Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk
I don't disagree with any of what you are saying, just that you are trying to cram 5 pounds into a 2 pound bag. Institutionalized racism and classicism affect education. of course. They inform the way we live, period. But even if you made the best of all possible education systems, it would still exist in a world of race and class, where color, religion, ethnicity, etc. often have as big an impact on your success in life as any other factor. That doesn't mean you throw up your hands on the education system.
|
I'm not sure how what you just wrote is related to the discussion we've been having. You want to pay the poor through a negative taxable income system. When I suggest that the problems that exist based (mostly) on housing won't be addressed, and suggest how those issues might be tackled, you plug your ears and start yelling about a nanny state.
The issues are deep and entrenched. I thought we were talking about how to fix all of this shit (or at least start to). The fact that you get pissy when I say your solution doesn't go far enough means you don't really want to talk about it beyond your opinion. Since I don't want to fight about something that is about as likely to happen (given what I said about people having to give shit up in order for
anything to happen) as Hank hitting 3 straight jumpers, I decided not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk
If I came across as aggressive its because I was reading a healthy dose of "well, we can't make it perfect so why bother." That frustrated me, because it's so the way we have been living up to now. We can't fix it all, so we won't try to fix one or two pieces and hope that from that will grow a culture in which, "it's too big, too pervasive" is no longer an acceptable excuse for doing nothing.
|
Uh...no. I wasn't saying
nothing is possible. I was saying there is no point in arguing over a destruction of ghettos and a redistribution of people vs. instituting a tax system in which we outright pay poor people. I'm not going to argue with you about which is better because neither will happen.
But your voice has changed in general. I don't mind angry and aggressive--in fact, I kind of like it (see: Finch). But when it comes from someone who generally isn't (or who didn't used to be), it's strange. And when it comes from a discussion in which I'm saying your solution doesn't go far
enough, it's just plain
weird.
TM
