Pence is hell bent on destroying Indiana

[Denny347]

Here's where we differ. I don't want to see any taxes on anyone, shifted or not. Downsizing government is the logical response, not the response that I saw in the politicians quoted. Yes, in the final analysis all taxes are paid by individuals, that's a given, but I see no need to keep the gravy train rolling, if Pence's suggestion should go forward, (even though he gave himself a cowardly out in the JC article I read). Cut government to cover the lost "revenue", don't shift taxes to individuals, families or anyone else.

The problem as I see it is the lack of imagination in government when it comes to reducing spending/costs. I see it at my job, our budget shrinks and cuts need to be made. Problem is, there is no creativity (outside the box thinking) in coming up with solutions. Hell, they way Indy's budget is formed boggles the mind. For instance, all job losses (firing, retire, quitting) equal x dollars no longer being spent. So, if in a given year we lose 100 officers, we should have money for MORE than 100 as rookies are MUCH cheaper to hire. Sadly, that money disappears from our budget. It gets sent to Indy's general fund and they spend it as they see fit. If I am driving along in my patrol car and someone hits me, totals my car, their insurance cuts a check to IMPD for the replacement cost. The money does not go to IMPD but again to the city's general fund. We are left a car down and no money to replace it. We wanted to hold a charity event at the dept's CrossFit gym to raise money to fix/replace equipment. Can't since any cash we may raise goes to the general fund. How can the department get creative with such archaic financial rules?

 

[Lex Concord]

The crux of the problem is the assumption that all changes must be revenue neutral or increase revenue from the state.

Why not cut some services for once (okay, maybe a second time)?

 

[Lex Concord]

No those not using government funded schools should not be affected, that would be morally wrong.



The savings would come from those depending on government deciding to not have children until they could afford to no longer depend on the government.

The problem with your logic is that those who qualify for assistance won't be impacted by the elimination of credits or deductions, as, to qualify for the assistance, they already make little enough money not to pay net taxes (for the most part). Therefore, eliminating those credits would simply result in taking more from actual producers (i.e. those of us who earn enough not to qualify for assistance and actually pay taxes).

The root problem is the existence of welfare programs and of the tax code itself. Hell, in the early 20th century, even congress was honest enough to realize an income tax would be unconstitutional without a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe we should consider doing without it again.

 

[hornadylnl]

The crux of the problem is the assumption that all changes must be revenue neutral or increase revenue from the state.

Why not cut some services for once (okay, maybe a second time)?

I vote we start with parks and ranges.

 

[Lex Concord]

Yes yes...let's throw up hypothetical litmus tests you can't prove without a time machine. Go pre-industrial revolution and history is replete with examples of large swaths of the population who never learned how to read let alone pursue an education until there were publicly provided schools. See Appalachia for reference.

So, now that we have government schools, all children learn how to read?

 

[Lex Concord]

I vote we start with parks and ranges.

I could get behind any actual cut. Maybe it could have a domino or snowball effect.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The problem as I see it is the lack of imagination in government when it comes to reducing spending/costs. I see it at my job, our budget shrinks and cuts need to be made. Problem is, there is no creativity (outside the box thinking) in coming up with solutions. Hell, they way Indy's budget is formed boggles the mind. For instance, all job losses (firing, retire, quitting) equal x dollars no longer being spent. So, if in a given year we lose 100 officers, we should have money for MORE than 100 as rookies are MUCH cheaper to hire. Sadly, that money disappears from our budget. It gets sent to Indy's general fund and they spend it as they see fit. If I am driving along in my patrol car and someone hits me, totals my car, their insurance cuts a check to IMPD for the replacement cost. The money does not go to IMPD but again to the city's general fund. We are left a car down and no money to replace it. We wanted to hold a charity event at the dept's CrossFit gym to raise money to fix/replace equipment. Can't since any cash we may raise goes to the general fund. How can the department get creative with such archaic financial rules?

Excellent point. I, for one, didn't realize that this was the case and likely is elsewhere as well. Attrition replacements in personnel and equipment should not be subject to having to start over going to the council with hand in hand as if you never had those people or pieces of equipment in the first place.

I would also go a bit further with the same thought regarding outside the box thinking and say that finding more efficient ways to operate in general would be a good thing, without kowtowing to sacred cows or special interest groups. It brings to mind a 60 minutes broadcast from something like 20 years ago in which the head custodian (who gave no appearance whatsoever of being a custodian of any flavor) of a NYC school was interviewed. It contained such strange things as what work the custodians could do themselves or were required to hire union contractors to do, the 'jeep law' which required the school to provide the custodian with a winter-capable vehicle to get to school to make sure there was fire in the boiler for the children under which the school now supplies its custodians luxury SUVs, and one of which the crew tried to track down at school and finally found (during time he was supposed to be and was being paid for being at work) on his boat which looked to be on the threshold of what we would consider a yacht. That said, I am sure there are enough completely unnecessary positions being filled and people on the payroll who do not do what they are paid to do to straighten a budget out without the politically motivated attacks on police and fire which tend to scare people into accepting yet more taxes in exchange for less of value.

I would also say that a fundraiser for the police with the money being taken by the general fund is not only wrong but sounds like fraud on the part of the council and/or city-county government.

 

[CTS]

So, now that we have government schools, all children learn how to read?

Minus a few statistical anomalies...YES:

As a percentage of the population illiteracy in the United States has been essentially eliminated in the last 150 years, with the largest net change in poorer minority communities unable to afford private education. I honestly can't believe we're debating the benefit of public schools.

 

[halfmileharry]

There is an appeal process and if that fails there is a courtroom. If the local assessor is screwing people over the only way to stop them is to fight.

Exactly. It has to be done at times. OR...at least state your case to the assessor in a polite manner with quality facts and figures.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Minus a few statistical anomalies...YES:

As a percentage of the population illiteracy in the United States has been essentially eliminated in the last 150 years, with the largest net change in poorer minority communities unable to afford private education. I honestly can't believe we're debating the benefit of public schools.

They must cook these numbers as bad as they do the unemployment numbers. The more recent stats just don't seem plausible. It is also telling that the most recent numbers are 35 years old. One wonders what has happened during those 35 years which represent the majority of my lifetime.

 

[mrjarrell]

They must cook these numbers as bad as they do the unemployment numbers. The more recent stats just don't seem plausible. It is also telling that the most recent numbers are 35 years old. One wonders what has happened during those 35 years which represent the majority of my lifetime.

Actually, the numbers stop when they do because the census no longer asks about literacy, where in years past it did. Those are pretty solid figures. And more kids DO attend school now as compared to years past. There may be many who read below their grade level, but the instances of true illiteracy are surely well below where they were in decades past. My maternal grandmother was illiterate. She was busy from a very young age just trying to survive and then working in the fields and later the mills around her. All her children were literate, though. Those numbers aren't cooked.

 

[CTS]

They must cook these numbers as bad as they do the unemployment numbers. The more recent stats just don't seem plausible. It is also telling that the most recent numbers are 35 years old. One wonders what has happened during those 35 years which represent the majority of my lifetime.

So you're asserting that literacy has gotten worse since the 1980's? Really??? I suppose with the advent of texting I would jokingly agree with you, but I don't understand how you could honestly believe that.

CIA Fact book on the United States 1991:

http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact93/wf940236.txt

Literacy: age 15 and over having completed 5 or more years of schooling
(1991)

total population: 97.9%

If you factor in the individuals in the nation who literally aren't capable of reading due to a mental defect and the number of healthy individuals who can't read/write at at least a basic level is borderline zero as compared to the general population.

Now having personally reviewed a few hundred papers written by Freshman and Sophmore college students in the Fort Wayne community, I can definitely say that basic writing skills need a LOT more attention in our primary and secondary schools, the students at least capable of navigating modern society though. In fact the only thing that might make me believe literacy is truly decreasing, is your average poster on INGO who can't seem to figure out the difference between their, there, and they're.

 

[Lex Concord]

Minus a few statistical anomalies...YES:

As a percentage of the population illiteracy in the United States has been essentially eliminated in the last 150 years, with the largest net change in poorer minority communities unable to afford private education. I honestly can't believe we're debating the benefit of public schools.

While correlation doesn't equate to causation, I'll take the bait.

What is the definition of illiteracy used in this study? Could you provide the link to the site where you find the chart? I'd be interested to read more. Yes, I could search for it, but I'm guessing you have it close at hand.

Also, with the source the table cites, the years of 1870 to 1979 seem narrow, though not quite cherry-picked.

 

[CTS]

What is the definition of illiteracy used in this study? Could you provide the link to the site where you find the chart? I'd be interested to read more. Yes, I could search for it, but I'm guessing you have it close at hand.

Also, with the source the table cites, the years of 1870 to 1979 seem narrow, though not quite cherry-picked.

My guess would be that they're the years with data available or years that represented a measurable change. The source for the information is actually printed right there at the bottom of the photo, I'll let you do your own Googling.

 

[CTS]

While correlation doesn't equate to causation, I'll take the bait.

You're correct it doesn't. However people say the same thing when we compare violent crime statistics before and after firearm laws were relaxed, it really doesn't take much of an intellectual leap to at least postulate that the two are pretty likely related.

 

[Lex Concord]

My guess would be that they're the years with data available or years that represented a measurable change. The source for the information is actually printed right there at the bottom of the photo, I'll let you do your own Googling.

I saw that, and mentioned it in my post....did you learn to read in a government school? Sorry...couldn't resist.

I asked about the definition, because 1) I am genuinely interested and 2) I have searched enough to know that there is a wide variation in the definition of illiteracy and, depending on the source (draft pools, census, DOE literacy surveys) you get different numbers. Methodology matters.

Don't worry, I'll search on my own ("do it yourself" when asked for assistance is very persuasive, by the way), though it will take a bit longer to get back to you.

Good day.

 

[mrjarrell]

My guess would be that they're the years with data available or years that represented a measurable change. The source for the information is actually printed right there at the bottom of the photo, I'll let you do your own Googling.

The data comes from the census, primarily, when the census takers would ask people if they could read/write (beyond signing their names). It was actually part of the census data, along with age, race, etc. Anyone who's ever studied old census records for genealogical research is very familiar with this and the data. That's why the data was gathered in 10 year spurts. I have no reason to doubt the data, having studied many of the records from a variety of states and locales.

 

[Lex Concord]

The data comes from the census, primarily, when the census takers would ask people if they could read/write (beyond signing their names). It was actually part of the census data, along with age, race, etc. Anyone who's ever studied old census records for genealogical research is very familiar with this and the data. That's why the data was gathered in 10 year spurts. I have no reason to doubt the data, having studied many of the records from a variety of states and locales.

I have no reason to doubt that the data is being accurately reported. The question is its validity, especially if, as you say, it is merely based on self identification. Also, there is a wide variance in what "beyond signing your name" could mean, and various levels of proficiency.

I'm interested to know the variance in proficiencies over time. So far, I've found two interesting things. First, the DOE's scale has proficiency levels of 1-5. There is no level that is strictly related to having no reading ability; it appears to be contained within proficiency level 1, which varies widely. Second, and very interestingly, the DOE data I have found actually shows a decrease in proficiency for similarly sampled populations between 1985 and 1992 samplings, though they list some mitigating factors as a partial possible explanation for the decrease.

I'm not going to write a research paper, but hope to share whatever interesting findings I find. I might even do y'all a solid and go through the excruciating exercise of posting a link, in case you're curious

Edit: Actually, for those actually interested, here are the first couple of things I've been perusing...

http://www.ddooggss.net/8Fmedia/a/HomeLiteracy_USHistory.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf

 

[88GT]

Please post a list of all of the countries which do not provide public education and rank their economies versus those that do.

And your argument would be that they are poor because they don't provide state education, I suppose.

Because it could never be that they don't provide state education because they are poor.

There are only 5 countries I could identify as definitively not providing state education for their population. Their rankings in the GDP are 73, 98, 107, 109, and 130. Out of 192 sovereign entities listed. List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. First column.

not the highest, but not the worst. No clear trend. Clearly, state education is not the driving force for economic success.

 

[88GT]

Minus a few statistical anomalies...YES:

As a percentage of the population illiteracy in the United States has been essentially eliminated in the last 150 years, with the largest net change in poorer minority communities unable to afford private education. I honestly can't believe we're debating the benefit of public schools.

What benefit? Higher literacy? How does that benefit me?