one of our posters insists, this is a sociatial issue and an issue of too low expectations and an acceptance of a mediocre society as long as we can still get MTV and American Idol and wear baggy pants and get the latest tattoo the heck with trying to actually BE something and be independent of government controlling your life.
BTW another great black man in this country - Thomas Sowell.
-
I would also like to ask liberal_spy if he/she agrees with the parts of Obama care that exempts the government officials that wrote it.
!. My dad is seventy-seven and if he gets cancer, according to Obama care, he will not be treated for it.
2. Obama care will have real time access to all your savings, retirement, etc., even if you carry supplemental insurance to support your Medicare.
3.Only your primary care doctor can admit you to a hospital. If you should have to go to the emergency room and a doctor there admits you to the hospital, you will have to pay the bill out of pocket. This is in the policy of Obama care.
Obama is hell bent on killing off seniors at an earlier age. As more and more of the bill comes to light, seniors are going to find out how they are to be treated.
-
Education - but with the unions controlling public education I see little hope of this happening. The single worst two things that happened to public education in this country was the public sector unions and Jimmy Carter. Now under Obama they have Common Core - which is only going to make things worse, schools have gone from educating to indoctrinating. Could YOU pass the 6th and 8th grade exams from the mid 1800's today? Answer - few high school graduates or college graduates today could and sadly few of their professors could, either.
Blacks have been taught they are victims. Contrast their situation all these years after Lincoln - they have gone backward. Then look at the Vietnamese who came here at the end of the Vietnam war. Could not speak English, most had no money (though many did have gold and diamonds they had secreted away). They came here, lived in family groups, went to school, started businesses and most became quite successful in our capitalistic society. They are an example of what we should expect not only of immigrants to this nation (vs so many of those from Mexico who come here for the freebies we hand them), but of our own citizens regardless the color of their skin.
Instead of hanging in gangs the blacks should have been getting educated. Some did - Dr. Carson is a great example of a black child born to a poor black mother who had not gone past 3rd grade and could not read or write. She was ashamed of her plight in life and when her boys started having trouble in school one day she stepped in and said "okay - no more TV or goofing off" she told them they needed to choose two TV programs PER WEEK - that was all. She also demanded they start reading anything and everything in the library and whats more they were required to give her a book report (they did not know she could not read it). This was a life-changing move for both her boys... and Ben Carson became one of the preeminent brain surgeons in this country as a result of what his mother insisted on when he was a child.
Every child is only as good as that child's parents insist he or she should be. If you have low expectations you will receive low results, you have high expectations you get good to excellent results. This is not a low or high IQ thing as one of our posters insists, this is a sociatial issue and an issue of too low expectations and an acceptance of a mediocre society as long as we can still get MTV and American Idol and wear baggy pants and get the latest tattoo the heck with trying to actually BE something and be independent of government controlling your life.
BTW another great black man in this country - Thomas Sowell.
How specifically have unions destroyed our education system?
-
I would also like to ask liberal_spy if he/she agrees with the parts of Obama care that exempts the government officials that wrote it.
!. My dad is seventy-seven and if he gets cancer, according to Obama care, he will not be treated for it.
2. Obama care will have real time access to all your savings, retirement, etc., even if you carry supplemental insurance to support your Medicare.
3.Only your primary care doctor can admit you to a hospital. If you should have to go to the emergency room and a doctor there admits you to the hospital, you will have to pay the bill out of pocket. This is in the policy of Obama care.
Obama is hell bent on killing off seniors at an earlier age. As more and more of the bill comes to light, seniors are going to find out how they are to be treated.
Obamacare is not how I feel healthcare should be handled. I disagree with his approach on healthcare as well as many other issues, which is why I don't support him.
-
How specifically have unions destroyed our education system?
Here's a start for you......
TENURE.
Bad teachers continue teaching no matter how bad they are.
Even a youth such as yourself must have come in contact with a few of those folks, haven't you?
Last year?
The year before??
Presently??
-
How specifically have unions destroyed our education system?
From Cato - not exactly a far right organization...... and I will add one of the worst things they have done is protect really bad teachers from being let go. New York State has a place where teachers who are not trusted to teach go each day to sit and receive their full pay for doing nothing - thanks to their union...
http://www.cato.org/blog/how-do-teachers-unions-affect-public-school-outcomes
September 12, 2012 2:17PM
How Do Teachers’ Unions Affect Public School Outcomes?
By Andrew J. Coulson
Share
That’s a question I was asked this morning by a reporter. Interesting as it seems, it misses the real impact that teachers unions have on American education: protecting the public school monopoly from private sector competition.
Average compensation for public school teachers is $17,000 higher than for their private sector peers. That’s despite the fact that private schools perform as well or better academically and have higher graduation and college matriculation rates (after taking student/family background and other differences between sectors into account). So public schools offer generally inferior outcomes at a roughly 50% cost premium over independent schooling.
Were it not for the relentless and historically highly effective campaigning of teachers’ unions, it is hard to imagine that the public would have so long perpetuated the public school monopoly. At the federal level, public school employee unions contribute as much as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, the NRA, and Lockheed Martin combined—$56 million between 1989 and 2010.
But that figure pales in comparison to what teachers’ unions spend protecting their government monopoly at the state level. They spent $55 million in California alone—in a single year—fighting then-governor Schwarzenegger’s 2005 reform initiatives. During the 2006–07 school year, the NY state teachers union spent $571,012 at a single luxury hotel, the Desmond, near the statehouse in Albany.
This lobbying is to protect union members from competition by preventing American families from easily accessing independent, non-unionized, alternatives. The teachers’ unions lobby against charter schools, vouchers, and education tax credit programs that make private schooling affordable to lower and middle income families. And while the unions have lost a few high profile battles in the past year, the vast majority of American children are still assigned to a government school, based on where they live, by bureaucrats who have never met them.
It is a system that only makes sense if the goal of public education is to create a protected class of government employees. If we want a system that will serve the needs of children, then all schools should have to compete for the privilege of serving each and every student, and their revenues should depend on parents’ estimation of the quality of that service… just as happens right now in the vastly more efficient and responsive independent education sector.
-
Related thread on this site today......
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,115961.msg466781.html#new