DraconisRex Posted November 25, 2002 Report Share Posted November 25, 2002 On October 29th, 1929, which is called "Black Friday" in the history books, the Stock Market crashed, and burned. At the time, "The New Deal" was a good way of dealing with the situation, since the nation would not survive without splitting the resources of what few of the wealthy that remained, to include the US Treasury. We entered World War II on December 7th, 1941. Although we weren't actually in the war until that point, we had been selling many weapons and unofficial "assistance" items to Great Britain and others in an effort to bolster our economy. In 1945, we won the war against both Germany and Japan, and the Social Programs we had started should have ended, since our economy and the society at-large was on a major upswing, right? Wrong! The IRS was founded originally to pay war debts and get us back-on-track in the world-scene. A great idea -- no problem. And when it has completed that, it would be disbanded, right? Wrong! Our Federal Debt actually started when a certain group of morons decided that it would be a great idea to be able to print all the money they wanted. They did this by taking us off the ÔÇ£Gold Standard,ÔÇØ which was where every dollar in the treasury was backed-up by the same amount of gold, and could be exchanged for gold at any Federal Bank. Without the Gold Standard, the term ÔÇ£inflationÔÇØ would have little meaning, since you didn't lose any value just because prices fluctuated. At the moment, the only reason that American money has any value is because we believe it does ÔÇô it isn't worth the paper it's printed on! The last time I checked (which has been awhile,) US Dollars were worth 27 cents. Prior to Black Friday, the US Government was ÔÇ£in the black,ÔÇØ meaning that there was no debt owed to anyone; in fact, there was a surplus. This all changed when the Stock Market plunged to an all-time low. The US Treasury has a table, shown below, that tells us the history of the US Debt, from 1940 to the Estimated Value in 2005. quote:1940 $ 50,696 million 1941 $ 57,531 million 1942 $ 79,200 million 1943 $ 142,648 million 1944 $ 204,079 million 1945 $ 260,123 million 1946 $ 270,991 million 1947 $ 257,149 million 1948 $ 252,031 million 1949 $ 252,610 million 1950 $ 256,853 million 1951 $ 255,288 million 1952 $ 259,097 million 1953 $ 265,963 million 1954 $ 270,812 million 1955 $ 274,366 million 1956 $ 272,693 million 1957 $ 272,252 million 1958 $ 279,666 million 1959 $ 287,465 million 1960 $ 290,525 million 1961 $ 292,648 million 1962 $ 302,928 million 1963 $ 310,324 million 1964 $ 316,059 million 1965 $ 322,318 million 1966 $ 328,498 million 1967 $ 340,445 million 1968 $ 368,685 million 1969 $ 365,769 million 1970 $ 380,921 million 1971 $ 408,176 million 1972 $ 435,936 million 1973 $ 466,291 million 1974 $ 483,893 million 1975 $ 541,925 million 1976 $ 628,970 million Transition Quarter $ 643,561 million 1977 $ 706,398 million 1978 $ 776,602 million 1979 $ 829,470 million 1980 $ 909,050 million 1981 $ 994,845 million 1982 $1,137,345 million 1983 $1,371,710 million 1984 $1,564,657 million 1985 $1,817,521 million 1986 $2,120,629 million 1987 $2,346,125 million 1988 $2,601,307 million 1989 $2,868,039 million 1990 $3,206,564 million 1991 $3,598,485 million 1992 $4,002,123 million 1993 $4,351,403 million 1994 $4,643,691 million 1995 $4,921,005 million 1996 $5,181,921 million 1997 $5,369,694 million 1998 $5,478,711 million 1999 $5,606,087 million 2000 (Estimate) $5,686,338 million 2001 (Estimate) $5,768,957 million 2002 (Estimate) $5,854,990 million 2003 (Estimate) $5,946,792 million 2004 (Estimate) $6,033,583 million 2005 (Estimate) $6,118,364 millionOn the assumption that the value shown in 1941 was the effect of the Great Depression, we spent $57.531 million dollars to support our local citizens. Not too bad, considering the devistating impact of Black Friday. By 1950, the debt should have been taken care of, the IRS abolished, etc. That didn't happen, because Congress saw great use for that extra money they had no right to have. Having to do nothing and collect great sums of money, thanks to the 1930's and early 1940's, had become the American Dream! Who would have thought that the American people could be so helpful! Let's see what ÔÇ£social reformÔÇØ has done for this great land, shall we? Assume that the value shown for 1941 has a ÔÇ£base valueÔÇØ of one, or ÔÇ£1ÔÇØ for the uninitiated. Let's check that value to see what's happened in the past 61-years.... 1940 to 1950 ÔÇô Increase from 1 to 4.46 ÔÇô Acceptable, since the first half of the 1940's was still in the Depression. 1950 to 1959 ÔÇô Increase from 4.46 to 4.997 ÔÇô Okay, so we didn't pay our bills. Korean ÔÇ£police action.ÔÇØ 1960 to 1969 ÔÇô Increase from 4.997 to 6.36 ÔÇô Viet Nam Conflict ÔÇô still not paying our bills. 1970 to 1979 ÔÇô Increase from 6.36 to 14.42 ÔÇô Wait a minute, wrong direction!!! 1980 to 1989 ÔÇô Increase from 14.42 to 49.852 ÔÇô Damn, people, what y'all thinking?!?!? 1990 to 1999 ÔÇô Increase from 49.852 to 97.444 ÔÇô Somebody, put on the breaks!!! 2000 to 2002 ÔÇô Increase from 97.444 to 101.771 (Estimated) ÔÇô Almost acceptable. 2003 to 2005 ÔÇô Increase from 101.771 to 106.349 (Estimated) ÔÇô Slowed down, at least. Still too high. What this tells me is that we still haven't paid for the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, or even Dessert Storm. Excuse me, but wasn't that the point of having the IRS in the first place? To help raise money to pay for our expenses? That was the excuse they used to start it, but.... Now, I hear people trying to convince me that we need more social programs, and to continue to let government run Education. Based on their past track-record, that would not be a sound business decision ÔÇô how would you react if someone with a history similar to what Congress has asked to run your business, or even do your taxes? My answer would be a resounding No way in hell!!! How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted November 25, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 25, 2002 As for Education, let's look at the International Averages... ÔÇ£The Condition of Education in BriefÔÇØ contains charts and other graphics illustrating the current trends in international education. The following information was converted from one of those graphics into text: International Reading Literacy: Average age reading literacy score of 15-year-olds, by country:2000 (The International Average has a base-value of 500) quote:Finland 546 Canada 534 New Zealand 529 Australia 528 Ireland 527 Korea, Republic of 525 United Kingdom 523 Japan 522 Sweden 516 Austria 507 Belgium 507 Iceland 507 France 505 Norway 505 United States 504 Denmark 497 Switzerland 494 Spain 493 Czech Republic 492 Italy 487 Germany 484 Liechtenstein 483 Hungary 480 Poland 479 Greece 474 Portugal 470 Russian Federation 462 Latvia 458 Luxembourg 441 Mexico 422 Brazil 396The United States is four-points above the International Average, but, based on what we are paying for this "education," we should be in the low 600's instead of barely above average. According to statistics that I've found, the following illustrates the differences between public and private schools. Pay particular attention to the items I've marked in bold italics: quote:SCHOOLS: TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS: 14,891 TOTAL NUMBER OF K-12 SCHOOLS: 118,464 Elementary: 81,812 Secondary: 26,205 Combined Schools: 10,447 TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS: 91,062 Elementary: 65,189 Secondary: 23, 718 Combined: 2,155 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS: 2,357 TOTAL NUMBER OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS: 27,402 Elementary: 16,623 Secondary: 2,487 Combined: 8,292 TOTAL NUMBER OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS: 8,144 Elementary: 6,923 Secondary: 1,221 Combined: N/A ENROLLMENT: TOTAL K-12: 51,610,806 Elementary: 36,168,631 Secondary: 13,989,239 Combined: 1,452,937 TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 46,534,678 Elementary: 33,343,787 Secondary: 13,190,900 TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 579,880 TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 5,076,119 Elementary: 2,824,844 Secondary: 798,339 Combined: 1,452,937 TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL ENROLLMENT: 2,500,416 Elementary: 1,877,236 Secondary: 623,180 TEACHERS: TOTAL: 3,284,000 Elementary: 2,014,000 Secondary: 1,270,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 2,887,000 Elementary: 1,733,000 Secondary: 1,154,000 TOTAL CHARTER SCHOOL TEACHERS: 36,019 TOTAL PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS: 397,000 Elementary: 281,000 Secondary: 116,000 TOTAL CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS: 144,642 Elementary: 97,692 Secondary: 40,226 Combined: 6,724 STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 17.6:1 Secondary: 14.1:1 CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO: 16:1 PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 16.4:1 Secondary: 11.5:1 CATHOLIC SCHOOL STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO Elementary: 18.7:1 Secondary: 15:1 Combined: 11.2:1 EXPENDITURES: TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPENDITURES: $334.3 billion Current Expenditures: $285.5 billion Instruction: $176.5 billion Student Services: $96.5 million Food Services: $11.7 billion Enterprise Operations: $776.4 million Capital Outlay: $36.2 billion Interest on School Debt: $7.8 billion Other Current Expenditures: $4.8 billion AVERAGE PUBLIC SCHOOL PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE: $6,662 AVERAGE PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION: $3,116 Elementary: $2,138 Secondary: $4,578 Combined: $4,266 AVERAGE CATHOLIC SCHOOL TUITION: $2,178 Elementary: $1,628 Secondary: $3,643 Combined: $4,153 SALARIES AND WAGES: PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS: District Superintendent: $112,158 Associate Superintendent: $97,251 Assistant Superintendent: $88,913 PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPALS: High School: $79,839 Middle School/Junior High: $77,382 Elementary School: $72,587 PUBLIC SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: High School: $60,999 Middle School/Junior High: $63,706 Elementary School: $59,080 PUBLIC SCHOOL PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL: Counselor: $48,195 Librarian: $46,732 School Nurse: $35,540 AVERAGE TEACHER BASE SALARY: Public School: $41,820 Private School: $33,220 Catholic School: $21,898 PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF SALARIES: Clerk/Office Positions: Secretaries/Stenographer: $28,540 Accounting Payroll: $24,560 Clerk/Typist: $23,200 School Building Level: Secretary/Stenographer: $22,650 Library Clerks: $16,980 HOURLY WAGE RATES: Teacher Aides: Instructional: $10.00 Specialized: Custodians: $11.35 Cafeteria Workers: $9.02 School Bus Driver┬╣s: $12.48 PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL EMPLOYEES BY CATEGORY: Teachers: 52.2 percent Aides: 10.8 percent School Staff: 7.9 percent Support Staff: 4.4 percent Other Staff: 20.2 percent FUNDING: TOTAL FUNDING OF PUBLIC EDUCATION: $325,976,011,000 Federal: $22.2 billion (6.8% of total) State: $157.6 billion (48.4% of total) Local: $137.8 billion (42.3% of total) Private: $8.3 billion (2.6% of total) On the assumption that we changed over to private instruction, and the average tuition remained somewhere in its current range, then we would get an effective 53% savings, less the cost of feeding low-income children and administration costs. That's $177.179 Billion Dollars to start with. Let's assume (as a high-estimate) that those extra costs ran $50 Billion. That's still $127.179 Billion in savings. Wanna know what impact that would have on your wallet? On average (2.5 people per household,) with 184 Million people, half of which have kids in school, that's 36.8 Million checks being issued by this action. Or, in dollars and cents, a tax-savings of $3,455.95 average per household with school-age children. The Department of Education would still set the standards that schools would have to follow, but would not have a public school system. Based on statistics, accounting, and common sense, there is little reason to continue our current trend of spend, spend, spend. I don't know about you, but I could use a few thousand dollars extra per year come Christmas time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolferz Posted November 25, 2002 Report Share Posted November 25, 2002 yup and they continue to sock it to the working man. maybe we need to go to dc and fire the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted November 25, 2002 Report Share Posted November 25, 2002 The government need more fresh people, young people, real politicians, not marketers and clowns. And I made no distinction between the left and right. I don't care that the right wants to remove government control over stuff, they probably will reduce school fundings to put the money in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCold Posted November 25, 2002 Report Share Posted November 25, 2002 The crash happened on "Black Tuesday," not "Black Friday," Darn history books, always misprinting things. [ 11-25-2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: IceCold ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted November 26, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2002 quote:Originally posted by IceCold: The crash happened on "Black Tuesday," not "Black Friday," Darn history books, always misprinting things.Actually, I had forgotten, so I made the mistake of looking it up on the Internet.... It said Black Friday -- all I had to do was check the calendar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted November 26, 2002 Report Share Posted November 26, 2002 quote:The government need more fresh people, young people, real politicians, not marketers and clowns.Oh, you meant elected officials? Sorry almost had a rant going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted November 26, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Wolferz: yup and they continue to sock it to the working man. maybe we need to go to dc and fire the lot of them.Actually, this last election, we did fire a bunch of them. And I didn't have to drive 40-miles south of here to do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted November 27, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2002 I am truly amazed that no Liberals have attempted to attack this. I once heard that the Left-Wing, when attacked by properly sourced-facts, correct numbers, and the truth, that they tend to fade away like so much dust in the wind... Any of you brave Leftists wanna come out to play? Please? I haven't had a good lunch lately, and you would taste so good.... Uhm, that is, the conversation with you would be so stimulating.... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted November 28, 2002 Report Share Posted November 28, 2002 I'm no leftwinger (at least the political compass in the other thread says so) but I'll answer anyway. quote:Originally posted by DraconisRex: On October 29th, 1929, which is called "Black Friday" in the history books, the Stock Market crashed, and burned. At the time, "The New Deal" was a good way of dealing with the situation, since the nation would not survive without splitting the resources of what few of the wealthy that remained, to include the US Treasury. We entered World War II on December 7th, 1941. Although we weren't actually in the war until that point, we had been selling many weapons and unofficial "assistance" items to Great Britain and others in an effort to bolster our economy. In 1945, we won the war against both Germany and Japan, and the Social Programs we had started should have ended, since our economy and the society at-large was on a major upswing, right? Wrong! The IRS was founded originally to pay war debts and get us back-on-track in the world-scene. A great idea -- no problem. And when it has completed that, it would be disbanded, right? Wrong!It has been the same all over the 1st worldafter WWII. Here in Switzerland we still pay the defense tax inroduced because of WWII. It's just that it was renamed to income tax after WWII. Once the gov't gets an additional share of GDP it is very reluctant to give it back. quote: Our Federal Debt actually started when a certain group of morons decided that it would be a great idea to be able to print all the money they wanted. They did this by taking us off the ÔÇ£Gold Standard,ÔÇØ which was where every dollar in the treasury was backed-up by the same amount of gold, and could be exchanged for gold at any Federal Bank. Without the Gold Standard, the term ÔÇ£inflationÔÇØ would have little meaning, since you didn't lose any value just because prices fluctuated.The printing of money and public debt didn't just start after the gold standard was abolished. It happened all the time in history, starting with the war of independence in the US. Problem with the gold standard was, that economic output and the amount of gold available have nothing to do with each other. An expanding economy needs the amount of money to expand at the same rate. If too low gold reserves prevent the amount of money from expanding, goods' values increas vis-├á-vis money which means the price level starts dropping. This effect is also known as deflation. The inability to increase money supply in such a case results in a strangled economy. When the UK returned to the gold standard after WWI (against the advice of Keynes) a sharp depression followed. quote: At the moment, the only reason that American money has any value is because we believe it does ÔÇô it isn't worth the paper it's printed on! The last time I checked (which has been awhile,) US Dollars were worth 27 cents.People believe in the value of the Dollar because there is a successful economy on the other side of the equation and the Federal reserve board usually tries to maintain price level stability. Actually the fact that the material worth is lower than the face value of a currency is a good thing. Because of that it can better fulfill it's role as legal tender. Since people don't want to hoard money, it's usually spent or invested (in other words it's always in circulation). quote: Prior to Black Friday, the US Government was ÔÇ£in the black,ÔÇØ meaning that there was no debt owed to anyone; in fact, there was a surplus. This all changed when the Stock Market plunged to an all-time low.Not true. Have a look at this data provided by your gov't: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history It reached a first peak after WWI, then decreased until the Great Depression and from then it's all the way up. quote: The US Treasury has a table, shown below, that tells us the history of the US Debt, from 1940 to the Estimated Value in 2005.I'll add GDP (in bln. $) to have a meaningful comparison and calculate the debt in % of GDP approx. 1940 $ 50,696 million 1946 $ 270,991 million $ 210.6 bln 128.7% 1950 $ 256,853 million $ 275.7 bln 93.1% 1960 $ 290,525 million $ 527.9 bln 55.0% 1970 $ 380,921 million $ 1018.2 bln 37.4% 1980 $ 909,050 million $ 2732.9 bln 33.3% 1990 $3,206,564 million $ 5720.8 bln 56.1% 2000 $5,629 bln $ 9752.7 bln 57.7% I'd say US economic growth made WWII, Korea and Vietnam bearable but then Reagan did some deficit spending and Clinton didn't exactly improve the situation. quote: On the assumption that the value shown in 1941 was the effect of the Great Depression, we spent $57.531 million dollars to support our local citizens. Not too bad, considering the devistating impact of Black Friday.The $ 57 bln weren't only because of the Great Depression. See above link. quote: By 1950, the debt should have been taken care of, the IRS abolished, etc. That didn't happen, because Congress saw great use for that extra money they had no right to have. Having to do nothing and collect great sums of money, thanks to the 1930's and early 1940's, had become the American Dream! Who would have thought that the American people could be so helpful!The debt taken care of by 1950? You're way to optimistic. It wouldn't have worked because it would have taken the economic output of one entire year to pay all the debt. quote: Let's see what ÔÇ£social reformÔÇØ has done for this great land, shall we? Assume that the value shown for 1941 has a ÔÇ£base valueÔÇØ of one, or ÔÇ£1ÔÇØ for the uninitiated. Let's check that value to see what's happened in the past 61-years.... 1940 to 1950 ÔÇô Increase from 1 to 4.46 ÔÇô Acceptable, since the first half of the 1940's was still in the Depression. 1950 to 1959 ÔÇô Increase from 4.46 to 4.997 ÔÇô Okay, so we didn't pay our bills. Korean ÔÇ£police action.ÔÇØ 1960 to 1969 ÔÇô Increase from 4.997 to 6.36 ÔÇô Viet Nam Conflict ÔÇô still not paying our bills. 1970 to 1979 ÔÇô Increase from 6.36 to 14.42 ÔÇô Wait a minute, wrong direction!!! 1980 to 1989 ÔÇô Increase from 14.42 to 49.852 ÔÇô Damn, people, what y'all thinking?!?!? 1990 to 1999 ÔÇô Increase from 49.852 to 97.444 ÔÇô Somebody, put on the breaks!!! 2000 to 2002 ÔÇô Increase from 97.444 to 101.771 (Estimated) ÔÇô Almost acceptable. 2003 to 2005 ÔÇô Increase from 101.771 to 106.349 (Estimated) ÔÇô Slowed down, at least. Still too high.You forgot something, Inflation. What you show is the increase of nominal debt which isn't exactly informative since the purchasing power of $ 1 was much higher in 1940 than in 2000. I'll now compile a list of debt in 1984 dollars. 1940 $ 50,696 million $ 364,719 million 1950 $ 256,853 million $ 1,092,991 million + 200% 1960 $ 290,525 million $ 991,552 million - 10% 1970 $ 380,921 million $ 1,007,727 million + 1% 1980 $ 909,050 million $ 1,168,444 million + 16% 1990 $3,206,564 million $ 2,516,926 million + 115% 2000 $5,629,000 million $ 3,334,715 million + 32% It still doesn't look good, but now at least you no longer compare apples with oranges. quote: What this tells me is that we still haven't paid for the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, or even Dessert Storm. Excuse me, but wasn't that the point of having the IRS in the first place? To help raise money to pay for our expenses? That was the excuse they used to start it, but....In a way the gov't did pay. By inflating. That way it pays back the same amount of money but it's now worth less then when it was borrowed from the public. Thus that sort of inflation is also called a hidden tax. You complained about that earlier and I agree, but for the reasons stated above returning to the gold standard would create more problems than it would solve. To prevent such things get some "hard nosed" monetarists into the Fed who commit themself to price level stability. Also the less the Fed has to bow to gov't wishes (which already applies for the US, Switzerland, Germany just to name the most inedpendent ones) the lower inflation generally is. quote: Now, I hear people trying to convince me that we need more social programs, and to continue to let government run Education. Based on their past track-record, that would not be a sound business decision ÔÇô how would you react if someone with a history similar to what Congress has asked to run your business, or even do your taxes? My answer would be a resounding No way in hell!!! How about you? [ 11-28-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 I haven't looked it this much but I will say that I am against corporate governance in matters of education by the record of governance in every other sector. There is already an abundance of sources towards turning kids into consumer addicts. School should be about socialization in a multiethnic society, critical thought born from objective information, and preparing a student to be "competitive" in jobs and higher education. Commercializing the learning environment is the wrong move. You can't solve deep rooted problems by throwing away sovereignty to a bunch of accountants. How about we end the annual 300+ billion defense spending spree and trade in the smart bombs for smart kids? Hell, if we declared peace on the world we could lower all kinds of expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted November 30, 2002 Report Share Posted November 30, 2002 That, darling, is nonsense. First of all, the government has proven, quite definitively, that it can't successfully run the schools, and throwing money at the problem isn't going to change that. Furthermore, private schools have proven, quite definitively, that they can and do work vastly better then public schools. I've never heard of any attempt to use private schools to turn kids into consumer addicts (why bother anyway, TV is already doing that wonderfully) and I don't see that changing in a material way. On the other hand, declaring world peace is about as naïve and idealistic as it gets. You can't declare something like that and expect everyone to obey unless you can support your demand with a threat of force. This means that declaring world peace would be of no value to safely reducing our defense budget, and reducing said budget would be both a major blow to our position as a world power, and an even greater blow to our own security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted December 1, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 Lotharr: quote:There is already an abundance of sources towards turning kids into consumer addicts. School should be about socialization in a multiethnic society, critical thought born from objective information, and preparing a student to be "competitive" in jobs and higher education. I agree completely. quote:Commercializing the learning environment is the wrong move. You can't solve deep rooted problems by throwing away sovereignty to a bunch of accountants. You're making the assumption that both the Department of Education and the Federal Government will simply go away if we let professionals run education. Any government office that's open for more than 72-hours usually lasts forever. Regulations that prevent commercialization in both schoolbooks and the schools themselves would deter the problem you're worried about. The Dept. of Edu. would still have the power to enforce its standards on the schools, and that is unlikely to change -- especially if by Amendment to the Constitution. quote:How about we end the annual 300+ billion defense spending spree and trade in the smart bombs for smart kids? Hell, if we declared peace on the world we could lower all kinds of expenses. We could do that. Now, I think Emperor Palpatine (sp?) has a prior engagement with the Grand Republic, and anyways, that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... How do you propose to get the several hundred nations to agree to this? The U.N. hasn't done it, and although it wants to be a world power, in reality, its defense is almost strictly U.S. backed. I can't take an organization that isn't fully supported by its members' money, military, and personnel very seriously. I will concede that a One-World Government looks great on paper. But so does Socialism. Neither one works in practical application. The United States is a Democratic Constitutional Republic. Its Reuplic is much like the Roman Empire, but our's must answer to both the President and The People. Both the President and Congress are checked by the U.S. Supreme Court for Constitutionality. However, the State Legislatures can vote in Amendments en masse by Constitutional Convention, whereby they petition the right to a States' Vote, and can over-ride Congress on any law. Checks-and-balances -- the only way to go that makes sense. Now, if we could just get the lobbyists to be restricted from being on Congressional property, then much of what I fear would never happen. Direct access to Senators and Representatives by Special Interest Groups should be illegal, since it creates a full-scale conflict-of-interest between the interests of the companies vs. the interests and well-being of The People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted December 1, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: That, darling, is nonsense. First of all, the government has proven, quite definitively, that it can't successfully run the schools, and throwing money at the problem isn't going to change that. Furthermore, private schools have proven, quite definitively, that they can and do work vastly better then public schools. I've never heard of any attempt to use private schools to turn kids into consumer addicts (why bother anyway, TV is already doing that wonderfully) and I don't see that changing in a material way. On the other hand, declaring world peace is about as naïve and idealistic as it gets. You can't declare something like that and expect everyone to obey unless you can support your demand with a threat of force. This means that declaring world peace would be of no value to safely reducing our defense budget, and reducing said budget would be both a major blow to our position as a world power, and an even greater blow to our own security.As usual, M'Lady, on the mark. (Draconis bows before the majestic wonder of the lady before him.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 Well thank you, it's always nice to be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 Like I said I don't know the ins and outs. I think it naive that assume that third party schools won't just be deregulated with the rest of the country. The real cause of school failure is more then management. As long as the communities around the school are war zones and void of economic opportunities any school system will suffer. I don't advocate throwing money at any problem. However, to assume that new management will somehow balance already meager budgets and bring a success that is somehow being held back by current administrations is not realistic. I believe this to be hype generated by profiteers who do not care about externalities like human suffering. Where did you get those figures from? I'd like to review the source and the data. From your post you want to put money back in your pocket. If that is the case I think it would be more fruitful to look else ware. Social programs are always going to cost money so who should pay the bill? How about we place a small tax on every stock transaction? Money would flow back into the country that made these businesses successful (Nader idea. Do you share Dragon Lady's assessment that the majority of American citizens are filth to be exploited whenever there is profit to be made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 You think its na├»ve? You, darling, have no room to criticize anyone about being na├»ve. None. And we arenÔÇÖt assuming that private schools would be more successful, we know for a fact that they will be because of demonstrable examples. And the management couldn't get much worse then it is now, so it's not like itÔÇÖs a great risk. As for it being a war zone, well, perhaps so, but then private schools have a much better track record with discipline problems as well. If someone doesn't want to be there enough to follow the rules, then that's the end of that. Schools should be for those who want to learn, and removing those who don't really care would not only improve the environment but also reduces the cost. quote: How about we place a small tax on every stock transaction? Money would flow back into the country that made these businesses successful (Nader idea. Oh, look, our economy isn't doing to terrible, let's go axe murder it! That's a terrible idea, it's bloody hard enough to make any money off of the stock market the way things are going now, even with IT stocks, we do NOT need a new way to reduce profit even more. This would be a most unpleasant blow to our economy as it would discourage investing, which, in turn, would make things harder for businesses. You love to come up with terrible things to do to people with money, and to companies, and try and say it's for the betterment of our country. It isn't, its utter nonsense, and it's that kind of thinking that's going to kill our economy some day should anyone loopy enough to enact that kind of nonsense get enough power. I'm sorry if this is a bit of a sore subject for me, but I have most of my money in stocks and bonds (well, if we're not including property that is) and the way the market has been going has made things difficult for me at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 quote: You think its naïve? You, darling, have no room to criticize anyone about being naïve. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 I know the questions in this post are directed towards Dragon Lady and Draconis Rex but I have that stupid habit of answering questions not directed to me just for fun. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Where did you get those figures from? I'd like to review the source and the data.Forgot to add the sources, sorry. Department of the Treasury/Bureau of the Public Debt (Public Debt): http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history Department of Commerce/Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP): http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableViewFixed.asp#Mid Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI): http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet quote: From your post you want to put money back in your pocket. If that is the case I think it would be more fruitful to look else ware. Social programs are always going to cost money so who should pay the bill?That's the point. I think he wants to abolish some programs to save money. quote: How about we place a small tax on every stock transaction? Money would flow back into the country that made these businesses successful (Nader idea.Capital markets are supposed to constantly allocate capital where it is supposed to be most productive. A tax on transactions will reduce the number of transactions because people need a higher margin of profit to make it worthwile. All that time capital is stuck in a suboptimal allocation. That's why I think that taxing transactions or capital gains is a bad idea. quote: Do you share Dragon Lady's assessment that the majority of American citizens are filth to be exploited whenever there is profit to be made?Nope. That's why taxation has to be kept in check too. [ 12-01-2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Starfighter08 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 quote: The real cause of school failure is more then management. As long as the communities around the school are war zones and void of economic opportunities any school system will suffer. I don't advocate throwing money at any problem. However, to assume that new management will somehow balance already meager budgets and bring a success that is somehow being held back by current administrations is not realistic. I believe this to be hype generated by profiteers who do not care about externalities like human suffering. And I wonder what caused this major economic and educational failure? Hmm, let's see, cities raise taxes to pay for the socalled social programs to get these poor people "out of poverty", what happens instead is that the business's that create jobs and produce that tax revenue are no longer profitable with the huge taxes they pay to get"rid of poverty". So what do they do? THEY LEAVE, and relocate where the taxes are not so oppressive and therefore they can manage to somehow make a profit. Higher taxes, less business's for jobs, less jobs more poverty, then of course they raise taxes again to "get rid of poverty" and so the cycle begins again. You end up with no tax base, the community turns into a ghetto, the educational system falls apart, and it eats itself. ALL that because the government wanted to help by taxing the very business that employed those that were employed in that community. The government in essence created MORE of what it was trying to fight. It happens EVERY time, EVERY single time. Your view is that we need to tax the business' more then they already are, in order to pay for the social programs, which of course DOES NOT work, because you end up chasing the business out of the very communities you are trying to help. A business is NOT a charity, it is FOR PROFIT organization, for without profit, an entropeneur will not even bother, why should he start a business? When he starts it, he loses money to begin with, and as soon as it starts showing a profit, it is taxed away from him? Tax stocks and bonds, what? are you really that naive, do you want to destroy the economy totally? In all honesty if you want to help the poor, there are 3 steps. 1: get rid of ALL government run social programs, they do not work and they create more problems. 2: help nonprofit PRIVATE organizations get going, through tax breaks, government susidized food such as cheese, etc given to those nonprofit private organizations for free. AND the most important, 3: LOWER or get rid of ALL taxes on business's, go to a straight sales or consumption tax on goods sold. the income tax should be gotten rid of totally, it is NONE of the governments business how much money ANYONE makes. If those steps are TRULY taken, you will see the economy gop through the roof, tax revenue go way up, and poverty drop through the floor. It works EVERY time it is tried, problem is that most politicians and liberals, are more interested in power then actually taking care of the problem, because they need MORE poverty in order to gain more power, that is why they do it the way they do. THe 3 steps above are the TRUE solution, and it WILL and DOES work. Too bad that you are too naive or closeminded in your hate of business/corporate greed, to see it. Oh well, not all of us understand the true free market economy and a republican form of government, but those of us that do, need to try to teach those of you who don't, why and how it works, even if it means having you kick and scream about how unfair it is. Because it is not at all unfair, it is based on true human nature, Human potential, and humn profit motive, IE PERSONAL GREED. When you can change human nature, then we will discuss your liberal and socialistic dreams, but men are NOT insects, and NEVER will be, that is why those systems NEVER work. The only people they work for, are the ones in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 quote: I know the questions in this post are directed towards Dragon Lady and Draconi Rex but I have that stupid habit of answering questions not directed to me just for fun. No problem others jump in all the timeonly you seem to have a grip on reality... I wanted to know where Rex got those figures on private vs public costs and what not... quote: That's the point. I think he wants to abolish some programs to save money. I understand that and I am all for saving tax payer money where it is practical. The current theme in America is to deregulate everything thinking that the "lazy bureaucrat" will be replaced by the resourceful and savvy business exec. However corporate governance and consumerism is destroying our sovereignty and spreading the ethics of visionless short term profitability over any sense of environmental, employee, or civic duty. Good schools cost. I don't know how it is in your country but we have left millions of Americans impoverished and destitute in the quest for profit. It is no longer fashionable to discuss these issues in mainstream outlets since this rush towards deregulation is actually exacerbating these problems. The corporate owners who buy officials, edit the media, and dictate priorities are loath to examine these failing in any meaningful way. I do want to explore this idea....but not at the expense causal factors. In America the underlying situation is that only the haves can afford proper funding in a system that rewards success by maintaining impoverishment. The notion of buying into the success of citizens has been left behind in favor of the free market ideology....only we seem to be building more prisons and weapons than citizens who are prepared to add to society in a meaningful way. quote: That's why I think that taxing transactions or capital gains is a bad idea. Well at least you don't think the sky to fall. I think it is a good idea. Trading can't stop so they can deal with it like the millions of Americans who have to deal with paying for more exotic weapons systems that aren't furthering our goals in the current asymmetrical warfare environment and will never overcome motivated thinkers that are reacting to oppression and abusive foreign policy. It seems that if the theory of the freemarket were sound we wouldn't be suffering these situations. We are dismantling tort law, industrial regulation, and corporate accountability at unprecedented rates (thats for the jobs we dont send to some totalitarian country where labor can be used as virtual slaves). All we are getting however is more poor people, less jobs, and further disintegration of community....so if the suits cant make the right decisions we need to force them to give back. I dont want to live in a nation of accountants who base their morality on current market ethos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted December 1, 2002 Report Share Posted December 1, 2002 quote: A business is NOT a charity, it is FOR PROFIT organization, for without profit, an entropeneur will not even bother, why should he start a business? When he starts it, he loses money to begin with, and as soon as it starts showing a profit, it is taxed away from him? People don't need charity when they have justice. You of all people should know how the founders felt about corporations. They feared precisely what is happening today. I believe your three steps would throw this country into a revolution. quote: It works EVERY time it is tried Ok fill me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: And I wonder what caused this major economic and educational failure?Don't know what you mean by economic failure. That slowdown we're currently in? Educational failure IMO also stems from living in a wealthy society. Children take all the things they get from the parents for granted and thus don't see why they should work hard at school. I'd say in certain circles there is even an active anti-intellectual stance. quote: Hmm, let's see, cities raise taxes to pay for the socalled social programs to get these poor people "out of poverty", what happens instead is that the business's that create jobs and produce that tax revenue are no longer profitable with the huge taxes they pay to get"rid of poverty". So what do they do? THEY LEAVE, and relocate where the taxes are not so oppressive and therefore they can manage to somehow make a profit. Higher taxes, less business's for jobs, less jobs more poverty, then of course they raise taxes again to "get rid of poverty" and so the cycle begins again. You end up with no tax base, the community turns into a ghetto, the educational system falls apart, and it eats itself. ALL that because the government wanted to help by taxing the very business that employed those that were employed in that community. The government in essence created MORE of what it was trying to fight. It happens EVERY time, EVERY single time. Your view is that we need to tax the business' more then they already are, in order to pay for the social programs, which of course DOES NOT work, because you end up chasing the business out of the very communities you are trying to help.Basicly I agree. This is especially true for businesses which employ low skilled labor. Where high skilled labor is concerned the businesses are usually ready to cope with higher taxes and higher expectations of potential employees because their productivity is also higher. quote: A business is NOT a charity, it is FOR PROFIT organization, for without profit, an entrepreneur will not even bother, why should he start a business? When he starts it, he loses money to begin with, and as soon as it starts showing a profit, it is taxed away from him?I don't think Lotharr is promoting a 100% tax on company profits thus there is still profit left for the company. Althuogh I too think that even a 50% like in Germany is too high. People should still feel that taking risks does pay off. That of course doesn't mean that you can't tax business at all. quote: Tax stocks and bonds, what? are you really that naive, do you want to destroy the economy totally?That's somewhat exagerated. Although it would certainly hurt efficiency of the capital market (more so the higher the tax is), it wouldn't completely destroy it. quote: In all honesty if you want to help the poor, there are 3 steps. 1: get rid of ALL government run social programs, they do not work and they create more problems. 2: help nonprofit PRIVATE organizations get going, through tax breaks, government susidized food such as cheese, etc given to those nonprofit private organizations for free. AND the most important, 3: LOWER or get rid of ALL taxes on business's, go to a straight sales or consumption tax on goods sold. the income tax should be gotten rid of totally, it is NONE of the governments business how much money ANYONE makes.1. Too generous social programs have indeed the side effect of reducing incentives to work but completely abolishing them would condemn many people to misery. Since it is much easier to find a job if you're not homeless, I think a social program should avert the worst consequences of poverty but not try to fight poverty itself. That's what education and growing economy is for. 2. What's the difference between a gov't funded private non-profit organization and a gov't program? What you describe has pretty much the same effect as food stamps. I'm not yet convinced that a private non-profit organization would be much more effective and efficient than the gov't. 3. That would deprive the gov't of a source of income without creating the fantastic growth effects you expect since taxation is not the only variable a potential business considers. As long as taxes are kept low enough, businesses will still expand and provide the gov't with some income. A tax on consumption has that nasty effect of hurting especially the poor you want to help by abolishing the income tax, unless of course you want to exempt basic needs from taxation. But doing that usually opens a new can of worms. quote: If those steps are TRULY taken, you will see the economy gop through the roof, tax revenue go way up, and poverty drop through the floor. It works EVERY time it is tried, problem is that most politicians and liberals, are more interested in power then actually taking care of the problem, because they need MORE poverty in order to gain more power, that is why they do it the way they do. THe 3 steps above are the TRUE solution, and it WILL and DOES work. Too bad that you are too naive or closeminded in your hate of business/corporate greed, to see it.Amen. Sorry but I always say amen when I heard a prayer (and that isn't too often). The way you made your point above really does resemble a promise of paradise if you do that and not the other. IIRC it was Harry Trueman who wanted "one-handed economists" because he was irritated that they would always say: on the one hand...on the other hand. Well, economics is not about nice and simple solutions. Every measure has some advantages and some disadvantages and those making the decision should know that and weight the effects against each other according to their preferences of outcomes. Even more important is, they should know that their choices/preferences are based on their world view (in other words: opinion) concerning equality, reward for success etc. What we have here is a discussion about the merits of the different world views and not exclusively about the effects of different policies. quote: Oh well, not all of us understand the true free market economy and a republican form of government, but those of us that do, need to try to teach those of you who don't, why and how it works, even if it means having you kick and scream about how unfair it is.I think many people do understand the effects of markets as they are now (notice how I didn't say free, since they aren't), but even more people don't know what a really free market is in theory, what the prerequisites are and what the advantages for the consumer would be. If you look at all the tariff and subsidies debates that are constantly going on in politics, you see that even fewer people actually want free markets. Above all those who claim to be in favor of them. Real life example: Here in Switzerland the Federal Council (executive branch) just recently decided to let the ban on parallel imports of pharmaceuticals in place, since the companies need the money resulting from higher prices for their research. What a piece of crap. What about foreign companies who don't have such protected markets, do they fare worse than ours? Not at all. This is just a good example how the self appointed fighters for free markets (they even have the guts to call themselfs "classical liberals") blatantly disregard their supposed convictions when it suits them. Of course that doesn't mean that free markets are a bad idea. It's just a bad idea to trust those people who profit the most when markets are not free to make laws suitable to keep markets free. I could continue to rant about the same people when they discuss trust laws and how they try to save their monopolies (Swiss economy is one of the most colluded economies on earth) but that wouldn't add anything new. quote: Because it is not at all unfair, it is based on true human nature, Human potential, and humn profit motive, IE PERSONAL GREED. When you can change human nature, then we will discuss your liberal and socialistic dreams, but men are NOT insects, and NEVER will be, that is why those systems NEVER work. The only people they work for, are the ones in charge.Are you a proponent of social darvinism? I ask this because while I agree that greed is human nature, but I also think that human instincts shouldn't rule supreme and unchallenged or otherwise there will be anarchy and everybody is worse off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfighter08 Posted December 2, 2002 Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Good schools cost. I don't know how it is in your country but we have left millions of Americans impoverished and destitute in the quest for profit.Our country allocates around 5.5% of GDP for education but still only ranges around average in international comparisons of 14-15 year olds. IMO one reason is a distinct problem with discipline of children compared to earlier times and the anti-intellectual stance among younger people. Another one might be the foreigners who amount to 20% of total population and have only a poor command of the german/french/italian language. I think integration of these people only works if they are a small minority, but them more their numbers increase, the more it is difficult. There are school districts where children of first generation immigrants make up more than 1/3 of the pupils in a class. If we compare ourselfs with other classical immigration destinations like Germany and the US we are only slightly better. Call me a xenophobe if you want but I think that it is quite revealing that the most successful countries in that regard like Japan, South Korea and Singapore are very homogeneous societies. quote: It is no longer fashionable to discuss these issues in mainstream outlets since this rush towards deregulation is actually exacerbating these problems. The corporate owners who buy officials, edit the media, and dictate priorities are loath to examine these failing in any meaningful way. I do want to explore this idea....but not at the expense causal factors.IMO the fallacy of comparing public and privat school performance in the US is that private schools can screen for rich people (fees) who are reasonably giftet (entry tests), while the public schools take the rest. It looks like a problem of adverse selection to me. The lower the average performance of public schools, the more good pupils are sent to private schools by their parents. That makes the average drop further etc. If I'm completely wrong with my assessment, I'd be glad if someone who knows reasonably well about that situation could correct me. In Switzerland private schools are considered to be for dim wits who have rich parents. Everybody who is reasonably intelligent can do well in public schools which aren't that bad (yet). quote: In America the underlying situation is that only the haves can afford proper funding in a system that rewards success by maintaining impoverishment. The notion of buying into the success of citizens has been left behind in favor of the free market ideology....only we seem to be building more prisons and weapons than citizens who are prepared to add to society in a meaningful way.Rewarding success by maintaining poverty? Well, if out of 10 people one is more successful and thus richer, then by definition the other 9 are *relatively* worse off but I wouldn't call that maintaining poverty. I do agree however that access to education shouldn't be based on the wealth of parents but on the intellectual abilities of the pupil in question. How can you be more meritocratic than that? I shudder when I think of how many people in the world don't even have access to basic education. Under other circumstances one of these people could be the guy who finds a cure against cancer or somesuch. All that wasted potential... quote: Well at least you don't think the sky to fall. I think it is a good idea. Trading can't stop so they can deal with it like the millions of Americans who have to deal with paying for more exotic weapons systems that aren't furthering our goals in the current asymmetrical warfare environment and will never overcome motivated thinkers that are reacting to oppression and abusive foreign policy.The sky doesn't fall. But I think that inefficiencies on several markets have cumulative effects and can lead a country into trouble, cough Germany cough. Here in Switzerland a tax on capital gains was cosidered a few years ago, but then the idea was dropped since the estimated tax revenues weren't significantly higher than the administrative costs to collect them. The US on the other hand has a larger market and thus it could be worth the effort. In the interest of efficient allocation of capital, which is a major prerequisite for a wealthy society, I still think it is a bad idea. quote: It seems that if the theory of the freemarket were sound we wouldn't be suffering these situations.That depends on what you mean with "sound". The theory has some hard to implement prerequisites but in general getting close to theory is the only feaisble thing, no matter what theory you try to implement. A working free market doesn't abolish poverty but it gives everybody a chance to use their abilities to attain success. Wealth is a function of productivity which in turn is a function of education, rule of law, stability and other similar political factors. IMO if the gov't helps poor but promising children to get an education, promotes law and order and generally acts in a responsible way, then it goes a long way to promote wealth and high living standards of it's people. The problem is, that this is a self reinforcing trend (also known as vicious cicle). Wealthy, stable and free societies can increase productivity and thus wealth etc. etc. While poor, civil war ridden countries not only destroy what little they have now, but they also don't get out of that cicle too. Throwing money at the problem for 50 years hasn't done much to alleviate the situation but I also don't think that recolonization is an acceptable strategy. quote: We are dismantling tort law, industrial regulation, and corporate accountability at unprecedented rates (thatÔÇÖs for the jobs we donÔÇÖt send to some totalitarian country where labor can be used as virtual slaves). All we are getting however is more poor people, less jobs, and further disintegration of community....so if the suits canÔÇÖt make the right decisions we need to force them to give back.Dismantling regulation can improve the situation if you already have a thight network of regulations like it is the case with many european countries. While there are regulations who can be reduced easily, I say dismantle corporate accountability on your own peril. If people can't trust the numbers provided by the companies, they won't invest unless they get high risk premiums, which does reduce overall investment and creation of jobs. Wall Street wasn't exactly happy about Bush's plans regarding corporate accountability and the indices fell after both of his speeches. Transparency shouldn't be something you mess with if you really are in favor of free markets. quote: I donÔÇÖt want to live in a nation of accountants who base their morality on current market ethos.I'll take a dull accountant over a charismatic leader any day of the week. The latter ones usually mean more trouble than it is worth it. And then there are those who base their morality on religion, which is the very definition of fundamentalism. Shudder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraconisRex Posted December 2, 2002 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2002 Okay, here we go. The problems with education are many-fold. However, a lot of the failure of the education system is discipline, which is rarely enforced. Teachers are stock-herding young minds as babysitters, but there is little education going on in public schools. Parents don't enforce rules with their kids; schools are limited by law to what they can do. We have laws on keeping kids in school until at least a certain grade (varies by state.) Who enforces them? Based on the drug problem, and guns getting into schools, etc., then I'd say nobody. If you're at school, you should be forced to stay there until the day is over. Period. (Exception for work-releases that relate to on-the-job training.) Gangs? Simple. There's on-campus, then there's off-campus. If a student lets a non-student (other than a parent or guardian) onto campus, then that student joins the ranks of the off-campus crowd. Someone comes onto campus who doesn't belong, arrest them with jail time. Tickets don't work. You got drugs or guns on campus, or anything else illegal? Busted, and gone. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. Enforcement of rules is a must. The rule of law must be enforced, or we're wasting our time, money, and resources. Someone asked me where I got my information from. I copied my information verbatim from The Center for Education Reform, which based their findings on the following sources: quote:U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 87, Page 95 (1998-99), Table 63, Page 72 (1999-2000). The Center for Education Reform: National Charter School Directory 2001. U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 39, Page 50 (1998-99), Table 60, Page 70 (1998-99), Table 63, Page 72 (1999-2000). The Center for Education Reform: National Charter School Directory 2001. U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 65, Page 74 (1999), Table 60, Page 70 (1998-99). (Est.) U.S. Department of Education: The State of Charter Schools 2000, Fourth-Year Report, Page 24. U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 65, Page 74 (1999); Catholic School: Calculated between Table 60, Page 70 (1998-99), and Table 63, Page 72 (1999-2000). U.S. Department of Education: The State of Charter Schools 2000, Fourth-Year Report, Page 24. U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 162, Page 179 (1998), Table 164, Page 182 (1998), Table 168, Page 188 (1998), Table 62, Page 72 (1993-94). American Federation of Teachers: 2000 Statistical Survey, Table 1-5, Page 21, Table 2-6, Page 43. Educational Research Service: Salaries Paid Professional Personnel in Public Schools, 1999-2000, (Mean of mean salaries), Table 7, Page 17. National Association of Elementary School Principals, Source: Educational Research Service: National Survey of salary and wages in Public School Principals Salaries, 2000-01. Bureau for Labor Statistics: Survey of Wages and Jobs in 1997. Educational Research Service: Salaries Paid Professional Personnel in Public Schools, 1999-2000, (Mean of mean salaries), Table 7, Page 17. American Federation of Teachers: 2000 Statistical Survey, Table 1-5, Page 21, Table 2-6, Page 43. National Center for Educational Statistics: Survey of Catholic School Teachers in 1993-94. U.S. Department of Education: Digest of Education Statistics 2000, Table 158, Page 175 (1998), Table 159, Page 176 (1998). Now, that should be enough to give you a couple of weeks of work to weed through. Religious schools (Catholic, Lutheran, etc.) will not take kindly to having the government enforce regulations on them. In fact, they'll close the schools before they let that happen. They won't take the vouchers, period. (I could be wrong about that, if they can maintain their basic free-hand without a lot of new rules, they might go for it. But government likes to control....) As for costs, I don't have a problem with the current education costs ÔÇô my earlier example (in my original post that showed in-pocket savings) was an example of what would happen if we made no improvements to the private schools. If they received the same monies to do the same job, teacher salaries would be dramatically improved, and extra money would be available for field trips, equipment, etc. However, they would have to raise test scores by something like 30%. They do that, then our money is well-spent. However, I still want the State to administer the tests of every school, to make sure there's no underhanded nonsense going on. (Watch the watchers.) Failure to do this means lower income to the school (use profit motive as a tool, but control its use.) The State would have to audit records, etc., on a regular basis, to make sure all the students and classes were taken care of. This does not eliminate the Dept. of Education; it simply changes and down-sizes much of its excess. But Test Scores must be based on a Federally mandated, flat-score, universal program, or we're wasting our time (again.) What about the workers that run the cafeteria, janitorial work, etc.? Actually, most of them would go to work for the school, usually with a pay-hike. The ones who weren't selected by the school would qualify to go into other jobs with the city or county. (Don't want to create too much tension over the changes by the local workers. These people already work for local government, and there's almost always other jobs they can do.) Most parents don't have the time or energy to watch their kids, and many don't even see their kids until after 6:00 in the evening (if then.) To keep gangs from being a problem, curfews are effective. Apply them to anyone under the 10th grade ÔÇô you must go to a parent, guardian, or other approved location after school, even if it's only to Study Hall. What about 10th through 12th? Work, home, approved location, library, or anyplace you need to go. You will need a properly signed pass, though (parent, teacher, principal, peace officer, judge, or employer can sign these.) I'm hard-nosed about discipline because it is totally lacking in our schools. The present system gives no options to control the gang-related situation. I am not trying to take away the rights of youngsters ÔÇô I am trying to ensure that they have the chance to get a good education, but they cannot do that if they're not in school. Wanna drop out of school in the 10th grade? Fine. But you still have to have a job before you do that, and you must be employed at all times. Otherwise, back to school. We have to keep the kids off the streets. Not on the streets means that gangs would be extremely limited. As for accelerated students, who get their diploma early.... Those go to college, or to work, until they're 18. After that, they can be a bum if they want, but not in productive society. In fact, other countries need their services, but if you're not a contributing member of society, then you're a liability. (Handicapped people who simply cannot work would qualify for assistance, as I don't want this to become a harsh society ÔÇô just one that requires citizens to be productive.) --------------------------- While we're on the subject of public assistance, if you can work, there are jobs. Might not be what you want to do, but if you like eating, and living in something other than a cardboard box, then working is your only real option (unless you find someone who takes care of you anyway.) The ones that are on welfare, food stamps, etc.... Get them into high school diploma programs. Help them get a 2-year degree in selected technical or skilled labor fields. Give them the option, but this restriction must exist: By help, we mean you must partially take care of yourself, which means maintain a part-time job (even if it's McDonalds.) Helping someone and doing it for them are two different things. quote:Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime. - Jesus of NazarethGet everyone out of the vicious welfare cycle. ÔÇ£You can't get a job, because you can't make enough money to be more than what welfare is paying.ÔÇØ If you're working, but still need assistance, pro-rate that assistance, based on cost-of-living, number in family, etc. I'm not trying to kill the program ÔÇô but if you're sitting on your chair, doing nothing for society, and nothing for yourself, then you are a liability. On the other hand, if you're doing the best you can to raise your family with the work you can get, obeying the laws of the land, and you're still not able to feed, clothe, house, and have transportation available for your family, then I don't mind helping. There is a vast difference between the Needy, which would include people lacking employable job skills, and the Lazy, which do nothing but spend my tax money. Do you see the difference? Do you understand? It's simple: If you're going to spend my tax money, the least you can do is be productive with it. Having 9 kids and lounging around at the house all day on welfare with your $200/week nails, $90 tennis shoes, and late-model car, at State's expense, is not productive. It's long-term genocide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now