Yeehaw, Dano's Privatize Libraries Idea Comes to Fruition!

[tinfoil]

Thats just great, Dano. So lets ditch the public libraries because the poor can always buy used books or hit garage sales.

Do you realize how ridiculous that is?? That the poor's access to literature and knowledge in books is to be based on what other people read and don't want to keep??

And I guess computers and internet access is out there for pennies too??

And the public libraries are not meant to serve ONLY the poor. They serve the entire population.

Hmm, I'm just gonna jump in here for moment. It seems to me Dano is saying that despite funding librabies, most people do not use them. The monies would be better spent providing internet service to the community.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL, there is no money to give, they are losing money on them and in those cases without as much people served, hence why they were going to get cut.
Nor do they belong to anyone in the first place other than taxpayers.

The mayor who thought of this is brilliant, he not only cut something to save money, he found private entities that will take over them and keep them around to still serve even if in more limited capacity.

He shouldn't be cutting ANY money during time of recession.

He should be fired. He is a retarded, simple, little man who doesn't deserve power over other people.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I for one wish more Republicans would be as outright and honest about this stuff as you are. Things would be much easier for the Democrats.

Whatever, I wish Dems would be honest about taxation. This isn't that bad, in this day and age libraries are suffering the same decline as print newspapers and for the same reason. Computers are cheap and people, especially younger people would rather do things online and interactively.

I'm sure a lot of people lamented losing the local blacksmith too.

 

[uscitizen]

LOL, there is no money to give, they are losing money on them and in those cases without as much people served, hence why they were going to get cut.
Nor do they belong to anyone in the first place other than taxpayers.

The mayor who thought of this is brilliant, he not only cut something to save money, he found private entities that will take over them and keep them around to still serve even if in more limited capacity.

I will tell you what dix. Why don't you give me your home so you do not have to pay taxes on it and keep it up.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Whatever, I wish Dems would be honest about taxation. This isn't that bad, in this day and age libraries are suffering the same decline as print newspapers and for the same reason. Computers are cheap and people, especially younger people would rather do things online and interactively.

I'm sure a lot of people lamented losing the local blacksmith too.

Read and weep: Dano comparing libraries to the blacksmith.

 

[tinfoil]

Read and weep: Dano comparing libraries to the blacksmith.

in the digital age with most print mediums being replaced by digital alternatives, the anology is quite apt. Too bad for you that you fail to understand.

Do you really think you're smart, dude?

 

[Cancel3]

in the digital age with most print mediums being replaced by digital alternatives, the anology is quite apt. Too bad for you that you fail to understand.

Do you really think you're smart, dude?

There is a connection, to some degree. But to expect public libraries to be the first things to disappear? That is ridiculous.

And the biggest point of the public library is that it is free to the public. Care to explain where you can use a computer and access the internet for free?




This is about saving money, and that is great. But to toss out an asset as valuable as public libraries because they are not cost effective is ridiculous.

Rather than toss out public libraries because people don't read, shouldn't you been trying to encourage more people to read???

After all, it would certainly help the level of education. And a better education would lead to more self-reliance. And more self-reliance would lead to fewer people needing public assistance.




What I find disgusting is that these two think its fine that kids living in Phjiladelphia will not have access to books that people serving time in a prison do.

If you think closing or privatizing libraries is the best answer, you have simply been asking the wrong questions.

 

[Bonestorm]

There is a connection, to some degree. But to expect public libraries to be the first things to disappear? That is ridiculous.

And the biggest point of the public library is that it is free to the public. Care to explain where you can use a computer and access the internet for free?




This is about saving money, and that is great. But to toss out an asset as valuable as public libraries because they are not cost effective is ridiculous.

Rather than toss out public libraries because people don't read, shouldn't you been trying to encourage more people to read???

After all, it would certainly help the level of education. And a better education would lead to more self-reliance. And more self-reliance would lead to fewer people needing public assistance.




What I find disgusting is that these two think its fine that kids living in Phjiladelphia will not have access to books that people serving time in a prison do.

If you think closing or privatizing libraries is the best answer, you have simply been asking the wrong questions.

Dano and the like are not looking for answers. They've already got them. There are really only two or three of them: (1) cut taxes; (2) cut spending; and, (3) privatize, not necessarily in that order.

It's problems that they're looking for. And any problem will do for any combination of the above three to be applied.

 

[KingCondanomation]

There is a connection, to some degree. But to expect public libraries to be the first things to disappear? That is ridiculous.

And the biggest point of the public library is that it is free to the public. Care to explain where you can use a computer and access the internet for free?




This is about saving money, and that is great. But to toss out an asset as valuable as public libraries because they are not cost effective is ridiculous.

Rather than toss out public libraries because people don't read, shouldn't you been trying to encourage more people to read???

After all, it would certainly help the level of education. And a better education would lead to more self-reliance. And more self-reliance would lead to fewer people needing public assistance.




What I find disgusting is that these two think its fine that kids living in Phjiladelphia will not have access to books that people serving time in a prison do.

If you think closing or privatizing libraries is the best answer, you have simply been asking the wrong questions.

When I was poor, my Mom and Dad read plenty of books to me, it wasn't the world's greatest selection but far more than enough, often I'd want to read my favorite books over and over again anyway. I genuinely wonder how many on the left really remember being a kid?
How are people going to become more responsible by having government be responsible for them? Without libraries, kids can be read to by their parents, heck with less taxes they would have more TIME to read to their kids.
Let's not always assume the worst. Government does not provide clothes and kids seem to manage to all be dressed.
Show some faith in people, they will have more pride and feel better reading to their kids than having some government institution.

 

[Bonestorm]

When I was poor, my Mom and Dad read plenty of books to me, it wasn't the world's greatest selection but far more than enough, often I'd want to read my favorite books over and over again anyway. I genuinely wonder how many on the left really remember being a kid?
How are people going to become more responsible by having government be responsible for them? Without libraries, kids can be read to by their parents, heck with less taxes they would have more TIME to read to their kids.
Let's not always assume the worst. Government does not provide clothes and kids seem to manage to all be dressed.
Show some faith in people, they will have more pride and feel better reading to their kids than having some government institution.

You are Exhibit A in the the argument for why poor kids need free access to public libraries. Drawing on your personal experience doesn't help in this instance.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Dano and the like are not looking for answers. They've already got them. There are really only two or three of them: (1) cut taxes; (2) cut spending; and, (3) privatize, not necessarily in that order.

It's problems that they're looking for. And any problem will do for any combination of the above three to be applied.

Sigh, perhaps I think the answers should come from people and not from government. You think I'm heartless but I really think people were and are better off doing for themselves rather than government trying to solve their problems.
The war on poverty in the 60's didn't exactly create a more caring and compassionate society did it?

 

[KingCondanomation]

You are Exhibit A in the the argument for why poor kids need free access to public libraries. Drawing on your personal experience doesn't help in this instance.

Whatever Dung, you're just looking to insult today and lazily rely on being incredulous at anything I say.

 

[Cancel3]

When I was poor, my Mom and Dad read plenty of books to me, it wasn't the world's greatest selection but far more than enough, often I'd want to read my favorite books over and over again anyway. I genuinely wonder how many on the left really remember being a kid?
How are people going to become more responsible by having government be responsible for them? Without libraries, kids can be read to by their parents, heck with less taxes they would have more TIME to read to their kids.
Let's not always assume the worst. Government does not provide clothes and kids seem to manage to all be dressed.
Show some faith in people, they will have more pride and feel better reading to their kids than having some government institution.

This is not about whether people read to their kids or not.

Show faith in people?? Thats great advice coming from someone who thinks its great to take one of the few universal and useable services the government provides the people, and wants to turn it over to private businesses who are driven by the need for profits. YOUR faith in the people is what is lacking.

I am so happy that you were read to when you were a kid. So was I and I did so with my kids as well. My parents made sure all us kids had library cards and took us to the library. I made sure my kids had library cards and were taken to the library. We were dirt poor but my kids were readers.

All my kids graduated with honors and went on to college with scholarships. One of them graduated Summa Cum Laude with a degree in aerospace engineering.

Care to guess what percentage of families that start out poor end up with 3 kids graduating from high school with honors and all 3 attending a major university??




Since you used your own experiences when you were poor, I thought mine were just as valid and thereby proved the need for public libraries.

 

[Bonestorm]

Whatever Dung, you're just looking to insult today and lazily rely on being incredulous at anything I say.

Not really. I just think your worldview is terribly warped, myopic and insular and it is reflected in almost everything you write.

If you review the thread I actually agree that saving these libraries through philanthropic efforts as opposed to closing them is a good thing, but pretending that free public libraries can be replaced by charitable or private libraries is lunacy of the highest order (note that only 5 of the 11 that were slated to close are being saved and that there are 43 more free public libraries in the Philly free library system). Pretending further that this would be a overall beneficial thing for the people that use the libraries is just plain stupid.

That is all.

 

[Cancel3]

Whatever Dung, you're just looking to insult today and lazily rely on being incredulous at anything I say.

I, on the other hand, have provided valid arguments and evidence. That didn't make you any more likely to accept the argument.

Dano, you are all about cutting taxes, whether you cut valuable services or not is beyond your concern. Why shouldn't he be lazy. So far you have not admitted one single thing has been valid in our arguments, and have countered with "when I was poor..." or "poor people don't use libraries" arguments.

 

[KingCondanomation]

I, on the other hand, have provided valid arguments and evidence. That didn't make you any more likely to accept the argument.

Dano, you are all about cutting taxes, whether you cut valuable services or not is beyond your concern. Why shouldn't he be lazy. So far you have not admitted one single thing has been valid in our arguments, and have countered with "when I was poor..." or "poor people don't use libraries" arguments.

What evidence? You cited some opinion poll from a left-wing bias site that said people would rather pay more taxes than close libraries.
That isn't proof that they would not work privately, nor is it proof that it would adversely affect kids is it?

I am not all about cutting taxes, the main reason I am on here is to try and reduce people's dependence on government which is increasing all the time as government as I'm sure you noticed has also increased massively.
Like I said, you haven't known me long enough.

But you are right, I have not introduced evidence they work so it's time I did that.
Many libraries started privately as they were borne out of hefty donations from wealthy capitalist individuals like Carnegie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Library

They worked fine and helped educate many people, proving they CAN work under private directive.
Now once again many can be private and people can still use them.

 

[Bonestorm]

What evidence? You cited some opinion poll from a left-wing bias site that said people would rather pay more taxes than close libraries.
That isn't proof that they would not work privately, nor is it proof that it would adversely affect kids is it?

I am not all about cutting taxes, the main reason I am on here is to try and reduce people's dependence on government which is increasing all the time as government as I'm sure you noticed has also increased massively.
Like I said, you haven't known me long enough.

But you are right, I have not introduced evidence they work so it's time I did that.
Many libraries started privately as they were borne out of hefty donations from wealthy capitalist individuals like Carnegie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Library

They worked fine and helped educate many people, proving they CAN work under private directive.
Now once again many can be private and people can still use them.

What? Did you do a google search for private libraries or something?

Maybe you are not aware of this but many of the "private" Carnegie libraries were supported with matching public funds and are actually part of public library systems. In fact, the Logan Branch of the Free Philadelphia Library system, slated to be closed under the mayor's plan, is a Carnegie Library.

Try again.

Edit: It gets better, 4 of the 11 free public libraries slated to close are Carnegie Libraries.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

I think every community should do what's best for their budget situation. I'm not sure it's really of any ideological importance. I wouldn't waste my time arguing for it in my community unless it was imperative.

The idea of foundations starting libraries is certainly not new. The industrial giants like Andrew Carnegie used to start plenty of libraries in addition to their other philanthropic projects. I don't think we should discourage private (i.e. not taxes) contributions to public projects. Our universities certainly take in a lot of private money, for instance.

That said, there is a certain pride a community can have in paying for a library out of their own pocket. I think any kind of learning resource, public or private managed, can have a positive impact on quality of life and can pay many dividends.

 

[tinfoil]

Dano and the like are not looking for answers. They've already got them. There are really only two or three of them: (1) cut taxes; (2) cut spending; and, (3) privatize, not necessarily in that order.

It's problems that they're looking for. And any problem will do for any combination of the above three to be applied.

Not really accurate. But keep on with strawmen since they make you feel smart.

 

[tinfoil]

I think every community should do what's best for their budget situation. I'm not sure it's really of any ideological importance. I wouldn't waste my time arguing for it in my community unless it was imperative.

The idea of foundations starting libraries is certainly not new. The industrial giants like Andrew Carnegie used to start plenty of libraries in addition to their other philanthropic projects. I don't think we should discourage private (i.e. not taxes) contributions to public projects. Our universities certainly take in a lot of private money, for instance.

That said, there is a certain pride a community can have in paying for a library out of their own pocket. I think any kind of learning resource, public or private managed, can have a positive impact on quality of life and can pay many dividends.

Can't argue with that. When the time comes to analyze budget expenditures and caculate the cost/benefit of individual assets, do we try to save money by changing to meet new demands or do we continue to fund assets that do not provide a benefit worth the cost? It's a tough question. We can't do everything. As we shift to an electronic information society (pure energy LOL) does it not necessitate that older mediums will eventually see an end to their useful existence. Do we continue to waste funds on less efficient systems of information delivery or do we make the move into the future?

Print books and librarys to house them are becoming antiques. It's part of a natural progression of technology.