Jump to content

So, you want Government in Control?


DraconisRex
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

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.

And I thought our educational system was in trouble.

quote:

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....)

Not accepting vouchers means that only parents who can afford to pay the tuition fee twice can send their children there. Besides I think education shouldn't be infested with religion.

quote:

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.)

What would you say to my "adverse selection theory" I stated in my previous post? Does it have some merit?

quote:

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.)

Agree. Quality must be comparable.

quote:

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.)

I don't think that it's the gov't first task to create jobs but if they need workers anyway, they might as well work there.

quote:

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 think the problem that parents don't have time or energy is closely related with the discipline issue. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is because both have to work to support the family.

quote:

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.

Helping people to help themselfs looks like a promising concept to me.

quote:

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.

That sounds somewhat exagerated IMO. Concerning the 9 kids, I've heard that sex-ed isn't exactly popular with the religious right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay, this is going to be a long one, here we go...

quote:

Good schools cost.

Yea, they cost about what good private schools cost, rather then what exaggeratedly expensive public schools cost

quote:

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.

So, um, who exactly do you think pays most of the costs for these exotic weapon systems (and may I remind you that the atom bomb, then an exotic weapon system, saved us a horrible land war in Japan)? Oh yea, it's the wealthy, because people with money pay most of the taxes. Lets here it for tax breaks for the poor and more taxing on the wealthy...

Furthermore, making money the way the stock market is today isn't so easy that anyone can afford to have some siphoned off to pay the government. I know I can't.

quote:

People don't need charity when they have justice.

Darling, it's not called justice when you rob one group to prop up the degenerate lifestyle of another. I admit that there are people who arenÔÇÖt degenerate and lazy on welfare and other social programs, but they are being encouraged to be degenerate and lazy.

quote:

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.

I'm not sure how this is a problem? People who can't be economically successful get exactly what the deserve. Misery. If there is really a job for them that someone who hasn't flushed there life down the gutter can take, then if they work hard they can get it. Besides, I've seen plenty of beggars, and very few of them seem to be in a situation where they can't work, just where they don't want to.

quote:

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.

Bah! That isn't social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief that we are stunting our evolution by enacting social programs that are fundamentally a waste of time anyway. It's an interesting theory and I, for one, am rather fond of some of the policies it advocates, but the nonsense about how we are evolving towards something is rubbish. Genetic science will take over far before evolution gets us anywhere.

quote:

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.

An anti-intellectual stance eh? Talk about asking for it.

quote:

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.

You're not a xenophobe darling, and I think that is very interesting that successful countries tend to have homogenous populations. It is also my opinion that we don't need any more people here and immigration should be brought down to a trickle.

quote:

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.

Well, ok, so let's assume that private schools wouldn't be able to do any better then public schools as far as test scores go. That's not too bad though, because at least they will do the same bad job while costing less money.

quote:

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....

LOL

I agree in entirety.

quote:

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.)

One little thing you forgot to mention is that this kind of draconian control (admittedly of use in some areas) shouldn't be extended to schools where there is no gang problem or guns in the school.

quote:

You got drugs or guns on campus, or anything else illegal? Busted, and gone. Period. No if's, and's, or but's.

I agree in entirety. School is supposed to be a place to learn, not to buy drugs (or use them for that matter).

quote:

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.

Now this I disagree with. No one should be forced to go to school. If there parents can't get them to go, and they don't want to be there, then they shouldn't. It would vastly improve the environment only to have people who want to learn. Furthermore, kids should be able to drop out after grade school. By that point they have a basic grasp of reading and arithmetic, and if they truly don't want to be in school they won't learn much in the following years anyway. It's a waste of time and money to keep them there just as a babysitting service.

quote:

As for accelerated students, who get their diploma early.... Those go to college, or to work, until they're 18.

And what, pray tell, happens to those of us who needn't work to get by? I'm in college some of the time (as I have been since I was 16), and I'm old enough it isn't a problem anyway, but I took a quarter off now and again before I was 18.

quote:

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.

Deporting bums, now that's something I wouldn't mind me tax dollars going towards.

quote:

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.

If were going to have to pay to educate them (not something that appeals to me, I must admit) then we might as well do this efficiently. Set up special high intensity job-skills training programs. Making it possible for people to get through them, but only if they really work at it, thereby weeding out those who don't deserve public assistance and similarly reducing the time necessary and thus reducing prices. Also, considering that these are the type of people who are so terrible at getting jobs, they should be employed (in return for basic food and barracks style sleeping facilities) by the very schools they are going to. This too will reduce costs and necessitate that the individuals going there are indeed willing to work.

quote:

Get 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.

No, I disagree. If someone can keep a job then they don't need public assistance (beyond the aforementioned training program). I see no need to support someone who works simply because they arenÔÇÖt making enough money at there job.

quote:

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.

So what kind of family are we talking about? A gaggle of kids is the only excuse for someone not to be able to manage (other family members can work just like anyone else) I see no reason to support people who have a lot of children. It's there choice, and if they can't manage to avoid getting pregnant (not a hard task for anyone even moderately competent) then they deserve what they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

I'm not sure how this is a problem? People who can't be economically successful get exactly what the deserve. Misery. If there is really a job for them that someone who hasn't flushed there life down the gutter can take, then if they work hard they can get it. Besides, I've seen plenty of beggars, and very few of them seem to be in a situation where they can't work, just where they don't want to.

Not wanting to spend money on social programs doesn't make it cheaper for society. You will just have to build more prisons to take in all these people who are basicly forced into crime. I have a rather utilitarian approach to the issue and not based on moral (like in: you deserve misery). Minimizing overall costs means you'll have to support the really poor ones IMO.

quote:

Bah! That isn't social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the belief that we are stunting our evolution by enacting social programs that are fundamentally a waste of time anyway. It's an interesting theory and I, for one, am rather fond of some of the policies it advocates, but the nonsense about how we are evolving towards something is rubbish. Genetic science will take over far before evolution gets us anywhere.

I wasn't speaking about the "evolving into something better" part, that's indeed rubbish. But rather about the unrestricted employment of "survival of the fittest" in human society.

quote:

An anti-intellectual stance eh? Talk about asking for it.

Hu? You mean by spending on public schools?

quote:

You're not a xenophobe darling, and I think that is very interesting that successful countries tend to have homogenous populations. It is also my opinion that we don't need any more people here and immigration should be brought down to a trickle.

Glad to meet somebody who thinks alike. Over here that sort of ideas can get you the stigma of a xenophobe or racist.

quote:

Well, ok, so let's assume that private schools wouldn't be able to do any better then public schools as far as test scores go. That's not too bad though, because at least they will do the same bad job while costing less money.

Good point indeed.

quote:

No, I disagree. If someone can keep a job then they don't need public assistance (beyond the aforementioned training program). I see no need to support someone who works simply because they arenÔÇÖt making enough money at there job.

No pity with working poors?

quote:

So what kind of family are we talking about? A gaggle of kids is the only excuse for someone not to be able to manage (other family members can work just like anyone else) I see no reason to support people who have a lot of children. It's there choice, and if they can't manage to avoid getting pregnant (not a hard task for anyone even moderately competent) then they deserve what they get.

The parents yes, but what about the children born from such parents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So, um, who exactly do you think pays most of the costs for these exotic weapon systems (and may I remind you that the atom bomb, then an exotic weapon system, saved us a horrible land war in Japan)? Oh yea, it's the wealthy, because people with money pay most of the taxes. Lets here it for tax breaks for the poor and more taxing on the wealthy...

War time economy.

What are you talking about? If you are referring to the 1% who hold over 50% of the wealth in this country sell some stock and buy a clue (oh thats right you got ripped off tootragic) Our wealth imbalance looks like something out of a medieval nightmare.

quote:

Darling, it's not called justice when you rob one group to prop up the degenerate lifestyle of another. I admit that there are people who arenÔÇÖt degenerate and lazy on welfare and other social programs, but they are being encouraged to be degenerate and lazy

You are talking about corporate infiltration into government correct? How our tax money goes into failing businesses run by degenerates. How vast amounts of corporate R+D are funded by the tax payers who don't see the pay off?

So when wealth owns politics and those bought and paid for suits pass laws that destroy the worker's ability to serve as the balancing force against greed and profiteering that is not stealing eh?

I would have to say that engineering the laws to serve the interests of wealth without concern for society is a plutocracy and a form of tyranny.

Now the only thing stopping real action is the middle class standard of living....and that is falling also....youÔÇÖre like a broker in the market of barrowed time.

The rest of your post is elitist crap but keep it up...I do like your posts....this instructional candor in AmericaInc ethics is something you can't get from CEO's these days.

quote:

And I thought our educational system was in trouble.


You have no idea the kinda shape this country is in. Commercials would have this country look like a utopia of gizmos and well adjusted, ethnically diverse happy people..but by 2020 behavioral disorders are expected to surpass heart conditions as the a major affliction of American citizens.

quote:

I think the problem that parents don't have time or energy is closely related with the discipline issue. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is because both have to work to support the family.


Yup

quote:

Helping people to help themselfs looks like a promising concept to me

Yes

quote:

I've heard that sex-ed isn't exactly popular with the religious right.


Neither is science...go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Not wanting to spend money on social programs doesn't make it cheaper for society. You will just have to build more prisons to take in all these people who are basicly forced into crime. I have a rather utilitarian approach to the issue and not based on moral (like in: you deserve misery). Minimizing overall costs means you'll have to support the really poor ones IMO.

Well darling, I think that criminals who would end up serving a lot of time should just be executed, especially violent criminals. It would save money, deter future criminals, and prevent repeat offenders (I haven't seen any crime statistics on corpses before, but I imagine they're pretty low).

quote:

I wasn't speaking about the "evolving into something better" part, that's indeed rubbish. But rather about the unrestricted employment of "survival of the fittest" in human society.

Well, I don't care who survives (except perhaps me and those close to me), but my problem is with paying for those unfit individuals to survive. Let's forget about morality for a moment. It's a bloody waste of money. I made a decent suggestion on how to deal with those who do have a chance of becoming useful productive members of society, but beyond that I couldn't care less what happens to them.

quote:

No pity with working poors?

Nope, not really. Pity is the most loathsome of emotions and I have little of it myself and find it repulsive and incomprehensible in others.

quote:

The parents yes, but what about the children born from such parents?

Well, tough, maybe the parents should put them up for adoption. I honestly couldn't care less what happens to them.

quote:

You are talking about corporate infiltration into government correct? How our tax money goes into failing businesses run by degenerates. How vast amounts of corporate R+D are funded by the tax payers who don't see the pay off?

LMAO

Way to misinterpret me darling.

No, I wasn't referring to corporate welfare or any of that. I don't honestly know enough about corporate welfare to have an opinion on it. If I were to take your opinion on it (something I'm rather loath to do for obvious reasons) then no, it's not something I would support. If you would be so kind as to post a link to a site that provides information abut such things (without being to obviously leftist) I would appreciate it.

quote:

The rest of your post is elitist crap but keep it up...I do like your posts....this instructional candor in AmericaInc ethics is something you can't get from CEO's these days.

Well darling, I don't see any reason to be less then truthful of my opinion, and it makes for good arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No, I wasn't referring to corporate welfare or any of that

no kidding

But you made the case better then I could have....I just provided you with the right context.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-05-02.html

As right as it gets. These conservatives understand this one aspect correctly.

[ 12-02-2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cato institute is not a conservative organization, it is a constitutionalist organization.

On this aspect we agree Lotharr, I believe that the government should fund national defense, That's it, that's all. NOTHING ELSE...

States should do everything else, as long as it does NOT go against the federal constitution, IE gun control laws go against the 2nd amendment. THey are patently unconstitutional.

If the states want to run social programs and all that, more power to them, I can move to a state that won't take my tax money to pay for a bunch of morons with victim mentalities.

any type of welfare to any organization or person by the federal government is unconstitutional, therefore they should not exist, under a federal umbrella. States, again, I could not care less, at least I have the choice to move out of such a state and into another. And that is where ALL the money will go as well. Any state that has a high tax rate is seeing business's flee to states that have lower tax rates and are friendly to business, as they should.

California is a great example, just as Washington is as well. Business's are fleeing in HUGE numbers, Boeing is a glaring example of a company that was taxed out of the state.

The politicians are still trying to figure out why they left, what a bunch of clueless morons...

You see, that is the real difference between you and me, you believe that the feds should be involved, and I believe that they shouldn't. The constitution tells me that I am right, and some of your comments fit right in there as well.

Corporate welfare being one of those, and the above article is indeed TRUE corporate welfare.

For a minute I thought you were gonna get crazy as far as tax breaks and incentives and call that corporate welfare, then I was gonna hit upside the head with a 2X4. But, you were absolutely correct, so I won't argue with you on that.

Amazing, we actually agree on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag:

quote:

any type of welfare to any organization or person by the federal government is unconstitutional, therefore they should not exist, under a federal umbrella. States, again, I could not care less, at least I have the choice to move out of such a state and into another. And that is where ALL the money will go as well. Any state that has a high tax rate is seeing business's flee to states that have lower tax rates and are friendly to business, as they should.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Federal Government has the power to enact any law that ensures the welfare of its people. There are only two references to it in the Constitution:

quote:

Constitutional References

[*]
Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[*]
Article 1, Section 8

Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


I am not against welfare existing - I am for minimizing it to the untrainable. We have a defined duty to protect the helpless, no matter how much we want to put them in front of the firing squad. There is a vast underground in the United States that depend on those checks to support illegal activities. We can't just make the money go bye-bye point-blank -- that won't work. You want an instant civil war, where you can't tell enemy from ally? The Al Queda couldn't accomplish the kind of chaos we're talking about here. It took us 60+ years to get into this mess -- it'll take at least 10 to get out of it.

Starfighter:

quote:

What would you say to my "adverse selection theory" I stated in my previous post? Does it have some merit?


Depends on how the schools deal with it. Without incentive, and reward, few students will try any harder than they did in the public schools. What's the reward for doing well in a public school? Honorary titles like Geek, Nerd, Teacher's Pet, etc. But if everyone is shooting for that new Jam-Box with the Ultra-Boom, then some students who aren't considered smart will tend to shine...

You may consider this "bribing the students." I agree wholeheartedly. But, as they teach in some martial arts, "If it works, use it."

quote:

Not accepting vouchers means that only parents who can afford to pay the tuition fee twice can send their children there. Besides I think education shouldn't be infested with religion.


At the same time, the Federal Government has no right to tell anyone that they can't go to a religious school. Freedom of religion -- if a given school is accepting vouchers, then the student can go there. But again, I doubt the Catholics or the Luterans will go for it...

quote:

That sounds somewhat exagerated IMO. Concerning the 9 kids, I've heard that sex-ed isn't exactly popular with the religious right.


No, it wasn't exagerated. It happened, to me and my wife 2-years ago. I had lost my job (passed out at work for no apparent reason), and we needed temporary food stamp assistance for one-month. However, since she had $200 that was due 27-days later (new job), they wouldn't help us at all. $200 for an effective 2-months -- glad I had the rent prepaid.

However, as I looked over the "needy" in the waiting room, we saw kids with $90 tennis shoes, ladies with $100 hairdoes, long nails that cost about $200 a month to maintain, and a lot of these people getting out of late-model (1998 and up) cars.

As you can imagine, I had a serious problem with this. Our problem may not have been "drastic," but compared to most of the clients, we were more in need than they were. We just wanted food, even if it was only the excess the FDA maintains.

In Texas, a woman with 5-kids can clear $1,000 in benefits. But if they have 9-kids (they don't have to have them -- just be responsible for them), they can clear $1,800. That's more than I grossed as a Restaurant Manager. Do you see a problem with this?

quote:

Glad to meet somebody who thinks alike. Over here that sort of ideas can get you the stigma of a xenophobe or racist.


I live in Baltimore. Everything is so politically correct, that I'm tounge-tied and feel like an idiot trying to hold a casual conversation.

Ms. Dragon Lady:

quote:

One little thing you forgot to mention is that this kind of draconian control (admittedly of use in some areas) shouldn't be extended to schools where there is no gang problem or guns in the school.


Okay, make it up to their State to decide, but give them the option by federal law.

quote:

Now this I disagree with. No one should be forced to go to school. If there parents can't get them to go, and they don't want to be there, then they shouldn't. It would vastly improve the environment only to have people who want to learn. Furthermore, kids should be able to drop out after grade school. By that point they have a basic grasp of reading and arithmetic, and if they truly don't want to be in school they won't learn much in the following years anyway. It's a waste of time and money to keep them there just as a babysitting service.

Okay, I can concede your point. At the same time, some areas imposing Pass Restrictions is still a good idea.

quote:

If were going to have to pay to educate them (not something that appeals to me, I must admit) then we might as well do this efficiently. Set up special high intensity job-skills training programs. Making it possible for people to get through them, but only if they really work at it, thereby weeding out those who don't deserve public assistance and similarly reducing the time necessary and thus reducing prices. Also, considering that these are the type of people who are so terrible at getting jobs, they should be employed (in return for basic food and barracks style sleeping facilities) by the very schools they are going to. This too will reduce costs and necessitate that the individuals going there are indeed willing to work.

Actually, I was thinking about people who are currently on welfare, and certain qualifying children, then end the program from the federal level. I don't think we should punish these people too harshly simply because we can't afford to keep the Democrat's promises.... 10-years should be long enough to eliminate this expense. But I do agree with what you said here, but there are other companies they can go to work for besides the school -- tax breaks make people do the strangest things....

quote:

No, I disagree. If someone can keep a job then they don't need public assistance (beyond the aforementioned training program). I see no need to support someone who works simply because they arenÔÇÖt making enough money at there job.


Comes back to our responsibility to help the helpless. However, this is a very small percentage of the current welfare rolls. However, this could be pawned-off on the States to maintain, and further eliminate the Federal-level waste.

quote:

So what kind of family are we talking about? A gaggle of kids is the only excuse for someone not to be able to manage (other family members can work just like anyone else) I see no reason to support people who have a lot of children. It's there choice, and if they can't manage to avoid getting pregnant (not a hard task for anyone even moderately competent) then they deserve what they get.


Obviously, you don't live in Maryland... We're paying over $700 for a 2 BR Apt., $600 for our car, and average expenses, just to live and work, are running about $2,000 a month. Now, we have a choice to live here. But there is a vast number of Parolees (and others) who cannot leave the state. While this might be Maryland's problem, it's also a problem pretty much for everyone that lives in the DC area.

I do agree that if you have too many kids, you're creating a problem if you can't support them. But giving them away still means that the State still pays for them, in one fashion or another. That problem isn't going to go away just because we wish it to. Either way, somebody is taxed for kids they don't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

Depends on how the schools deal with it. Without incentive, and reward, few students will try any harder than they did in the public schools. What's the reward for doing well in a public school? Honorary titles like Geek, Nerd, Teacher's Pet, etc. But if everyone is shooting for that new Jam-Box with the Ultra-Boom, then some students who aren't considered smart will tend to shine...

You may consider this "bribing the students." I agree wholeheartedly. But, as they teach in some martial arts, "If it works, use it."

Actually, I was talking about gifted people leaving public schools for private ones.

quote:

At the same time, the Federal Government has no right to tell anyone that they can't go to a religious school. Freedom of religion -- if a given school is accepting vouchers, then the student can go there. But again, I doubt the Catholics or the Luterans will go for it...

I didn't say the feds should prevent anybody from going to a religious school. I just mixed up the issue of religious schools with my personal feelings about them, sorry.

Btw, why would catholics and lutherans not accept vouchers?

quote:

No, it wasn't exagerated. It happened, to me and my wife 2-years ago. I had lost my job (passed out at work for no apparent reason), and we needed
temporary
food stamp assistance for one-month. However, since she had $200 that was due 27-days later (new job), they wouldn't help us at all. $200 for an effective 2-months -- glad I had the rent prepaid.

However, as I looked over the "needy" in the waiting room, we saw kids with $90 tennis shoes, ladies with $100 hairdoes, long nails that cost about $200 a month to maintain, and a lot of these people getting out of late-model (1998 and up) cars.

As you can imagine, I had a serious problem with this. Our problem may not have been "drastic," but compared to most of the clients, we were more in need than they were. We just wanted food, even if it was only the excess the FDA maintains.

In Texas, a woman with 5-kids can clear $1,000 in benefits. But if they have 9-kids (they don't have to have them -- just be responsible for them), they can clear $1,800. That's more than I grossed as a Restaurant Manager. Do you see a problem with this?

Talk about incentives to work...

quote:

I live in Baltimore. Everything is so politically correct, that I'm tounge-tied and feel like an idiot trying to hold a casual conversation.

At least you guys don't have hate speech laws. Not that I'd want to publicly call for beating/killing foreigners but I still think that such laws are a severe infringement on free speech and extremely hypocritical for a democracy to pass.

PS: I've seen several people who advocate that welfare should be left to the states. I see a problem where a poor state has many poor people. How is such a state supposed to help the people? Or are poor people supposed to move to richer states?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Professor Jaguar's calss on the United States Constitution is now in session.

quote:

Posted by Draconis Rex

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Federal Government has the power to enact any law that ensures the welfare of its people. There are only two references to it in the Constitution:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional References

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Draconis, to put it Bluntly,

BS!!

Sorry, but you've been suckered, I will post a reply later, but both of those references mean totally different things then what you have stated.

Those are 2 of the MOST misunderstood parts of the constitution, and that is the MAJOR problem.

Again, I will give full explanations later when I have more time.

General welfare in the constitution does not mean what you think it means. I will give you quotes and everything else in a later post. I am glad you brought them up.

Since there are no other posts, and now that I have time, I will edit this post.

Articles on the General Welfare clauses.

By the way, the preamble is NOT part of the constitution, it is an explanation of what the document that follows is trying to do, not actually PART of the constitution itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL INTENT and providing for the Common Defense and General Welfare.

John William Kurowski

American Constitutional Research Service

In regard to the contemporary assertion that the words "..provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States.... " provides Congress with an ADDITIONAL Power, a Power To summarily determine those objects which together constitute the general welfare of the United States, and having done so may then tax and spend for such purposes as declared to be within the meaning of the term "general welfare", the following documentation refutes such a notion:

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor[the anti federalists]for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:

"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Even Hamilton, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:

"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action;consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)

Likewise, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention "The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to the asserted power now unconstitutional exercised by Congress.

As Justice Story correctly declares [see1084 of his com.] "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the documentation concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes__the simple truth is, Congress is limited by the seventeen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and, the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!

If anyone has documentation from the framers and ratifiers to support otherwise, please post it.

Need I remind you of the fundamental rule: "Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." [ see Vol 16 American Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91].

John William Kurowski

American Constitutional Research Service


One example

quote:

The "General Welfare"

By Joseph Sobran

11/23/99

This column is for serious conservatives only. No cheap off-color Clinton jokes today. We’re going deep. You may want to put on your thinking cap for this one.

As you presumably know, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” But since the New Deal, this clause has been pretty much boiled down to one phrase: “general welfare.” It is now generally assumed that Congress may pass any law it deems in the “general welfare” of the United States.

Strict constructionists have always objected that this broad and vague interpretation endows the federal government with an unlimited range of power, making redundant nonsense of the rest of Section 8, which lists the particular powers of Congress. In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”

Madison was replying to anti- Federalist writers who had warned that the “general welfare” clause opened the way to unlimited abuse. He haughtily accused those writers of “labour[ing] for objections” by “stooping to such a misconstruction” of the obvious sense of the passage, as defined and limited by those powers explicitly listed immediately after it.

Like so many things the Federalists said could never, ever happen, it happened. The “general welfare” clause is constantly abused in just the way the pessimists predicted. The federal government exceeds its enumerated powers whenever it can assert that other powers would be in the “general welfare.”

The Federalist Papers are one of our soundest guides to what the Constitution actually means. And in No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison’s point.

Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only “unnecessary,” but “dangerous.” Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law — a relief act, for instance — wasn’t covered by any of these powers, it was ipso facto unconstitutional.

Adding a bill of rights, said Hamilton, would only confuse matters. It would imply, in many people’s minds, that the federal government was entitled to do anything it wasn’t positively forbidden to do, whereas the principle of the Constitution was that the federal government is forbidden to do anything it isn’t positively authorized to do.

Hamilton too posed some rhetorical questions: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” Such a provision “would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power” — that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down.

We now suffer from the sort of confusion Hamilton foresaw. But what interests me about his argument, for today’s purpose, is that he implicitly agreed with Madison about the narrow meaning of “general welfare.”

After all, if the phrase covered every power the federal government might choose to claim under it, the “general welfare” might be invoked to justify government control of the press for the sake of national security in time of war. For that matter, press control might be justified under “common defense.” Come to think of it, the broad reading of “general welfare” would logically include “common defense,” and to speak of “the common defense and general welfare of the United States” would be superfluous, since defense is presumably essential to the general welfare.

So Madison, Hamilton, and — more important — the people they were trying to persuade agreed: the Constitution conferred only a few specific powers on the federal government, all others being denied to it (as the Tenth Amendment would make plain).

Unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of the U.S. population today — subtle logicians like you — can grasp such nuances. Too bad. The Constitution wasn’t meant to be a brain-twister


That's 2

quote:

Should the oath of office be changed?

--

Walter Williams

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS take a sworn oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." I'm guessing that if congressmen actually "bore true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, we wouldn't have a federal budget of $1.7 trillion, not to mention those congressionally mandated 1.6 gallon flush toilets. Just about every one of the 535 members of Congress have contempt for or ignorance of our Constitution. What's worse is, if they knew they routinely violated their oaths of office, they wouldn't care. Getting elected and re-elected is what counts.

In 1997, Congressman John Shadegg, R-Arizona, introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 292. Basically, the act says that Congress must heed the limitations placed on it by the Constitution: The federal government cannot do anything that the Constitution does not authorize it to do.

Two things. You'd wonder why the Enumerated Powers Act would be necessary in the first place. After all, congressmen swore to uphold the Constitution. Second, if we're naive enough to think congressmen respect our Constitution, we'd see them jumping at the opportunity to support the Enumerated Powers Act.

Of course they didn't, but there was a tiny step toward the goal of getting Congress to obey the Constitution. The 105th House of Representatives adopted the following rule: "Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."

The response was predictable. Congressmen cite the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution as giving them authority to pass laws dealing with education, farm handouts, student loans, foreign aid and fighting street crime.

But here's what James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said about the "general welfare" clause: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, The Government is no longer a limited one. ..." Thomas Jefferson echoed the same sentiment, saying that Congress does not possess "unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated. ..."

Moreover, if the Framers intended that the "general welfare" clause have the interpretation placed on it by today's congressmen, they could have spared themselves considerable grief and contentiousness during that hot, humid Philadelphia summer in 1787. They could have simply said: Congress shall promote the general welfare. That would be our Constitution. Forget all that business about separation of powers, prohibitions against Congress interfering with freedom of speech, assembly and religion, taking private property, and speedy trials. Congress would just promote what a majority of its members saw as the general welfare.

I put the bold in, this is the MOST important part of this article.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves. Since neither Congress, the president, nor our U.S. Supreme Court justices obey their oaths of office to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, there are at least several alternatives. The first is to dispense with the pretense and get rid of our 200-year-plus oath. Substitute that oath with something like: I accept the office of congressman, or president, or justice of the court.

The second, and more preferable alternative is for we Americans to learn what the Constitution authorizes, and recognize that what it doesn't authorize is forbidden. Then we should force our representatives to obey the Constitution. Another alternative is for Americans to ignore acts of Congress that are constitutionally unauthorized.


That's all that I am going to ask you to wrap your brains around today, but if you have other questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

The constitution is a VERY important document, read it, KNOW what your rights are, and what limits the government actually has. The General welfare clause has been perverted BIG time, by the living document and socialist crowd.

THe powers are enumerated, what the government can do is written in the document, EVERYTHING else is offlimits, General welfare clause or no.

[ 12-03-2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar,

First of all, you're preaching to the faithful. Second, unless you can convince the US Supreme Court to agree with you, then the layman's definition of Welfare will be social welfare, like it or no.

Until that happens, we must minimize access to it by the people. Within a generation, it will be gone, simply by lack of interest, since being productive, if possible, will be required. Churches, once general collection of welfare has been eliminated, will be able to handle anyone who simply cannot work. Simple enough?

Legal question:

Is Welfare Unconstitutional?

Laters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Churches, once general collection of welfare has been eliminated, will be able to handle anyone who simply cannot work. Simple enough?

Put it to the Churches; the last bastion of those who really don't want to help at all. The Churches can do it.

Who decides who "simply cannot work"? No matter who "decides" it sounds a lot like Old Communist Russia where your career was decided for you.

What is wrong with a national education system where the same standards apply throughout the entire nation? If they are now Federal employees they must now somehow be better no? Doesn't a better educated populace fall within the confines of the General Welfare Clause that has recently been talked about?

quote:

We're talking future generations, even if they did manage to screw up most of us in terms of facing reality

Exactly how did future generations manage to screw us up in terms of facing reality?

Dragon Lady had a good thought at one time. I hope she doesn't mind me paraphrasing her because I can't remember where she said it. Anyway she said ; umm now I can't even remember exactly what she said ; but it was something about gov't Control/assistance much past grade school. Now I don't know what eveyone else thinks grade school is but where I'm from you have GRADE school (K-6) then you have Junior High (7-9) and then High School (10 - 12).

So let's say we have these vouchers. Let's say we can save these vouchers and use them as credits later. Much like Pollution credits are used now. Everyone goes to public school K - 6. Of course exceptionally bright students can go to private school. Heck even idiots can go to provate school if the parents choose. Their fault. But anyway, Most everyone uses public school till grade 6 and that's when (nowadays) the kids really need to start thinking about later.

The really good kids with smart parents can get the best private education they can afford with the help of their saved vouchers. The kids who don't want to do anything special continue education in public schools and the parents get a refund ( full or partial or can even give as a gift to another student) of the vouchers they have not used.

Heavens. I have just created another fund the govt can tap into. Nix the whole idea. Oh well. It sounded good.

Reform education by paying teachers ( any govt worker really) competitive wages but INSIST on performance reviews AND make tenure more difficult to recieve. You will not reform education until you get rid of those who view it as a "gravy" job with an automatic three months off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

Where did everybody go? Is education reform not important? We're talking future generations, even if they did manage to screw up most of us in terms of facing reality....

Yes education is essential for the future of any country. I'm still following the discussion but since it has turned away from economics to constitution/federalist papers (where my knowledge is sorely lacking), I no longer participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Who decides who "simply cannot work"? No matter who "decides" it sounds a lot like Old Communist Russia where your career was decided for you.

What is wrong with a national education system where the same standards apply throughout the entire nation? If they are now Federal employees they must now somehow be better no? Doesn't a better educated populace fall within the confines of the General Welfare Clause that has recently been talked about?


Okay, here's how I look at the Welfare program as it should be...

There are a number of reasons a person can't work, such as mental illness, physical handicaps that make it impossible to do simple tasks (such as you and I do normally), etc. Basically, if a person isn't a State Ward, in prison, or is totally handicapped as defined in the present handicap laws, then they can work. Period.

With that in mind, this eliminates 70% of the people currently on Welfare/Food Stamps, or in State Wards. The problem isn't going to simply vanish, no matter hard the extreme Right wants it to.

They're forgetting about the children of the current Welfare recipients, who, in my opionion, should not be unduly punished just because their parents were unfortunate or simply lazy. The Liberals have shoved the "something-for-nothing" concept down everyone's throats to the point that it will be difficult to correct in short order.

So, what do we do about it? I don't actually know, point-blank. I do know that we need to down-size the Federal Government, to include the Education System and the Welfare Program, and I state this for several reasons.

The Federal Government has to set uniform guidelines and budgets based on population, which, by itself, does not always permit a fair economic value to the funds it gives to each state. The costs in one state could be 150% of the average, whereas it could be as low as 45% in another. This means that a state with high-cost-of-living with relatively low population does not receive as much effective funds as a state with high population, low cost-of-living. Unless the Bill is written based on Cost-of-Living tables, even though the amounts are different, it will not be a fair law.

The Federal Government also tends to add to the costs of implementing any program it deals with, sometimes by as much as 50%. So, if the States dispersed the funds of any program directly, you're usually looking at a savings, without all the extra red-tape.

I think the Feds should collect the funds, and issue checks to the States based on cost-of-living per-capita, which is the only fair method I can think of. While that may mean that State 'A' is getting more money than 'B', the effective cash-rate is the same.

As for the Welfare Program, if you give someone something, they won't appreciate it, and they learn nothing. However, if you teach someone, and expect a return on investment, most people will do their best to please you. Again, the program, at least on a State level, isn't going away. But if we continue the trend of generation after generation being on "free money," then we commit genocide.

We need an incentive for people to get off Welfare, and go to work. Their current incentive, unless they're not a minority, is to receive more money sitting on their tuff than working. This is an incentive try to be productive?

Personally, I believe that the Federal Government should be taken out of the loop in most of our daily situations. States have the power to do almost anything the Feds can do, but between uniform laws that are on the books that should not automatically apply to all States, and regualations that make it difficult to do business in America, we are losing several corporations a year who find greener pastures in other countries.

quote:

Exactly how did future generations manage to screw us up in terms of facing reality?

No. I was talking about current screwed-up kids and adults (becasue of the education system) who must try to correct past problems for future generations. Only a time machine could explain your question point-blank...

quote:

So let's say we have these vouchers. Let's say we can save these vouchers and use them as credits later. Much like Pollution credits are used now. Everyone goes to public school K - 6. Of course exceptionally bright students can go to private school. Heck even idiots can go to provate school if the parents choose. Their fault. But anyway, Most everyone uses public school till grade 6 and that's when (nowadays) the kids really need to start thinking about later.

The really good kids with smart parents can get the best private education they can afford with the help of their saved vouchers. The kids who don't want to do anything special continue education in public schools and the parents get a refund ( full or partial or can even give as a gift to another student) of the vouchers they have not used.

Kill most of the Jr. High and High schools? I was thinking about tactical nuclear warheads when I was in the 7th grade...

Seriously, I like that idea (the one you suggested above, not the nukes.) That way, the standards for kids up to grade 6 are uniform. Those standards need to be raised about 30% above what they are now. I know of few 6th graders (or below) that miss school much except for serious heath problems.

We need parents and people with free time to help coordinate efforts to keep kids in school later. Since I have to have a bachelor's degree for an entry-level programmer position, it's obvious to me that a high-school diploma is needed if that is what I'm going to do with my life. Too many kids fall through the cracks because no one cares.

quote:

Heavens. I have just created another fund the govt can tap into. Nix the whole idea. Oh well. It sounded good.

Actually, part of the Federal Reforms I was thinking of would have the IRS issue checks directly to the States within 2-months after the April 15th tax deadline. The longer the Feds hold onto money, the more creative they get with spending it. In fact, except for Federal holdings (from a very small part of the Income Tax, Excise and Import Taxes, etc.), that should be the case with most of the money they collect.

The IRS isn't going to simply cease to be, no matter how hard we push for it. It will either collect income taxes, or a federal sales tax. Either way, the office will remain open for business as part of the treasury. Like it or no.

If we were to implement an 8.33% Federal Sales Tax, with a limit on States to 4% max., that would create a surplus at the Federal level in only a few short years. (Before you folks get your knickers in a bind, this is just an idea I'm playing with, and I'll be basing it on current GNP information I have available -- At this point, I don't know if it will work. Humor me, for the time being.)

Come to think of it, I'll wait on that post -- It might be a bit long-winded, and would do better as a seperate thread, since I suspect we're going to see some argument on the subject...

As for Feds tapping into funds, that is easy enough to deal with. We need an Amendment that forces a balanced budget, paying back what we owe to our owners (the banks), and gradually eliminating excess offices of the Federal Government. While there is a lot of disagreement about how to accomplish this task, it must happen if we plan to see 2050 as a soverign nation.

With that in mind, your idea is sound -- just keep the Feds out of that money. Including Social Security. Period. (SS is my money, and if they want to spend it, fine -- I'll take it out of their salaries or their hides. Their choice.)

quote:

Reform education by paying teachers ( any govt worker really) competitive wages but INSIST on performance reviews AND make tenure more difficult to recieve. You will not reform education until you get rid of those who view it as a "gravy" job with an automatic three months off.

I agree completely, whether it stays public or becomes private, or the more like choice: A hybrid of the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Starfighter08:

quote:

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

Where did everybody go? Is education reform not important? We're talking future generations, even if they did manage to screw up most of us in terms of facing reality....

Yes education is essential for the future of any country. I'm still following the discussion but since it has turned away from economics to constitution/federalist papers (where my knowledge is sorely lacking), I no longer participate.


I've read part of them, but not the whole set. Be that as it may, my whole point of this thread is this: Anytime the Federal Government is involved in any money-related situtaion, they somehow manage to spend at least twice as much as the old program cost when the States ran it, and create at least six-times the red tape. And we want them to continue the trend???

You match the extreme majority of US Citizens in your lack of knowledge of the Federalist Papers, except for this: You've heard of them before, if only in this forum. While I realize you're not from here, you still beat most of our citizens in this respect. That just goes to prove my point about the value of Public Education in America.

If you'd like, I can find you the links to the Fed. Papers, etc., but if you keep my rule about the Feds and Red Tape in mind, then it remains an economic thread, for the most part. I may rant about other things, but venting is the one MAJOR thing I like about posting on these forums....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by DraconisRex:

I've read part of them, but not the whole set. Be that as it may, my whole point of this thread is this: Anytime the Federal Government is involved in any money-related situtaion, they somehow manage to spend at least twice as much as the old program cost when the States ran it, and create at least six-times the red tape. And we want them to continue the trend???

Not at all. Switzerland's fiscal quota has reached around 45% and public debt 50% of GDP. IMO it's high time we do something about it. And to be fair the gov't is reducing expenses to get a balanced budget but that's not enough. The debts need to be payed too.

quote:

You match the extreme majority of US Citizens in your lack of knowledge of the Federalist Papers, except for this: You've heard of them before, if only in this forum. While I realize you're not from here, you still beat most of our citizens in this respect. That just goes to prove my point about the value of Public Education in America.

Actually I've heard about them in another forum and even read a bit of the Federalist Papers some time ago. I remember there was a quiz about what the constitution, bill of rights and the federalist papers are about and some questions about the war of independence on the hp of netscape on July 4th and I even did well in them. What can I say, the American revolution was part of our history curriculum.

quote:

If you'd like, I can find you the links to the Fed. Papers, etc., but if you keep my rule about the Feds and Red Tape in mind, then it remains an economic thread, for the most part. I may rant about other things, but venting is the one MAJOR thing I like about posting on these forums....

I'd like it very much if you could find some links with good overviews (I lost mine when I did a purge of all the dead links in my list of bookmarks a few months ago).

I had the impression that this thread had turned into a discussion about the conformity of welfare programs with the constitution. Well, over here there are articles in the constitution about education, ecology and social security respectively.

Ranting about things we can hardly change all by ourselfs is a major reason to rant on an internet forum. You might even learn something new or at least get to know another world view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go a step further with this. Apparently, our federal government is ignoring organizations that peacefully petition them for change, which is in clear and direct violation of our First Amendment rights.

Read this.

While the article is a bit long-winded, it does explain the efforts of a peaceful entity to bring the Federal Government to redress grievences. I suspect, that without mass interjunction, this will be the case for all citizens who make this attempt.

Absoulute power corrupts absolutely. Any questions? Comments? Complaints? Free money into my account? (Those of you who insist we need more taxes, I have a better idea -- let's eliminate the IRS and have you write the checks directly to me. If you have a burning desire to spend your money, just put it in my bank account. Either way, you've spent your money -- explain to me what the difference really is.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starfighter08:

You can get the Federalist Papers (all 85 chapters) on the Web here.

The Constitution is available in index form here.

If you need other links and references, I'll see what I can do to assist you. I'm no lawyer, but I did manage a 98% in business law. I'm working toward a P.I. License, and we've been studying the Constitution in extreme depth in current courses. I do see the violations, but so long as The People permit the laws to exist, I still have to follow them, right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a shining example of what happens when we let government control our freedom. Be advised that it contains some foul language, and if you find that objectionable, don't click on the link.

Associated Press Story -- Highly Commented in brackets.

I think the comments are fun, but the story is a sad reflection on the government's efforts to remove our freedoms. Education is key to the safety and security of our great nation, but when abused, it represents the largest hole in the freedoms of current students and future generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links Draconis Rex. The Schulz speech is quite an eyeopener, the guy really has some points.

The last one will certainly incite the ire of some right wingers. What do you think about following bet? I bet that within the day a guy we know well (no matter what, I share some opinions with him) will offer you a tin foil beanie.

Seriously now. The editor thinks that the parents didn't use the "opt-out" form because they were drunk or watching sitcoms. I think that might describe the average person but I also think that some parents didn't choose to opt-out because of their fear that the child might become the victim of obstructionism by the school. "You want to opt out? Well, I'll make sure that you will be out. Out of this school that is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the article was clearly leftist propaganda, but it also had a very good point. The practice of strong arming schools (and can you come up with a better term for it?) into giving out lists of student names is just plain low. This article uses the term brainwash way too many times, but students shouldn't have unrestricted exposure to military propaganda like that. Don't take this wrong, I have nothing wrong with recruiters or people joining the military, but they should do so with there eyes open, not clouded by spiffy looking brochures are promises of college money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...