At the Seahawks game on Sunday, I saw two anti-695, ummm, people passing out propaganda filled with lies about how 695 would cause "ethnic cleansing" followed by rampant cannibalism in our streets.

Is there any pro-695 effort to pass out literature containing the truth? I would gladly give up a few hours on a few Sundays to cut my taxes by $900 a year, which is what will happen if 695 passes. (I have to buy a new car real soon; mine is about to croak.)

Please email me and let me know who I need to call. Thanks,

Michael

-- MJ (liberty@eskimo.com), September 14, 1999

Answers

"Ethnic Cleansing" and "Rampant Cannibalism"? I saw the information. Is this the only explanation you can come up with for facts? Stick to the issues, and let's have a real debate.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 14, 1999.

"Rampant cannibalism?" As opposed to the pervasive level we have now?

Westin

(Who, given the hundreds of posts on every aspect of this subject on this board, finds the request for "real debate" to be just the tinniest bit ironic.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 14, 1999.

Mike Eskimo... go here http://www.lifetel.com/tabs/paperbliz.htm

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 14, 1999.

MJ,

Would you please be so kind as to tell us how to contact the people who were distributing the literature which alledgedly posits that I- 695 will cause "ethnic cleansing" and "rampant cannibalism"?

So we can all see for ourselves whether such literature actually exists, or whether this is more rhetorically convenient distortion of the truth on the part of the pro-695 camp?

On a positive note, such accusations would seem to make a nice corollary to certain I-695 supporters' insistence that the passage of I-695 will cause droves of people to go out and buy "newer, less- polluting cars" ("spend more money on their children", "get rid of the bureaucrats once and for all", etc.)!

Allow me to be temporarily from Missouri and say to you, MJ:

"Show Me!"

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 14, 1999.

"Allow me to be temporarily from Missouri and say to you, MJ"

Great, go tell the Registrar that you want to pay out of state tuition.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.

Great non-answer, Craig.

So where's the literature that says I-695 will lead to ethnic cleansing and cannibalism?

As you forgot to finish off the quote:

"Show Me!"

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 15, 1999.

"So where's the literature that says I-695 will lead to ethnic cleansing and cannibalism? "

Don't know, don't care, wasn't my quote. Go back to the source. But seeing as how I am assisting in funding your education, if you want to claim Missouri citizenship, I'll be happy to see you pay the Registrar more money. Call it a user fee. Since you believe that the government can better use resources than the individual, your generous contribution of out of state tuition will, I'm sure, be well utilized. Since you at least are getting value for your investment (not withstanding Westin's sarcastic comments and my UW whine song) I think the state getting your money for tuition makes considerable more sense then the state getting MVET from people who don't use trnasit and ferries.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 15, 1999.

Craig,

Do you have children? Do they attend public school?

If so, then I (as a taxpayer employed in the private sector in addition to being a student) am paying for THEIR education. And I, being an adult, have no problem with that.

It's called being a citizen, Craig.

Look into it.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 16, 1999.

"Do you have children? Do they attend public school?

If so, then I (as a taxpayer employed in the private sector in addition to being a student) am paying for THEIR education. And I, being an adult, have no problem with that.

It's called being a citizen, Craig.

Look into it. "

Yes, as a matter of fact I have one child left in public schools. I would be willing to bet that I'm paying considerably more money to support both his education AND YOUR EDUCATION than you are paying to support his. Over the course of time that I HAVE been a citizen of this state, I have little doubt that I have payed more into taxes above and beyond what I have received back to pay for the cost of your education at the UW. But because I am a citizen, I too get to vote on such things as initiative 695. And I think I will be in the MAJORITY of citizens voting in favor of this initiative and you will be in the MINORITY of citizens voting against it. Ain't citizenship great?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 16, 1999.

Dear Jeff

You bring up a good question, do you have children?

No I dont. So it seems that I have been supporting everyones children in public schools for a very long time. With all the money that Ive invested in these schools, you would think I would have gotten a good return on it, I dont think so what with the low test scores in this state.

Also, what about my mom who is 73 and put the last of my brothers and sisters through public school in 77. Has she gotten a break on her property taxes in the last 22 years. No, but they do give a slight and I do mean slight discount to her for being old.

With the money that is spent on every child in this state for education, they could all be attending the U along with you.

Just my thoughts

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

Ed writes:

"With all the money that Ive invested in these schools, you would think I would have gotten a good return on it, I dont think so what with the low test scores in this state."

It was just recently announced that Washington State had the highest SAT scores in the country. You are getting a return on your money.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Craig,

You have "One child left in school." Which means he or she is under 18. And the others were all in public schools during the past 18 years or so.

For your information, Craig:

Between 1984, when I was 18, and 1997, when I was 31, I attended no public college or university whatsoever. I was strictly working and paying taxes. Working for (expletive deletive) wages, but still paying my fair share of taxes nonetheless. All the while during these years YOUR CHILDREN were attending public schools supported by MY TAXES. See where I'm leading you, Craig?

I've paid a lot of taxes over the past 15 years. And known that those taxes have gone to support public institutions and had no problem with it whatsoever, being an adult.

My taxes, however relatively little, went to pay for just about the entirety of your childrens' education. And I wish them well, if they believe in the importance of that education.

As for you Craig: what IS the deal with you people who want to partake of the benefits of the social contract (infrastructure, education for all, social safety net) but just keep on whining about how unfair it is when Uncle Sam comes around to collect membership dues for civil society?

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 17, 1999.

Just for the record, Craig,

I've seen where you've expressed your anger at big business benefiting from taxation of the little guy. Let me make clear that Corporate Welfare is one use of tax money which I am adamantly against. And one thing I'm sure we can agree on and both fight against.

NEO-liberalism bites the big one. But TRUE liberalism, which is quite basically the principle of helping those less fortunate than oneself, is, in my view, part of what it means to be a citizen. So I'm proud to have my taxes go to help poor people get an education, health care, a handout while they're been unfairly knocked out of the work force, etc.

But among other things I do not like subsidizing are the following:

Sports team owners.

CEO's of multinational corporations.

People who refuse to seek an alternative to smog-inducing, gridlock-causing single occupancy vehicles.

I'm still voting no on I-695.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 17, 1999.

"But TRUE liberalism, which is quite basically the principle of helping those less fortunate than oneself, is, in my view, part of what it means to be a citizen. So I'm proud to have my taxes go to help poor people get an education, health care, a handout while they're been unfairly knocked out of the work force, etc. " I don't see these as any particular attribut of liberalism, I see tham as part of the NORMAL things you do within any society for the less fortunate people in that society. But HOW you do it makes a difference to. Good intentions aren't enough. The path to Hell, as the saying goes, is paved with good intentions. If you ride the Metro in Washington DC you can get off at the Anacostia stop (very early afternoon would be recommended). This area was the urban renewal showcase for LBJ's Great Society (spared no expense). Last time I was there, about one-third of the houses were burnt out, trashed, or otherwise unoccupied, one-third were crack houses, gang hangouts, or doing other illegal activity, and one-third were occupied by perfectly good people who were scared to death, but didn't feel they had any other options but to live there. Now unfortunately, the money is all spent. The current HUD dogma is that these need to be torn down and replaced with housing that is not all poor people (multi-income level). That may be correct, but who takes responsibility for the billions spent on failed programs that make things worse rather than better. Corporate welfare (subsidies) and welfare for individuals both have a terrible risk of engendering dependency, and it's no better for the one than it is for the other. I can see providing transitional assistance to move someone (or some corporation) from a bad situation that they get in, sometimes through no fault of their own, back to the norm which for most people (and Businesses) ought to be self sufficiency. But it ought to be transitional, not a life long entitlement for either. I have no trouble with society self-insuring for the catastrophes that can occur for us all. I can even buy of on socialized medicine if you can keep it from spending all the resources on administration and none on medicine (witness federal aid to local schools). I'm all for fixing things. I'm not for putting patches on things to make my conscience feel better. So I believe that efficiency and effectiveness of government programs are legitimate issues. It is not enough that the program is doing some good, it ought to be doing some good and providing a reasonable return of "good" for the tax money used. And when you excuse inefficiencies and poor execution by government, YOU are the one that hurts the people who need that safety net to be there, because there will be less of a safety net than there would have been if the business of government had been run effectively and efficiently. And when you allow the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness to persist long enough in a democracy, you get a voter backlash that says, "I'm sick and tired of your waste, and I'm not going to support it anymore." And that happens the same if you are talking about the military and $600 hammers or the waste, fraud, and poor performance in the DHSS system. I help people d, but my definition of help is not one of fostering dependency, it's helping them get the tools that allow them to be independent. I'm still voting "Yes" on I- 695.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 17, 1999.

Sorry d, I meant Jeff. Sometimes your views seem interchangeable to me.

Sorry Jeff, I meant you, not d. Sometimes your views seem interchangeable to me. The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 17, 1999.

An intelligent and substantial answer -- thank you very much Craig.

As far as the attacks on federal funding of higher education which I keep seeing all over this forum go: doesn't this use of public money qualify as "helping (people) get the tools that allow them to be independent"?

Let's not forget the following:

You have to prove that you truly "need" the money (i.e., Daddy didn't exactly make $500,000 on the stock market last year) to get your foot in the door at Financial Aid.

There IS such a thing as Academic Probation.

In theory at least, public money used to help people get college degrees is an investment with the expectation that those people will earn higher wages and be able to pay a larger share for basic services after they earn their degrees.

It's not the same thing as the public buying 40-ouncers and vials of crack for "welfare queens". So please, lay off public education, people!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 20, 1999.

"As far as the attacks on federal funding of higher education which I keep seeing all over this forum go: doesn't this use of public money qualify as "helping (people) get the tools that allow them to be independent"? " Within reason Jeff, I believe it does. I worked my way through a public university as an undergraduate, working part- time outside of school, being a research assistant (at $2.67 an hour if I remember correctly), being an undergraduate TA, having a weekend job, a summer job, and living at home and saving money during the summers. I believe that if I had paid nothing (as was the norm in the UC Community Colleges and four year schools at that time), I would have valued my education less. California learned that if you charged nothing for tuition you tended to get professional students who were more interested in hanging out at the University (which I also found pretty enjoyable) than ever getting out and becoming a taxpayer helping assist others with the opportunity. So yes, publicly funded education is OK with me, but the taxpayer still has a valid interest in getting efficiency and value for the tax dollars he/she puts into education, be it K-12 or the U-Dub. PS: If you guys are getting value for the money expended on the football coach, it has escaped my notice. (I know, you didn't hire him)/

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

My personal experience with Financial Aid is that it is actually very stingy with those starting out, but once you've shown through consistent academic achievement (aka high GPA) that you're likely to be a good investment, they start to give you enough to support yourself and devote your out-of-class time to intensive study (in lieu of wasting your potential in slave-wage labor). Sorry to burst the bubble of the maddjak Army, but I paid for my first quarter out of my own pocket - about 700 very hard-earned clams for tuition and books. The rest of my first year was paid with a Stafford Loan. It was only after I showed myself to be more than a "professional student" that I was finally given a decent amount of grant money.

And I agree with this system! For the most part, it works -- both for the serious students and those taxpayers concerned about worthwhile use of public money. So, if you're angry about waste of taxpayers money, "fight the real enemy" -- namely, Corporate Welfare!

About a year ago, Time ran a surprisingly honest series about Corporate Welfare; anyone reading what a bunch of scammers the CEO's of Ford Motor Co., Boeing, etc. are will quickly forget about the myth of "welfare queens"!

As for Coach New Hustle (also known disaffectionately around these parts as "Mr. Potato Head"), the truth seems to be that his salary actually is not federally funded (I take it with a grain of salt, but that's the official word). Of course, it doesn't make that salary any less out of proportion to the guy's level of integrity or skill!

Truly a strange world we live in...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 21, 1999.

"My personal experience with Financial Aid is that it is actually very stingy with those starting out, but once you've shown through consistent academic achievement (aka high GPA) that you're likely to be a good investment, they start to give you enough to support yourself and devote your out-of-class time to intensive study (in lieu of wasting your potential in slave-wage labor). " Never took out any of those loans, didn't want the debt. Opted for the slave wage labor, gave me better perspective on how the average (ie., not college student) person lives. My dad did give me $600 to pay my car insurance one year (a highly used 1957 36 hp Karmann Ghia, you might even have approved, got a gazillion miles to the gallon, though I usually had to park it on a hill to get it started, bad solenoid). Be wary of comments like wasting potential in slave labor wages. There are good honest people doing low paying jobs. Some aren't functioning at their potential, some are. Some just want to simplify their lives, and find contentment in what you and I might regard as menial things. But even without financial aid, the basic tuition at the UW represents a high degree of subsidization. Valid, I believe, if kept within reason. If I ruled the world, I'd replace financial aid with work-study. The "real world" also has lessons to teach. Regarding the coach, regardless of source of funding, it does kind of leave a bad taste that he makes more than three times what the University President makes. A free market economy makes economically rational choices, but not necessarily philosophically rational choices I guess.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 21, 1999.