There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Originally posted by aquageek
You want an example of gov't reform that actually didn't cost more, improved efficiencies and even the left crowd liked - WELFORM REFORM.
Since paying taxes is not voluntary, I'm not sure why you consider me selfish. Would the fact that folks contribute to other causes besides our gov't be ok with you or is it only acceptable to pay more taxes to prove your worth? What about people who tithe to their churches or volunteer their time? That acceptable?
Well, that isn't necessarily true about welfare reform. According to this study digest (the widest nonpartisan link I could find in the short time I have), welfare reform seemed to have good effects only when coupled with increased spending on programs designed to support working parents: childcare, etc. That is, it worked when you spent the money elsewhere, not when you refused to spend it. It is also hard to interpret welfare reform statistics because most studies I found were from 2001 or 2002, which means they were looking at reform in the context of economic expansion. Then again, if there were some innovative approach to healthcare that cost less money but was effective, I would coonsider it. I haven't seen any suggestions in that direction, though.
As for your other question, no I do not think private charity is a reasonable option. Private charity is never disinterested, and I especially don't think people should have to endure prostelyzation to get help. Even the most reprehensible people deserve help and compassion, and a disinterested government is the best way to make sure people are helped regardless of their personal charms.
Originally posted by aquageek
You want an example of gov't reform that actually didn't cost more, improved efficiencies and even the left crowd liked - WELFORM REFORM.
Since paying taxes is not voluntary, I'm not sure why you consider me selfish. Would the fact that folks contribute to other causes besides our gov't be ok with you or is it only acceptable to pay more taxes to prove your worth? What about people who tithe to their churches or volunteer their time? That acceptable?
Well, that isn't necessarily true about welfare reform. According to this study digest (the widest nonpartisan link I could find in the short time I have), welfare reform seemed to have good effects only when coupled with increased spending on programs designed to support working parents: childcare, etc. That is, it worked when you spent the money elsewhere, not when you refused to spend it. It is also hard to interpret welfare reform statistics because most studies I found were from 2001 or 2002, which means they were looking at reform in the context of economic expansion. Then again, if there were some innovative approach to healthcare that cost less money but was effective, I would coonsider it. I haven't seen any suggestions in that direction, though.
As for your other question, no I do not think private charity is a reasonable option. Private charity is never disinterested, and I especially don't think people should have to endure prostelyzation to get help. Even the most reprehensible people deserve help and compassion, and a disinterested government is the best way to make sure people are helped regardless of their personal charms.
