REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Political Common Ground

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 14:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4072
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 6:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


I thought I would try this.

Here's the idea in this thread:

We fight too much. Conflict is sometimes good. I'd rather have it than the all fall in line society. But we have to at some point meet in the middle, or somewhere, on some issues. Since we can't even agree on what particular schools of political thought stand for, or what their names mean, this might be difficult. But I want to start with a list of some political ideas. And I want to hear some thoughts on what poeple think, just briefly, and then we can get to the disagreements and see if we can't hammer out some compromises. This is really just the test of an idea, but humor me.

The origin of the idea BTW has been a result of watching this forum, and watching the senate. The seem to bicker and then one party has one extreme idea, and the other party has an opposite extreme idea, and they get further and further apart until they are completely divided, and then they vote. 55% of the people get their way, and are perfectly happy and 45% of the people have been marginalized and are very unhappy. What keeps America in balance is that this senate dominance flip flops back and forth every 8 years or so.

Anyway, hear goes:

Budget
Business
Education
Environment
Healthcare
Immigration
Foreign Policy
Military
Personal Freedom
Welfare

If I missed a key issue, please feel free to fill it in.

Here are my unapologetic stances on these issues, I'd ask other people to please do the same. We'll work out a compromise once the "this is what might happen if it was sour dicatorship" is down.

Budget: Zero tollerance for deficits. If there's a shortfall, everyone has to make do with X% less cents on the dollar, and that includes every contract. you're $14B contract is now your $13.2B contract.

Business: No policies that overtly hurt business. This means no business tax hikes and no trade barriers with any countries that follow decent trade rules (ie. it's okay to not import from countries using slave labor.) You can stop people whose business is destructive, but you shouldn't make rules that force them out of business, just because you want more pay or bennies for the labor group it hires. No exclusive labor cults like the AMA.

Education: Privatize it. Use govt. money in equal amounts for all children regardless of race color creed or what kind of school they go to, even if it's a freaky religious school. There would be no rules on how a school would be run. This is the one strong pro-equality stance I take, that everyone should have the same amount of $/student/year, and so funds should be pooled, via tax and spend :(

Environment. Protect it at all costs. Every species is sacred, and all undisturbed natural environments. If someone violated that, you feed them to the fishes.

Healthcare: open up to more competition, and switch from a 'protect the public' stance to an 'inform the public' stance. Alternate treatments and different traditions of practice are legit, and no one should be monopolize cures. There would be no health coverage, even insurance. All of this is to create an environment of lower costs. But you would have to treat anyone who came to you equally. If they truly could not pay, the govt. would pick up the final tab, but only in cases where it could be demonstrated that the patient couldn't possibly pay and that the treatment was needed. In these cases the govt. would pay an objectively calculated cost, not a blank check of what the provider wanted.

Immigration: I'd accept two types of immigrants.
1) those who show they add value to your nation.
2) Refugees who can definitely be shown to be victims of wholesale slaughter otherwise. (ie. Darfur) This second group would be granted asylum temporarily until the issue could be resolved.

Foreign Policy: Trade barriers only against countries with unfair labor practices. Sanctions against only dangerous countries that kill people. Sanctions are limited to things which facilitate the killing, and can never ever ever include bans on the imports of food and medical supplies, Clinton. WTF?

Military: Strong defense policy which calls for a small US contingent with high tech weapons controlled by US hands, and a larger local base of local soldiers to be placed via negotiation in any country considered a possible target, as a deterent to invasion by communists, al qaeda, or whoever. Never ever invade unprovoked without dire need to be there, and basically never invade unless one of two things happens 1) we were invited in by at least a segment of the people, not one or two guys, and the conflict would definitely follow the least death rule; or 2) wholesale genocide is being committed and immediate action is required. In situations like vietnam, the above strategy would mean stock up on defending laos, cambodia, thailand, burma, right from the get go, but don't go directly into vietnam where your presence would escalate the direct conflict. Essentially, the idea here is cold war, much better than hot war, and no war, not a possiblity because it really only takes one to start a war.

Personal Freedom: Anything that fits the definition isn't harming anyone else, and also fit the definition doesn't render you a useless member of society, is more or less permissable provided it's within a social group that accepts it. Social groups can set up whatever rules they want within this. Thus yay-gay and nay-gay societies are acceptable, but yay-gay rapists with aids society and kill all gays society are never acceptable.

Welfare: govt. can give out debit/credit cards that will cover basic necessities but are not useable outside of a mainstream vending setting. No state-supported drug dealers, gambling institutions or the like. Furthermore, card credits would be covered by the govt. provided that the rules were played fairly, but if the holder turns out to be overincome, they will be expected to pay it back. I think most people don't realize this, but in the US, welfare to the rich is 2/3 of everything the govt. pays out in aid. From a practical pov, a spending one, or a help the poor one, this is absurd. I think if we can keep welfare spending in $ more targetted towards needs, the total $ spent will be less, if we can keep the # of recipients down to only the needy, then with less recipients, and less $ we can help more needy with more essentials for the same amount of money.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:48 PM

FLETCH2


My word, in secret you're quite a little leftist aren't you....

Budget: Easiest way to avoid deficits is to avoid spending. So to my mind before you spend a penny you should ask yourself

1) Does it need to be done?
2) Is the government the best people to do it?
3) Is public taxation the only way to pay for it?

THEN you start worrying about budgets. In practice it's a good idea to be able to run some deficits, otherwise if you did get into unforseen situations, like natural disasters or unavoidable war then you lack the flexibility to deal with it. Every program undertaken by the government should have distinct spending limits that can not be crossed, every program needs a business plan with cost/benefit analysis and if it lasts for more than one fiscal period an annual report as to progress. This is people's money you are spending, treat it better than you treat your own.

Your ideas on business are unworkable because of other policy decisions you make further down. Without even trying you've impeded the business interests of industry, financial services and the medical industry while having a platform of hands off of business. Here's a news flash, the red tape business complains about is not arbitary nonesense directed by government just to f**k with them. All start their lives as well meaning meddling for something like "a clean environment" or "American hands on High tech weapons" and by the time they make it down to business they are "red tape." You don't want to trade with country's that use slave labour? How do you enforce that? How do you keep track of where something really comes from? Answer: red tape for import companies that represents man hours away from their core business. Unless you intend to live in a bananna republic you will end up making lots of red tape.


My answer. Personal responsability. Rather than impede every business that is trading fairly by making them document stuff that you then need to employ 1000's of bureaucrats to process make it clear, break the rules, go to jail and make sure you catch some bad boys every year to enforce the idea.

Education: Is a value for money issue. Just giving $ to every kid and then expecting it to be spent wisely is stupid. This is an investment in your country's future. It's too late to discover when biotech is big that half your kids went to "Oral Ahole U" and dont believe in evolution. If the government spends $ it has the right to say what it's buying and to audit the results like any other program.

Environment: Personal responsability issue. You break it you fix it, polute more than the guidelines and go to jail.

Healthcare like defence is a question of agrigating funds. The way it works in Europe is that everyone pays a little in taxation and are garenteed a basic level of cover that is free at point of use. Some people will pay in more than they need, some will end up taking out more. In general if your population is healthy and young enough it ballances out. The US system added a refinement by making it insurance, because the money then works for a living by being invested. Unfortunately as they are private companies the bulk of this profit goes to share holders not patient care. Also the US healthcare industry is a fixed market. You can buy private healthcare in the UK for a fraction of the US cost because the private providers have to compete with the NHS. Competition in a market always favours the consumer. So, I suggest everyone pays into a number of central plans each of which invests the money in accordance with the wishes of the client. Any profits made are divided between the client and a general welfare fund to cover extreme needs such as pandemics or health education/prevention. If someone becomes so sick that they run their fund dry the central funds compensate, monies amassed over a (hopefully) relatively fit lifetime can be used for more intensive care as people age. Fund managers allocate actual care from independent contractors on a cost/benefits basis. Providers must actively compete to win contracts.

Immigration: What can you bring to our society?

Personal freedom has always been about $. If you have it you can be free without it people will mess with you. The more money you have the more you can get away with, the less you have the less freedom. You're basically saying that my right to swing my arms ends at your nose, but if you're living packed 30 to a room you don't have the space to swing your arms. Europe has this collectivist idea of freedom because we live so close to one another. Almost anything you do impacts on the person next door or down the street so rules to try and mediate that come into play. America is a big country with adiquate resources and tiny amounts of developed land. As long as economics remain good I don't see any problem with the American version of personal freedom persisting. Just be aware that circumstances do change according to the society in question.

Welfare: I came from a Socialist working class community, everybody that could worked. They might not nescessarily believe they were being paid enough but they never expected money for nothing. When I was a kid a family moved down the street from us that Americans would call the welfare family. He didn't work, had no intention of working and she popped out another kid every year or so. The house they lived in, the furnishings, everything was provided by the local government, because these people still had kids to feed.

They were universally shunned. Nobody looked at them and thought "wow what a great skive, why don't we do that?" Welfare was understood to be something you used only in dire need, to be fit and unwilling to work made you a pariah in that society.

So here it is. I would rather pay the working poor to make a better life for their kids than to pay someone to do nothing. I would rather pay for daycare to allow a single mum to go back to school and to work than pay her to stay home and do nothing. If bad times throw you in the dirt I'll lend a hand to pick you up, but I won't carry you if you're fit enough to stand up yourself.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:08 AM

DREAMTROVE


Leftist? Me?

Nah.

I wish people wouldn't hurl insults :)
I'm getting that the terms left and right seem to mean different things in the US from the UK. You might be surpised, many Repulican statesmen in office share many of these goals, it's principly the methods that we favor that differ. Show me something left and I can point you to the republican who started it.

Budgets. I like your 3 Q?s for budget. Where I'm coming from is I don't own a credit card, intentionally. You can't allow yourself into this situation. Disasters are what you have a disaster relief and a federal reserve for.

I don't buy your nixing that I'm creating red tape here. I think that's not even close to it. The bogging of business comes largely from labor unions, and federally mandated programs like corporate healthcare policies, IRAs, affirmative action and the like. After that, it's personal income tax, federal and state, and corporate income tax. A "don't kill the earth policy" is going to kill a couple of lumber companies which need to die. Good lumber companies do tree farming. Clearcutters are needed nowhere. As for the no-slavery policy, we already track where everything comes from and already know who this would affect. Principally, it would kill Walmart, it wouldn't have any other major effects except for agriculture and textiles.

Quite frankly, while I'm aware that this might cause food and clothing prices to go up, it needs doing. US-sponsored slave labor is part of America's horrible global image which feeds the growth of terrorism and anti-American sentiment. The Republican who started America's anti-slavery policy was Abraham Lincoln.

Conservation. Some things can't be fixed, you need to stop them from being done. Mostly I want no wiping out of natural environments, no poisoning of human inhabited ones. The Environment Conservation program in the US was started by TR, also a Republican.

I think my low spending and privitize everything are pretty much the backbone of the GOP. (When Bush isn't in charge)

Quote:

The way it works in Europe is that everyone pays a little in taxation and are garenteed a basic level of cover that is free at point of use.


It always starts like this, but once you've created the huge kitty, someone invades Iraq. The greeks had such a system, and Pericles raided the kitty and attacked Sparta, so it's nothing new.

Quote:
Unfortunately as they are private companies the bulk of this profit goes to share holders not patient care.


The insurance system is appallingly bad. I think it's sort of a capitalists way of doing the same sort of thing, but it's bad. I'd rather just pay the healthcare bills outright, with that govt. backup I describe. That way if I need $5 million surgery, there's no way I can pay, the govt. would pick up the tab. I'm sure this would be

But you missed the real key problem here. The bulk of the profit actually goes to the fat padding by the healthcare providers, particularly the drug companies, who make off with at least the size share that the insurance companies themselves make. This is because it is a blank check system.

Quote:
You can buy private healthcare in the UK for a fraction of the US cost because the private providers have to compete with the NHS.


This was the gorbachev plan for the US, which I said in an earlier thread I'd support. But I'd rather have something anti-cartel along the lines of the anti-trust to force competition between private providers, so I don't have to budget a large national health system.

Immigration. I only supported temp. housing for refugees because my country is America, and we have huge amounts of unpopulated space. I certainly wouldn't suggest anyone in Europe do the same, I think that would be insane.

I'm not sure I agree about personal freedom. I think that it's not a matter of space. It's a matter of individual groups allowing to have rules. New York State is a little larger than Ireland, and has a little more than 4 times the number of people. Taking out New York City entirely, the state still has twice the population density of Ireland. Yet not more than 10 miles from my home is a Meninite community whose rules are completely different than the ones here, and another ten miles there is an orthodox jewish community. This is the sort of thing that would be in danger from the left. The idea "they can't raise their kids like that" leads to, "they need to watch television and send their kids to public school" yadada yadada yadada.

The principle welfare in the US is for old people, and the mentally ill. Sometimes the physically disabled get it, but often they work. We don't have a program of welfare for the general public and I wasn't suggesting starting one. But the welfare we do have is amazingly innefficient, and a large number of poor elderly and infrirmed get little or none at all.

Here's a couple of examples, to give you an idea;

My estranged father has $2 million in the bank. He gets a check from the govt. for $1000 each month.

My uncle is employed and makes $100K a year, and at least a million in the bank, and he gets a check from the govt. for $1800 a month.

The guy staying with me right now is a recovering drug addict. He gets a check for $700 a month. My mother is a retired teacher. She gets $400 a month. She also works selling books to help to cover expenses.

My sister is disabled and used to get $500 a month, but now she works for the veterans administration for about $55K

I think it's clear what needs to happen here. We should give welfare to those who need it to get back on their feet, and those who need it to survive, and not to those with millions in the bank.

My friend Alan in England, who I think of aver very conservative, said this about the UKs dole:

"If a bloke's going to be a drain on the system, the very least he can do is just be a drain on the system and not gumming up the works."





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:20 AM

KJW


Well I will play along with the idea, and post my wacko political thoughts. I think few people are one political strip or the other, when I read Dreamtrove's original post I felt he was far closer to the right all things considered. I mean keep reading and you will see someone on the left. :)

Budget
A balanced budget should be the goal, but not mandatory as deficits are sometimes necessary. In terms of revenue I would restore the estate tax, raise taxes on the top 1% of the population and on major corporations (or at least eliminate many of the unnecessary subsidies we give major corporations). I would also cut defense spending 10-20%. With these funds I would finance my following proposals.

Business
First, I would raise the minimum wage, how about to $8.00 that sounds like a reasonable start.

Second, I would remove many of the limitations imposed over the last two decades on the Taft-Hartley Act and allow American workers the freedom to unionize. The government should only be involved to ensure that workers and employers are engaging in fair labor practices and let them resolve their disputes. As it stands now the government is in opposition to organized labor and this does not serve the American people, who are mostly employees.

Third, I would reorganize our tax code to favor small and medium sized businesses. This would encourage competition and create a more flexible economy.

Fourth, I would eliminate the tax loopholes that allow American companies to move their HQ overseas to escape taxation.

Fifth, see Healthcare below, basically free businesses from the hassles of having to deal with healthcare. A healthy work force is a successful work force.

Education
Public schools are a necessity to a free country, but are the responsibility of state and local governments. I would advocate more freedom for teachers and local administrators. I would eliminate federal standards and testing, though I would provide federal grants to the states for the development of innovative teaching techniques. These grants should be targeted to the most impoverished school districts of the nation.

Attending private school should not be subsidized by the government, but tuition expenses should be tax exemptions. Parents who home-school (which likely means one parent is not working) should also recieve a sizable tax exemption. Parents should have the freedom to provide for their child's education and that means having the financial freedom to do it.

The federal government will expand its support of higher education with expansion of Pell Grants and the student loan program. These programs should also be expanded to support more vocational and technical training for the many Americans not destined for college.

Environment
Seriously support the development of alternative sources of power, such as solar and wind. Expand national parks and truly encourage (and if necessary subsidize) mass transit systems. Strengthen the authority of the EPA and the U.S. should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Healthcare
Universal healthcare by eliminating age requirement for Medicare, which is actually more efficient than private healthcare providers. Also I would move to mainstream mental health issues, Americans needs psychiatric counseling and it has be incorporated into our healthcare system. Also Americans need to eat less meat, exercise more, stop smoking and drinking, and embrace preventative care, while we can't mandate this, we can start talking about these issues seriously.

Related to this is elderly care, which is a crisis in this nation. I would assemble a commission to study the issue and make some proposals.

Immigration
We need a worker program in this country, make all the illegal immigrants in this country legal to at least start registering them. We need the workers, they need jobs, so let's admit it and move on. Clearly if we want to stop illegal immigration we need to help Mexico and a visiting worker program could help.

We are a country of immigrants and we should continue to be so, I would increase the numbers of immigrants allowed by a modest 20%. Why not. I would also make it easier to be granted asylum in this country, right now it is next to impossible. I would also make the immigration courts more independent from BCIS and increase the civil rights due to immigrants being detained in this country.

Foreign Policy
US should accede to the International Court of Justice. We should strengthen the UN by weakening the authority of the members of the Security Council. We should pursue consensus building not unilateralism. The US needs to respect and honor international law, especially in regards to issues like civil rights, torture, treatment of prisoners, and the sovereign right of nations.

We should get out of Iraq and the Middle East. We should start phasing our withdrawal within the next few years. Terrorism will be defeated with the rise of true democracy in the Middle East, not puppet states. As long as the US is in the Middle East, terrorism will thrive.

Nuclear disarmament should be a goal, but true disarmament must include the US and its allies. Also the commercial sale of weapons should be outlawed. Sanctions are effective tools, invasion should be the last resort and only with approval of the UN.

Military
Our military needs to be retooled to handle peacekeeping operations and it needs to be reduced as its current size is unnecessary to implement a realistic foreign policy. A stricted commitment to international law needs to be instilled. National Guard units should be kept in the US to deal with domestic crises (like a hurricane) and in case a real war develops.

The VA needs to be expanded not just to treat the injured bodies of American soldiers, but also for the injured minds. Many of our soldiers will have suffered serious trauma from Iraq and will need to be helped to become productive members of society upon their return.

All projects relating to the militarization of space are immediately ended.

Personal Freedom
Abortion and euthanasia are personal affairs that can be regulated in a limited way by the government, but are decisions that should be left to the individuals and families involved.

Personal firearms I can live with, but automatic weapons, armor-piercing rounds, and the like are really not necessary so they should be outlawed.

Information about Internet or library viewing habits should be private.

There should be separation of Church and State, and I personally believe that 'under God' should be dropped from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Same-sex marriage should be legal as it encourages the formation of families and the concepts of love and commitment.

I completely oppose drug use, because it has ramifications beyond the individual that impacts society.

Welfare
A third of those on welfare are kids, so I have no problem with welfare. Certainly education and retraining are important, but a single mom with kids already has a full time job. And raising kids is far more important than any job out there, isn't it. Yes there will be some waste from Welfare, but not as much as people believe and we can work on making it better without scrapping it. Our capitalist system demands a level of unemployment and poverty that can render some people very broken, but they are all American citizens and we need to take care of our own.

Well there you go, what I would do if I ran the zoo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:27 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Budgets. I like your 3 Q?s for budget. Where I'm coming from is I don't own a credit card, intentionally. You can't allow yourself into this situation. Disasters are what you have a disaster relief and a federal reserve for.


I understand what you're saying I just think you misunderstand how this works or perhaps I'm missing what your point is. Once long ago currencies were on the gold standard and backed by real assets. These days they are not and governments have the temptation of printing themselves out of a crisis. I know that some US conservatives love the idea of going back to hard currency and hope that the markets will deal with everything else. They won't, the lesson of 1929 is that bad things happen to good people and that while individuals can be smart, people in markets can be dumb. If a disaster hits that effects a large enough chunk of the economy and people panic your economy can hit the bottom. With no method of injecting fresh capital into the system and assuming you already run a low tax regime you're talking soup kitchens for millions for years.

All the things you listed as "red tape" started out higher up the food chain as well intended meddling. Not one thing in that list was intended to f**k anyone over. For example, most good private companies offer pensions, this wasn't someone forcing them to do it it was a way of holding on to good staff. Some company pension schemes were badly managed and left retirees that had dutifully paid into the plans without retirement money. So the government stipulates the form pensions should take to ensure that they are handled correctly. Government also wants to encourage pensions because pension funds offer huge chunks of privately held capital that is used for investment in industry. So they set up tax incentives to encourage people to save. Is that social engineering, you bet, but you wont find a country anywhere or a political party that doesnt do it. So all that pension "red tape" came from on high wrapped around some good intentions.

As to the healthcare fund. If your intention is to stop your government from doing anything "naughty" by robbing them of capital it simply wont work, it just makes them more susceptable to corporate power plays. I've yet to find a person on the American right that doesn't feel fine about taxing his fellow citizens to pay for a common defence. You are all extremely happy to take from everyone and aggrigate that money (and by the way if anything in the US system represents the coffers of the Delphian League it's the Pentagon budget) yet you don't consider health care for what it is --- a civil defence function. You loose more Americans to desease and preventable illness every year than you ever have in any war. If the purpose of defence was the protection of the American *people* as most politico's suggest that money would be better spent elsewhere. My belief is that the Pentagon is really not defending Americans but defending property. Seeing as most ordinary folk would rather stay alive and have their family stay alive even if their few material goods are lost one is forced to assume that the Pentagon is actually defending corporate property. That being the case, why am I paying for it again???

Healthcare is a civil defence function. The flu kills more Americans every year than Al Queda has in its wettist wet dream, if defending America actually means defending Americans start there.

I don't get your point about communities with rules. Ireland has a pretty low population density for a European nation, the few "rules" it has that an American might see as being against personal freedom tend to be driven by religion. As for your sunny little vision, if your Meninites were pro-abortion we already know from your other posts that you wouldnt let them keep that "rule" of theirs but would impose your own moral viewpoint. Freedom isn't letting people do things you agree with it's tolerating them doing what you don't agree with without meddling. In that respect the US whatever it's political stripe has as bad a history as anyone else. My point is simple. If my freedom to swing my arms ends at the end of your nose --- ie I'm free to do what I want so long as it doesn't impede someone else's freedom --- that freedom becomes harder to exercise the more noses are in range. If I choose to wonder around my ranch in Colarado naked then chances are there's nobody I'm effecting. Do that in my back yard in Croydon and it's likely to cause no end of problems. We have more rules than in the US because proximity means that it's likely that anything I do will effect you.

In the UK we means test everything except the state pension which since everyone pays into it pays everyone equally. If your father with $2M was in the UK he would still gat a pension check and a small top up if he was a veteran, otherwise he would get nothing more.

Your friend sounds like a pre-Thatcherite which is strange because I thought we'd had them all shot. That's the old patrician Tory way "here's a few pounds my good man, now run along somewhere while I make some money." The Thatcherite version as spake by St Norman is "get on your bike and find a job."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:51 AM

THIEFJEHAT


I'm only going to respond one of your bullet points.

EDUCATION

I come from a family of educators. My father is a (now retired effective may 2005) high school science teacher. My mother (is still) an 8th grade english teacher. My wife's father is a retired 7th grade english teacher. My wife's mother is a former substitute teacher who got her licence late in life and is now teaching high school english. My wife is herself a 10th grade chemistry teacher who (because of her masters in chemistry) also teaches the advanced placement Chemistry course to 12th grade college bound students. She also has one class of Biology. I am a businessman.

I say these things so you as the reader will understand that I speak from an incredibly strong position of personal knowledge regarding the ills of education. Far too often the political spectrum on either side speaks as if they have the "ultimate education solution". And it is usually in the form of throwing money at the education bureaucracy in this country and expecting that it'll be spent in the wisest and most efficent manner. We all know that such a thing never happens. It fails because of 3 reasons:

1. Government by it's very nature is "inefficent". No person or group in government will profit from the use of funds. Funds are therefore not used with care. This is a fact of every branch of the government. When funds are used wisely it is always a function of a person (or persons) who truely cares about their public service. This event is rare.

2. Educators are not paid enough money to force them to care overly hard about the jobs they do. The addage "you get what you pay for" is very true.

3. Americans are lazy when compared to most other western nations. Our pop culture encourages teenagers to goof off rather than work hard. We go to school (on average) 180 days of the year. A typical high school day in the US starts at 8:00am and is over at 3:00pm with a 50 minute lunch and seven 8min passing periods (average numbers, schools vary). This computes to a 314 minute school day or 5.23 hours of learning. In Japan, students are in school 330 days of the year for 10 hours a day. They spend an average of 3300 hours a year learning. Compare that to our paltry 941.4.

My wife was greeted on her first day of school by a 48 year old biology teacher who expessed clearly his distain for his "stupid lazy kids" and warned her to get ready for "the crap they'll pull on you". He was an angry man who was just holding out the few more years until his retirement was ready so he could quit. He's quite typical of many teachers I've encountered. He isn't paid enough money for the grief he's endured for 25 years. As a result he's become more and more jaded towards the quality of the education he gives his students. He allows them to slack, he doesn't follow up on students who are falling back, and as soon as the bell rings he goes home to forget about his job. He is typical of the "JOB" teacher in america. What the US needs are "CAREER" teachers. The problem is that these types of educators are few and far between. Only those people who really really care about education are able to endure the crud of public schools and still preform 100%. My wife is one of those people. She loves chemistry. She wants to teach this subject. She wants to add value to a 10th graders mind. And she is in a minority. Most people who really care about a subject (chemistry, government, a foreign language, ect..) have spent many years educating themselves in that subject. They by-and-large are not going to accept jobs that offer uncompetitive saleries for the skills they possess. So what you end up with in public education are 95% teachers who are either inferior or simply average, and 5% who truely care. My wife is a perfect example. She spent her college years interning with the Dow chemical company. Upon her master's degree completion she could have had a very nice salary waiting for her at Dow. She choose instead to teach high school chemistry for one-half the price. I supported this choice because teaching is her life's passion. Plenty of other people of her caliber work for companies like Dow, Lilly, Merck, Glaxo-Smith-Cline, ect.. and never once thought about teaching high school because of the vast salary difference. To them it was a huge step down and an insult.

The issue of funding is another slippery slope. During the Clinton years, the federal government tossed money in the truckloads at schools. I guess they thought that more funding would equate to better schooling. But as my dad would put it, his high school years in the 60's contained more value per hour than an hour in the 90's. Why is this? His schools funding then was paltry compared to the inflation adjusted value per student his workplace recieved in the 90's and 2K years. The basic needs of students have hardly changed in 40 years so why toss more money around? Students need a textbook. They need writing and paper supplies. They need a heated/air-conditioned room in which to sit. They need access to a library. In special courses (like chemistry) they need special use items like glassware. The only thing that has changed over the years is computer and internet access. The basic funding needs are mostly still there. So ask yourself where the extra millions and millions of dollars goes? Well we need a bigger building! The athletic program needs to be enlarged! We got computers in 2003 but now we need to upgrade! Our admin requires a salary hike!

Basically the money goes to every avenue that is important to the local officals when it should be going to one vitally important source: Finding, recuiting, and keeping the best educators. But this never happens. Ever.

The other half of the problem is in the home. I'm not going to spend too much time on this one because government cannot offer a solution to how a parent raises a kid. But I will say this: one of the greatest qualities an educator can have is an ability to reach out and touch an estranged kids mind. This is not an ability that you can screen for in hiring a teacher, but one should look at the track record of teachers over the years and place those with acceptional ability in places where they can do the most good. I recall a male teacher in my high school who taught lower level kids mainly because he came from a bad environment and pulled himself up. They related really well to him. The large problem in schools today is the inability of a teacher to take control of a class. In today's society, problem students are allowed to continue unacceptable behavior because there is no punishment anymore. They get too many chances. In 1971 a kid took a swing at my father in a science class. He swung back, layed this kid out, and hauled his body to the prinipal's office and said to the vice principal "This one took a swing at me. Please take care of it". That boy was expelled. If my father had done something like that in 1995 he would have been fired and sued. Too many times problem kids are placed right back in the class they came from and they proceed to poison other students.

So how do we improve education? It's a really complicated answer with several dynamics but the cliffnotes are:
1. Pay teachers more. Expect excellence and fire them if they can't hold up.
2. Spend more time learning. start a school day at 7:00 and end at 4:00. Keep summer break because it's an important part of our culture in america but shorten it. Go to school for 220 days on average.
3. Give power back to educators. Realize that some kids just can't be taught. Keep them from poisoning those that can.
4. Tell a teacher you know that you respect what they do. Everybody wants to take pride in their life's work. Your comment will mean more than you know.

Feel free to reply if you are inclined to do so.


Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 8:49 AM

KJW


Quote:
Originally posted by thiefjehat:

So how do we improve education? It's a really complicated answer with several dynamics but the cliffnotes are:
1. Pay teachers more. Expect excellence and fire them if they can't hold up.
2. Spend more time learning. start a school day at 7:00 and end at 4:00. Keep summer break because it's an important part of our culture in america but shorten it. Go to school for 220 days on average.
3. Give power back to educators. Realize that some kids just can't be taught. Keep them from poisoning those that can.
4. Tell a teacher you know that you respect what they do. Everybody wants to take pride in their life's work. Your comment will mean more than you know.

Feel free to reply if you are inclined to do so.


Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.


I agree with you for the most part.

Increasing teachers' salaries is a good start, but I believe that it is even more important to reduce class size. I have tutored kids for years and homeschool my own kids, I can teach my son more in a few hours than he would learn in school. If a teacher had only 10-15 students you would have less disobedient kids and accomplish twice as much.

The problem with the 'bad' kids is not the kids, but the parents. That is the problem with our system a large number of parents just don't care about their kids. It is harsh to say that, but it is true. I find it hard to punish the kids, but I do realize (and have seen for myself) how these confused kids do undermine the learning experience. If money was no object then special classes and skills tailored to teach these kids could be developed and it would help a lot.

I am a fan of year long schooling, summer vacation does undermine the learning process and historical importance aside really serves no purpose. More and shorter vacation periods would be better. Yet I do not believe in more hours, I believe in better use of the hours. Studies show that kids don't start kicking in mentally til 8-9 in the morning and their concentration is not designed for all day learning. Heck I might even drop Fridays. Also hunger is problem, fortunately we have federal programs that feed poor kids, that is something ideal for the federal government to tackle and helps kids more than requiring standardized tests.

I do agree that power needs to be given back to educators, less top down bureaucracy, and more freedom to those on the ground to make the key decisions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:36 PM

CITIZEN


I'm afraid I could only skim most of this thread, you guys have written a lot.

Anyway, here's what I think:

Budget
Budget per department/ministry?
Don't let them overrun. If more money is needed then let them state the case as too why. If there is a good reason increase the budget. If there is not allow them to use next years budget to make up the short fall (with adequate stops to prevent this from happening year after year) and make those responsible take pay cuts and penalties, possibly lose their jobs. Thus if they screw up their financial planning, or falsify estimates they are personally penalised for it.

Business
Needs stops and controls. Sorry but they do. Business is perfectly happy destroying the environment, employing slave labour and so on when there’s laws to prevent them. I don't see this stopping if all of a sudden we expect business to moderate activities on 'morals'.
At the end of the day companies aren't people, they're organisations that are aimed at generating profit. Providing a service or product is a means to that end.
I am of course talking about big business, as small business is people, and I don't think that's what you meant.

Education
Not to sure. My own experiences of school were a little different from the mainstream so I'm not sure I'm fully qualified on this subject. I went to a state (public) school, but it was a very well funded one, with class sizes no larger than 10 with 2 teachers. I'm Dyslexic, and was awarded a place at one of these schools (there’s two in the country).
I don't think a purely private or purely public system is the answer.

Environment
Strict controls on pollution. Incentives to use low pollution transportation (that includes making public transport viable) and penalising those who decide they need a huge 3 miles to the gallon 4x4 to take the kids a mile down the road to school --massively-- (won't happen, not in Britain at least, I'll elaborate if anyone wants to know why...).

Healthcare
Health care is a right, not a privilege. Your TV, internet connection etc, that's a privilege. I could go on and on but basically healthcare should be state funded and free for any who walk through the doors. If you have private health, good for you, you should still pay your national health, if you don't like paying for private and public, no one made you pay private.

Immigration
Asylum seekers who can prove they will be persecuted.
People with skills required by the nation. Sorry we can't save the world. Britian is too overcrowded, we have a over a third of the population of the USA in an area of land 2% of the size (I think).

Foreign Policy
See Dreamtroves post.

Military
Difficult one. Overly I agree with Dreamtrove.
Unfortunately there is a lot to a military, it's also a deterrent. I believe that the Falklands war could of been avoided with a show of force prior to the Argentinean invasion.

Personal Freedom
Live your life how you will, as long as that does not prevent others from doing the same. Making assertions such as "also fit the definition doesn't render you a useless member of society" to my view could lead to a very dangerous place.

Welfare
Largely agree with Dreamtrove here. Maybe Gov. gives vouchers rather than money, that shops can exchange for food, utilities companies will accept for service etc. Anything more rigid than that could be dangerous in my view.

Edit:
Managed to read some more.
I think I pretty much agree with everything Fletch2 posted.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:35 PM

DREAMTROVE


Fletch,

Yeah, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying go back to... I was saying, this was the original plan, to have an emergency plan other than borrow. We should build such a thing. Like a big fund or whatever, for handling disasters. I don't like the "bail your way out" because I can't trust the competency and honesty of an unknown future administration, so I have to have a system in place which doesn't create the possibility that it could be used for disaster. National debt, even a very small amount, causes other countries to have leverage over the US. We can't allow this. Right now, a debt to China prevents us from opposing the annexation of Taiwan.

Red tape. I'm aware of where they came from, that's not the point. These are the things which cost business, because of the way they affect things. They raise the per hour cost of hiring Americans. We can't afford to do this. We need to bring American labor down to international competitive levels, which means slashing associated expenditures.

On defense you are so off on a tangent that you're on some other page, some other book or in some other library than what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with any of this. I'm saying create giant kitty, creates corruption. The no fat machine invites fewer vultures.

But, and this is the point. Back to the thread at hand:

Not yet. You're launching in to this attack too soon. The purpose of this thread is in its name 'common ground.' It's not to attack the unworkableness of everyones points. Not just yet. My fault for responding to the attacks, but it's an endless cycle, you can't not respond. So here:

Chill, for a moment. Everyone states their position, and then I want to work from there. Personally, I think almost everything posted is unworkable, but if we do this right we can expose the flaws one at a time, and possibly see whether the flaws we see are truly flaws, and whether those flaws are fatal or fixable.

Quote:

As for your sunny little vision, if your Meninites were pro-abortion we already know from your other posts that you wouldnt let them keep that "rule" of theirs but would impose your own moral viewpoint.


No, that would be the political left you're thinking of, the "everyone must obey my rules" issue.

I don't recall supporting the blanket ban when it was proposed, but it's a separate issue. I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I would let island society be gay marriagepaloosa. Abortion becomes a quesiton of does it harm others. Clearly this code has to be established at some point. Killing your children would never be allowed, nor killing someone else's. You can't harm others. This is so not the same thing. But even that taken into account, no, I don't care whether they have abortions.

Anyway, save the bickering or this will decend into the left/right war I'm trying to avoid. When we're done, I want to carry thing into an issue by issue debate, targetted at solutions which may be acceptable to everyone, or most people. I'm not saying people have to change their minds, just see if we can arrive at solutions that might be acceptable to all or to most. Just as an experiment.

Anyway, if you need to thwart something in this post, do so, but try not to make it a counter offensive, because I don't want to have to respond to your response. It's nothing personal, I actually kinda like you, but I need to stick to the idea of my thread, because partisan bickering is what all of us have been trained to do life long, we're like a pack of trained attack dogs. I'm trying out a new political idea here.

It's a mix of competition and cooperation I call consensus. It's an experiment of something different than the shut up and shout out. Humor me, if you can.

:)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:06 PM

DREAMTROVE


Thiefjehat,

Thanks for your education posts, I would like to hear more on your other positions, for the sake of the game.

Fletch, KJC, Citizen

Thanks for the platform position posts.

Now here's the game:

We have these platforms.
Each position, I want everyone, rather than argue why other people's positions are wrong, and should be marginalized, ignored, or otherwise removed from debate - instead - I want you to try to create a solution for that platform point that is at least roughly, best as you can manage, compatible with everyone else's position on this platform point.

I know how hard this is going to be. I disagree with 90% of what KJC posted, and I disagree with citizen and fletch all the time.

Also, since it's my thread an I get to say something, I want everyone to bear in mind that your voting public is going to be pretty much a 50/50 split liberals vs. conservatives. Even the most liberal or conservative societies are never more than 60/40 split. And by conservative I think we have to say lib dems in the Uk are conservative because they are pro-privatization free market etc. at least that's what I read. Here, by liberal I mean pro-govt. and by conservative I mean pro-private of pro-business. please don't nitpick these words because I'm not trying to define them, just using them as they would be used in New York. to try to get to a point.

The point is if 4 people come out on one side, and one person on another side, try to weight them as both equally, because it's safe to say that a minority of one might very well represent 50% of your local population, or their local population. The only exception I can think of is the pro-torture position. Almost no one supports that. Anywhere.

Okay, I'm going to start this off with education.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 6:27 PM

DREAMTROVE




Education:

Remember please, these positions, even the final ones aren't MY positions, they are my attempt at consensus positions.

Here as the positions as I understand them:

Fletch: govt. get a say in what get's taught.

Okay, fletch, I'm going to temper that, hope this is okay with you. Here's my neo-fletch statement restated:

Govt. gets to say XYZ must be taught.

The reason I stated this is that you can't trust govt. to be wise. It's always possible that govt. will decide that it wants evolution to NOT be taught. This is actually a pretty likely scenario. Since education is state controlled, in both the US and in the RU (since an EU nation is analagous to a US state, roughly both in size and population) And we already have a couple states in the US moving in that direction. There's a wide host of other things that people might want NOT taught. But the children should still have the right to go to a school where that taboo IS taught, so they can learn it. It's one thing to allow Kansas to require Intelligent Design (Creationism) to be taught, it's quite another to allow Kansas to forbid Darwinian Evolution from being taught.

I hope fletch agrees with this and can support this;

Dreamtrove's Neo-fletch point:

Govt. can require ABC must be taught, but can not deny XYZ also be taught.

KJC:

1. Public schools with local freedom to set curriculum, etc.
2. No funding for private schools.
3. Private and home schooling tax exemptions.
4. federal support for vocational, technical and college.

I really need to kibitz one something about KJC's plan before going on. I hate the tax exemptions. Tax exemptions are welfare to the rich. This is helping rich people pay for education, while doing nothing for the poor. Because we, the poor, do not pay taxes, we do not benefit from the exemption. We cannot afford private education now, and you have not helped us, you have furthered the concept of private school as a priveledge for the rich.

ThiefJehat:

1: Take education out of inneficient govt. hands.
2: Increase teachers salaries
3: Spend more time educating.
4: Appreciation. (This isn't a valid platform point, btw, but I'm repeating it for a reason, you'll see later, it might turn in to a valid platform point.)

Citizen: A mixture of public and private solutions.

And lastly, me

Dreamtrove: Equal govt. funding for private schools. Every child not attending public school saves the govt. $15/year. No reason not to spend that money on that child, since you would have to do it anyway.

Before going on, I would like to point out something because it relates to what Citizen said, which reveals a subtle truth:

Here in New York State (which doesn't apply to the City. It did until recently, but Mayor Bloomberg - a republican :) - change it with a new law forcing all schools to get equal per student funding, but alas, he's only a mayor, and so the law doesn't apply to the rest of the state.)

But here in new york state, every white child gets $17,000 per child per year, and every black child gets $10,000 per child per year.

I hope everyone was duly horrified by that. I would imagine the problem is worse in other parts of the country.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, now for my synthesis solution. Please feel free to post alternate synthesis solutions or to correct my attempt to summarize your position.

My new synthesis education plan:

1. Annual Govt. sponsored tests will guage students learning in a selection of subjects deemed to be the core curriculum. Any accredited school will have to meet a certain acceptable avg. score on this test. (a)

2. Public schools will follow a certain mandate of courses, beyond which local administrators will have freedom to expand. Local Administrators will also have freedom to change structure as long as accreditation requirements are met. (b)

3. Private school meeting accreditation requirements will be allocated an equal or similar amount per student per year as their public counterparts. (c) *

(a) for fletch
(b) for KJC
(c) for citzen, thief and dream

* Right now, a public school gets $15,000 per student per year, and a private one gets $1,500, but only if the parents buy into it with $1,500 of their own, ie. only if the parents are rich)

Please consider points 1,2 and 3 apart from the others. I am aware that these do not address all issues, because two issues: teacher salary and higher education, have not yet been addressed.

4. Additional programs will be considered to boost the desirability of the teaching profession (just for everyone's consideration):

To counter a suggestion that the problem was no career teachers, I think it's just the opposite, someone who teaches for 25 years IS a career teacher, so consider this:

4.1) Temp Teacher gigs for professionals. Maybe working people can come in, and teach classes on a more college like schedule, in a special 'expert' program. This will bring people like stem cell researchers into classes to to introduce kids to this cutting edge field. This pay would of course be much higher, but not a permanent staff position.

Next for consideration, Particularly for performing arts and other high paying professions. This is my teacher appriciation angle (in cash rather than in emotion):

4.2 Royalties. Why not? If you teach Britney Spears how to dance, and she makes over a hundred millions in part because of what you taught her, why shouldn't you get a little bonus? It would be nice to have students who wish to take advanced classes enter into such contracts. It would bring in the most qualified teachers in the world, who would want to train the best students in any area for a chance to cash in on their later success. The royalty could be very small, since teachers have many many students over the years.

4.3 Similar programs could also be made for children who have no talents, but are possible disasters, if you can make them into functional members of society, the govt. could pay you a portion of the taxes received from those kids (think, this would represent a truly minute portion of taxes, like less than a thousandth of a percent or something, but it would turn into serious cash for people who turned otherwise unmotivated future drug dealers or homeless people into hardworking tax payers, and it would make the job of helping such kids very profitable and desireable.

I'm aware these last two are truly radical, but I thought of them as I was chewing this over, new ways to make teaching more attractive. While I'm at it, I might want to suggest a royalty for the school, as well as the teacher. Since this would be based on future earnings, and not parents wealth, there would be a pro-talent slant rather than a pro-rich one.

Also, I have to add here. I don't believe in innate talent. At all. I think it's 100% fiction. I say this as someone with many talents, including, are, music, writing. I was born with none of them, I picked them up in later life with much dilligent effort. Talent is just a measure of time invested. Some people invested that time in their free time from the age of 3 to the age of 7, and the rest of us saw that investment as an innate talent, but it was really just a normal time investment. While it may be true that some people learn faster than others, this is a far less significant effect.

The reason I'm saying all this is that when I say a pro-talent slant, I mean talent of the teacher, not talent of the student, which I don't believe to exist. Dedication of the student, and talent of the teacher would be the two rewarded properties. The teacher's talent exists because it was learned.

4.4 Why not extend the payment system which pays for 13 years for the next 4? It's a 30% increase.

For the budget hawks, it works out to $10,500 times 17 years is the same amount of money as $15,000 times 13 years.

Since I also believe in the higher efficiency of private industry, I would accept that. ($10,500/student/year for private ed. times 17 years.)





Questions? Comments?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:24 PM

THIEFJEHAT


Quote:
Thiefjehat,
Thanks for your education posts, I would like to hear more on your other positions, for the sake of the game.


Very well. But just when you might have me pegged as a left or right winger, I'll swing back around.

Budget: Balance it. I prayed so hard for the Amendment that would have demanded a balanced budget. The more a nation borrows against itself, the more it devalues it's own currency. I'm a huge fan of Dave Ramsey http://www.daveramsey.com I listen to his radio show on a daily basis between my favorite 2 consevative talk radio shows. Dave is not politically motivated in any way. His lifes mission is to lay out a plan for the average american to become debt free and begin building wealth. I'm a big proponent of this. I believe strongly that every person should take it upon themselves to do for themselves. Dave gets into the federal budget at times on his show and his #1 statement on the subject of the national debt is "Debt is bad, in every form. Some debt is "good" if it leads to profits, but even "good" debt is a risk. The federal debt is the worst of "Bad" debt because it devalues our currency" He goes on to outline what a USA with a completely balanced budget and no debt would be like. In short, it would be the most prosperous nation in human history. The scary thing about increasing debt is that eventually the currency becomes so devauled it looses it's ability to be worth anything to a person. When that happens economic collapse is going to occur and you'll be bartering a can of greenbeans for a gallon of gas. So balance the freaking budget. This is the position of a fiscically conservative REPUBLICIAN.

Business: I'm a big believer in Reganomics. Tax cuts spurn economic growth. I'm not going into detail tonight because I am tired but I can pull down my econ textbook and quote dozens of reasons why. Keep cutting taxes to allow companies to make more $ so they reinvest this $ into business and thus hire more folks and demand more services of the market which in turn employs people and continues the positive synergy. This is the position of the classic regan REPUBICAN

Education: See my above post.

Environment: I'm rather left leaning on environmental issues. One thing that torks me off on a daily basis is listening to conservative talk radio hosts scoff and laugh at environmental issues. A topic of frequent discussion lately has been drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and in alaska. The debates they pose is always in the vein of "Increase oil supply so we can keep prices low and not tie ourselves to arabs who really hate us and would like to cut off our heads with their scimitars after thay take our $$ for a barrel of crude" I just anguish and yell at the radio because they don't get it. They don't understand the "Slinky Principal" What did I just type? Yes, the slinky principal...as it related to the Earth. It goes like this: When I was a kid I had a slinky. It was steel and springy and it was fun to play with. You could make it walk down stairs which when done correctly was ultra cool to watch. One day I wondered what would happen if I pulled on the slinky. I pulled a little bit and let go and the slinky popped back in shape. I pulled a little harder and let go and again it popped back into shape. Each time I did this I observed that the slinky was still much as it was and it still functioned as an interesting toy that walked down stairsteps or whatnot. But something interesting happened one day when I pulled really really hard on the slinky. It deformed. For those of you who have a civil engineering background like me, it passed beyond it's elastic range into it's plastic range. Now all of a sudden the slinky didn't pop back into it's normal shape anymore. Nor would it walk down stars. In Firefly parlance, the slinky was humped. I grew sad that the slinky was now just a piece of garbage and put it where it belonged...IN the garbage. Later in life as I became an engineer and a businessman and a scientist I began to consider the Earth and how very old it is. I considered all the lifeforms in our biosphere and how the happy balance on this planet is maintained by all the complicated interactions of the parts. When a calamity occurs, the earth cleanses itself. When a Volcano erupts and spews particualte and CO2 into the atmosphere, rain pulls it out and plants transform the CO2 impalance into a normal balance. This has gone on for millions of years. Then I considered how recient the apperence of humanity and culture is on the scale of the earths history and how we by nature introduce new factors called pollution into the mix. Each time we do something the Earth moves to cleanse itself. Plants screen out CO2 so as not to allow the earth to greenhouse heat itself into something akin to the hellish environment of Venus. Water cycles clean out the particulates we spew out. Thousands of other factors occur and are balanced by the earth. But how much is too much? Will we ever pull on the slinky too hard? When we do I believe it will cause irreversable damage and may not be correctable. This is something I fear. It is also a reason why I like Firefly so much when the show refrences Earth-that-was. I am so frustrated that we depend on fossil fuels which are a finite energy source. When it's all gone where will we be? We'll be looking for new energy sourses and cursing ourselves for introducing so much carbon into the atmosphere. We'll also curse ourselves for sprawling across the globe so much we eat up the natural vegataion...far more will be displaced when a forest is removed to make way for an office park with a few trees and some grass. How much is too much? We should never seek to find out. In this regard my politics are in line with a Liberal Scientist.

Healthcare: While it seems like a good idea to promote a "Great Society", I see that humans are fundemntally lazy when they are allowed to be. My healthcare positions are varied but I fence sit on most issues. In some ways it's becasue I'm in my 20's and healthy. In others it's because I know I'm taking care of my future and should never require governmental help. I tend to sympathize with extreme stories of heartbreak when somebody requires helthcare that they cannot afford. But also too are tales of $$$ abuse. I'm very much a moderate regarding healthcare. The only thing I'll say is that I do not want to move toward the europian view of healthcare where you pay huge taxes for 100% care. I'd rather invest my money and cover myself. But I'm just responsible that way.

Immigration: We need a fence. http://www.weneedafence.com Prior to 9/11 I might have felt differently but in todays world, one is simply a fool to think that we can live in a 100% free society and not be harmed. People in the world want to kill us. To an islamic extremist I am a person who should either be 1. converted. 2. enslaved. 3. killed. There is no co-existance option. As for illegal immigrants, hispanic being the most common. I'm a big proponent of demagneting states. That is to say, go after businesses that employ illegals and fine them into bankrupcy if they do not stop hiring. This will dry up the labor market and the problem will go away when the jobs do. In this manner I see things as a conservative Republican

Forign Policy: We should not police the world. At the same time, we MUST fight threats off American Soil. I thank god each day for our soldiers in other parts of the world who shield my family from danger by keeping it there and not here. God bless you all. On this subject I am a moderate.

Miltary: Much like what I just typed. I believe in strong defense spending as well. On this subject I am a moderate republician.

Personal Freedom: I believe in the consititution as it is written. I hate the bad calls I've seen coming from the supreme court lately that step on our liberty. The latest being that New London CT has the right to condem private land for the purposes of handing it over to private development. In this arena I am a Libertarian.

Welfare: Hate it. It promotes a lazy culture and should never have been adopted. As it stands it's intrenched in our culture and that's a sad fact. Since you cannot get rid of it you'll need to manage it closly and limit it's funding. On this subject I'm a Moderate Republican.

And that's all folks.


Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:58 AM

FLETCH2


I'm not especially interested in how this continues to develop, you have my opinions feel free to do with them as you want.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:38 AM

KJW


More clarification on my education plan....

First all the studies and analysis I have read indicates that public services are as efficient, if not more so, than private services. It is a myth that private services are always more efficient, furthermore with public services we have resources from elections, Freedom of Information Act, to lobbying to make changes. Not so much for private entities. Transferring traditional publice services to private enterprise is a lazy and foolhardy approach.

Two examples. There has been a move to privatize prisons across the country, these companies have taken to lobbying to increase the length of sentences for prisoners. Not for any political reason besides the fact that more prisoners means more money.

In terms of private schools, they are not held to the same standards as public schools. For example, in Florida where vouchers have been attempted, all public schools are rated, but no private schools are. Thus we have no benchmark to mark their comparative worth, except that they are supposedly better because they are private (logical fallacy). Furthermore, recent movements by corporations to establish private management of schools have for the most part been failures and unable to turn a profit.

This is due to the simple truth that there is a different in the population of students. Private schools cater to more affluent and better fed students, while private schools have to deal with children that suffer from hunger, poverty, and other disadvantages. To say that there is no differences in ability between students is another logical fallacy that ignores decades of research and experience on the subject.

Furthermore, private school teachers are often paid LESS than public school teachers, furthermore private schools can reject students, such as those who cost private schools so much money, but who need an education. Also private schools by law do not have the same legal obligations as public schools to provide a proper education. This is all part of the private school myth.

Simply put, my plan is simple. The federal government should provide funding to help struggling public school districts. Key to this is reducing class size which has a direct correlation to academic performance. Decisions should be made by the administrators and teachers at site and the folly of standardized testing which proves little but increases competition and frustation among students and teachers needs to end. Public schools is the greatest treasure of this nation and have been ignored for too long.

On a related note I would encourage a return to the study of social studies, art, music, and sports which due to funding cuts are being abandoned across the country.

Americans should still have the choice to attend private schools and a tax exemption is a solid choice. Not all private schools are expensive and many have scholarships and are thus available to not just the wealthy.

Also homeschooling is often the best of all worlds as children will get individual education based on what their parent believes is best. This is a full time job (I know because I home school my urchins) and there should be a tax exemption for families pursuing this option.

Dreamtrove, I do ask this would you give payments directly to parents who are home schooling that you would give to private schools?




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:07 AM

DREAMTROVE


I guess the first real problem has reared its ugly head. I guess the question now is:

Is the left capable of compromise?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:07 AM

DREAMTROVE


KJW,

Private schools offer choice. Public schools don't.
The reason it hasn't been profitable is that no one can afford education. If parents had to pay the $15,000 a year that it costs on average to educate a child through the public school system, no one would ever buy the product. Everyone would homeschool.

The money would have to be given to the schools, and not the parents, because parents could not be trusted to actually spend the money on education. I support homeschooling as well, but I'd prefer supporting homeschooling programs like the American School. Giving raw money to the people is often a recipe for disaster. If parents take the $15,000 and only spend $7500 on education, then you've reduced the efficiency of the system by half.

Most importantly, you can argue that public schools work and are a good investment and a place to send your kids unti your blue in the face, but that won't ever convince the half of us that have decades of horrid life experience with the system.

Tax exemptions are never a solid choice. Never for anything. Raw cash to the people is better than tax exemptions. Cash to companies that provide the services is best. Think about it. The govt. doesn't support public schools by giving tax emptions to parents or teachers. It funds the institution directly. If the Democratid Party gave up on it's offer of tax exemption it would be one step closer to getting my vote.

Take a look at the exemption:

let's say it's 10,000 tuition, tax exempt.

The Andersons make 200,000 a year and have two kids.

The Beattys make 30,000 a year and have one kid.

The Carrols make 10,000 a year and have two kids.

The Andersons spend $20,000, and their at 50% tax rate, so they get $10,000 back, or $5000/child.

The Beattys pay 10,000, and are taxed at 15% and get $1500 back for their one child. Because they are poor their one child costs almost as much as the Aneersons two.

The Carrols can't afford it at all, unless they borrow, since loans are not taxed, and also since the Carrols pay no tax, the Carrols will never get any assistance.

Finally, we want choice. The goal here is a compromise. If it were up to me in a unilateral shut out, if I were dictator or if I had a shut out majority, the public schools would be spun off as private enterprises or they would close.

This is the point of the compromise position. You don't have to support it as something you would vote for as a first choice. The idea is to see if we can reach a middle ground that is not utterly appalling to everyone.

According to the compromise plan, public schools stay open and govt. run, but it offers public funding of private institutions that meet the Fletch academic standard.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:32 AM

CHRISISALL


I have one idea that's a little different.
Anyone proven guilty of a serious crime (i.e. a crime that 'hurts' another individual/individuals) must spin the 'Wheel of Misfortune'.
Once spun, the wheel might stop on one of the many punishments on the 'life' half of the wheel, or it might stop on the 'death' half. No one knows what punishment their crime will ensure them; people will be less likely to rob (for instance) knowing that it might just get them the maximum penalty.
The wheel must of course be 'rigged' for more violent criminals.

The 'right' side of Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:10 AM

KJW


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I guess the first real problem has reared its ugly head. I guess the question now is:

Is the left capable of compromise?


Sure, I would set up every public school as a charter school to be administered under the auspices of its PTA or equivalent organization. Give control to the people running and invested into the school, but ensure that it recieves proper funding and conforms with the law.

The main problem is whether you can acknowledge that private enterprise is not the solution to all ills and the removal of accountablity in no way benefits democracy. When the pursuit of profit trumps the goal of educating then all of us are losers on this issue. I hope you can agree with these two fundamental premises.

Now I do not intend this as an challenge or insult, but Dreamtrove have you ever worked for a large company? I have, a couple in fact and in different fields, and the level of incompetence and inefficiency is astounding. The bigger the company the more the waste, mainly because they can afford it. Sure there are exceptions, but that is not the rule. Privatize education and you will get large companies providing the minimum (if that) quality education needed.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:50 AM

DREAMTROVE


Choice trumps accountability, because with choice, the shady can be avoided, whereas with accountability, there is a right to complain, but no guarantee that anything would be done about it.

My local school district is amazingly corrupt. Since it is tied to its corrupt overarching authority, there is an appeal process, but no chance of winning said appeal. We wen through this ad naseum.

But the problems with public school are insoluable, the system is devoid of merit, IMHO, money down the drain. But this isn't about my position or yours, it's about compromise.

I've worked for both private corporations and for the state. I'm aware of corruption and innefficiencies in both. The issue here is private education. Roughly half of us want it, at least as an option.

Consider this. If this were the actual senate, and the right wing posters were the GOP, and the left wing posters were the Democrats, and this came up, consider the options.

1. A compromise of some sort.
2. An all or nothing vote in which one half of the people would lose all, and be shut out.

System 2 is what is happening in govt. right now. I wanted to see if compromise was even possible. It's an experiment.

Consider option 2 for a second. What if you had option 1, both public and private education are available, as a compromise on the table.

The if you had to put it to a vote, you would know that it would be one extreme all public and no private, or the other extreme, all private and no public, that would win.

Would your really take that chance? Wouldn't it be better if there were compromises that would cater at least somewhat to all people's preferences, than a shut out that gave 1/2 the people exactly what they wanted and told the other half to f^&k off? Knowing that at least some of the time that 1/2 would include you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 8:50 AM

DREAMTROVE


Chris,
You've been watching too much Lexx.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:06 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Immigration.

I’m pro-immigration, particularly the fair legal kind. Build a wall along the southern border; put barbed wire on top of it. Eliminate restrictions on reporting illegal immigrants. Arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Provide a worker program for foreigners who wish to work in the US. Make it accountable to the law.

Budget.

I’m pro-budget, particularly the balanced kind. Balanced budgets are necessary in the long run, but not so much in the short run. You can’t balance the budget when your economy is weak; we’ll just drive ourselves further in the whole. There’s nothing balanced about a program that seeks to pay down a loan by sacrificing economy power. Build our assets first, then use the revenue provided by a strong economy to pay off the loans; that’s the way a balanced budget works.

Business.

I’m pro-business. I’m also pro-law, and pro-business following the law, and pro-criminals being arrested when they commit crimes in the name of business.

Education.

I’m pro-education, but not the state kind. State education should be state education. It should be designed to provide a functional, not elegant, education to generate useful citizens of the state. Teachers should be paid well, but educated in strict accordance to state policy. Students should be evaluated to assure that they are meeting strict minimum standards set by the state. Those standards should be high, but should also allow for various education/career paths. To each to his abilities, as the saying goes. Teachers’ jobs should be tied directly to how well their students do, no excuses. All students will be required to wear uniforms and recite the pledge of allegiance. Failure to adhere to these strict policies should result in state sanctioned punishment not excluding imprisonment. That’s the way a state school should work, and the truth is that if our state schools did work that way, I think we would probably have much better educated children.

Now, for those people who aren’t interested in the state school, they should have the option to send their children to a private school. You can find all kinds of private schools to meet all kinds of life-styles, politics and education choices. I would even be in favor of allowing a system by which the state would help you finance such a school, say through some kind of voucher system, maybe.

Environment.

I’m pro-environment. I think we need more science and less scare tactics. I think we need to invest in alternative forms of energy and other environmentally friendly options. I think we, as a people, need to pay close attention to which business’ our dollars go to. And I think we have no hope of fixing or protecting the environment if we destroy our economy.

Welfare.

I’m anti-welfare, but I think it should be a safety net. If I had to choose, I think I prefer having a high-paying job to welfare. We should encourage people to our greatest effort to avoid welfare and get off it as soon as possible. Welfare is a cushion to catch you when you fall, not a lifestyle. Welfare moneys dispersed should be in the form of vouchers. NO actual dollars should be provided to welfare recipients, except as an incentive. Disbursements of welfare vouchers should be very strictly controlled and qualified for specific items. Qualification for welfare should be reevaluated yearly. In general, those without children under 18 years of age will be limited to a maximum of two years of welfare in a ten year period. Incentives and encouragements should be provided to welfare recipients to seek employment, career change or education.

Healthcare.

I’m pro-healthcare. If competition can turn artificially flavored carbonated water into major world wide industries that provide their goods to nations that don’t even have potable water, then it can certainly spread healthcare around our little corner of the world.

Military.

I’m pro-military. I don’t know what else to say about that. I just am, trust me.

Personal Freedom.

I’m pro-personal freedom, too. And pro-personal responsibility. In fact, I think they are inseparable, or put another way, people who practice personal freedom without also practicing person responsibility are often called criminals.

Foreign policy.

I’m pro-foreign policy, especially the kind that protects American interests and doesn’t make us look like a target.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:17 AM

CHRISISALL


Sorry, my brain fell out. Stuffing it back in always entails logical inconsistantsies (and sp errors, it seems...)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:35 AM

CHRISISALL


I was gonna post something serious, but I realize that it was going to be a not-as-well-put version of basically what you posted, Finn (except the barbed wire).

Oh, and the welfare voucher thing- I'd add community food and clothing centers, so kids that needed clothes or meals could get them, and bad parents couldn't abuse their kids as meal-tickets (I guess I seen too many poor families with fat parents and skinny kids...).

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:25 AM

KJW


Dreamtrove, you seem to misunderstand how the Senate works and that there is compromise in Congress, just not nearly as much as we would like. I have family and friends who work for Congress so I have probably a good idea how it actually works.

So compromise on education...

I will filibuster any attempt to take funds away from public schools for private schools, which I see an an attempt to undermine our education system, especially for poorer children. OK this is now off the table, deal with it.

You want choice and competition to be brought into our school system and something must be done along these lines of you will filibuster any education plan. OK this must be in our plan, so I have to deal with this.

For a compromise I toss out the idea of charter schools to be formed under the oversight of the local school board. As long as they are non-profit entities and had public oversight I would even support federal funding. I would also support choice for students to pick between schools in a district, including charter schools, as long as this was not discriminatory. I would also support tax exemptions for private schools and homeschooling to further foster choice. This is a reasonable proposal and would be an improvement over the current status quo.

I would drop my demands for the end of standardized tests, but would still be shooting for something to lower class sizes and increase local control over resources.

Now you can counter offer if you like and we go from there.

Dreamtrove, I am sorry your school board is corrupt, perhaps you should run for office or support someone who will change things. I have lived in several counties with good and bad school boards and the difference is the level of public involvement. It takes work but change can be accomplished.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:05 PM

DREAMTROVE


KJC, I am very very familiar with how the Senate works. Trust me on this. If the Republicans wanted to railroad through an uncompromising right wing bill, they could get about 8 democrats on their side from previously owed favors, and that would give them 63 votes. That's way more than enough to pass legislation.

You can't honestly say that your program which looks like choice for the rich, mandated badness for the poor is pro-poor folk. Remember those classy public schools are also for rich folks, because the tax and spend system is localized by district, which is why black people don't get jack.

Fillibuster isn't really a compromise. I must've missed the demand to end standardized tests. I have to give that my Wha??? The way I see it, every child that leaves the public school system saves the govt. 15K as it stands right now. 17K if they're white.

Okay, back to the compromise plan.

The state, an institution which get's it's money through taxation, which is really no different than robbing people at gunpoint, since if you don't pay, you go to jail, cannot be infinitely superior to a corporation, which gets its money by providing goods and services that people elect to purchase. Capitalist private sector corporations are far more democratic than any govt. could ever be.

Before I offer a counter compromise, I have to say I can't support the not-for profit restriction for this reason:

The profit motive is necessary to evolution. A successful model will stay a freak if it is a lone non-profit entity. As a for-profit corporation, it can spread if successful.

But, and here's the compromise. I see some of your concerns. The Walmart School or its equivalent would be bad. It would deliberately undermine other schools to put them out of business while preying on fears, and cost cutting on teachers.

In addition, the conglomerat education subsidiary would possibly be bad. I see the possibility of AOL School funnelling off money spent on education and rather than using it to build more schools might use it for to subsidize Money Magazine or something.

So some sort of additional criteria for accreditation as yet not define could be set up that may include but not be limited to: Mandating a dedicated education company that does not engage in unfair competitive practices and does not engage in other non-educational activities, and does abide by fair labor standards.

This would allow the for-profit corporation, which I think is necessary for free market competition, and thus the evolution of the best working models, but ban perhaps some less desirable traits of independent business.

I will not support a tax exemption under any circumstances. Tax exemption is equivalent to a federal voucher, but in an unbalanced way favoring the rich. As a member of the conservative poor, why would I ever ever accept such a proposal?

But I did budge a little, so get back to me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 1:43 PM

KJW


I would consider for-profit charter schools (with the conditions you gave) on the condition that the local school board would of course retain the ability to revoke a charter and state funding. Public oversight is too important and this would be a good check on these private enterprises.

I also would contend that no preference be given for charters (and state funding) between profit and non-profit charter schools, equal playing field.

I would not support state funding going directly to private schools that are not controlled by a public institution.

As for tax exemptions, like you said every child not in public school saves the state money. Just make it a $5000 exemption for homeschooling or private school expenses (actually I don't know if we actually already have this or not which may be the case). Like I said I know 'poor' people who are in private schools (especially religious-based private schools which are often subsidized by a church), who are homeschooling, and they deserve the right to have some recoupment for their investment on behalf of their child. This encourages choice, without this many will not be able to afford these options, for example we just can't keep our daughter in her private preschool because of the expense. A tax exemption is a good compromise to encourage choice.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:37 PM

JAYTEE


Education is the toughest problem we have to face in this country. Others in this thread have pointed out the "you get what you pay for" theme already. This is all too true. The middle class in this country is disappearing and that is the fundamental root of most of our problems. It was the glue that held society together. Now we are facing the emergence or re-emergence of a two class system. A wealthy aristocracy that can afford to send their children to decent private schools where the teachers are highly motivated (read well paid) and the wage slave class that has to send their children to substandard schools that fail to educate them thus perpetuating a ready supply of low-wage earning people and more cannon fodder for the military whose sole purpose is to defend the rights of the wealthiest since the rights of the wage slaves cannot be protected by public defenders doing pro-bono work against highly paid law firms with huge staffs to handle their case loads. I find it repulsive that so many nowadays deal in black and white absolutes without having any real understanding of the terms they use. Leftist or liberal has become a slur and few want to be identified as having any liberal leanings. What does it say about our society's values when a garbage collector in New York city without even a high school diploma makes more money than a teacher in the same city with a Bachelors or Masters degree? What does it say about us when a neurosurgeon makes 20 times less than a semi-literate steroid hyped trash talking "role model" sports figure making 20 Million a year and yet complaining about having to show up for practice and getting busted for drugs but he's still a hero because he can score the touchdown or throw the ball through the hoop? I fear for the future of America but I've grown cynical because it appears there are two camps in this country. Those that want equal opportunity for all and a decent education for all children regardless of their economic background and the other camp that resents paying taxes, wants even more tax cuts and considers the military an organization that their children shouldn't have to serve in, that's for kids of poor families. Oliver Wendell Holmes (a Republican, believe it or not)said, "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a free society." Most of the affluent in this
country have just grown too damn selfish and self-centered and the people we elect to represent us sell us out in favor of large corporations that have neither our interests or the future of our country on their minds. In the end it's just "all about me, not you" and if anyone disagrees they'll be slapped down with a label of Liberal or Leftist and shunned. Goodbye America, it was a nice democracy while it lasted but it's dead and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


I agree to your no preference, that would be a good idea.

Also, I agree to public oversight, but through an state accreditation board. The local school board could be corrupt. Remember that with the power to cancel private sector charters, a corrupt schoolboard like my local one would force students back to their institution, thus increasing their schools bugdet.

I would agree that frund should go through vouchers to parents. I'm concerned with parents spending the cash on something else, so I don't want to give them raw cash, but I see your point that funds directly to schools could be rigged for imaginary students similar to the Jeb Bush/Imaginary Medicare Patient scam. Vouchers would also be transferable from one institution to another, allowing the parents to withdraw the student from the school mid-term and sending them to another public or private institution.

You still haven't addressed my point on exemptions, which is that they only help the rich. I need the system to be wealth-independent. I would also veto any parents mathing funds rule, for the same reason. Parental income cannot have any connection to availability of education. That in fact is my whole goal here. Right now, it's an open field for the rich. I want it to be an open field for everyone.

But I'm feeling good about this whole consensus process now. I'm still vetoing tax relief as the mechanism.

The poor need to have the same access as the rich, and the poor pay no taxes, a tax exemption is useless to us.

I basically agree to what you have, let me enumerate the final changes I'd make.

1) The public oversight is the state accreditation board, not the local school board. The local school board can have some input, like if they want to complain, there should be a process, but the local schoolboard in my experience is the most likely part to be corrupt, and so it can't have full power. State accreditation board would be more visible and accountable, statewide.

2) Funds would be in voucher form, and the amount of the voucher could be variable. It should cover the full cost of education, but I can see reducing it for higher income groups. There's no need for the state to pay $10,000 or $15,000 for a family already earning a million a year.

3) All schools would have a free right to compete, level playing field, and funds through voucher would be on a per enrolled student basis.

4) Previously stated standards would of course still apply.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:46 PM

DREAMTROVE


JT

I think that the solution we are coming up with IS a decent compromise.

I wanted to say this about taxes, but we'll discuss it later. People resent taxes because they fail to see the benefit. The largest tax you pay, you not me, since as the independently destitute I don't pay taxes, but the bulk of federal income tax goes in one way or another to defense.

America traditionally has no natural enemies. The cost of keeping Al Qaeda away does not approach a single percetage point of what we spend daily.

My tax proposal would be simple. We start labelling taxes honestly.

School Tax
War Tax
Healthcare Tax
Welfare Tax
VA Tax
Washington Tax
etc.

If each item were labelled honestly on your tax bill, then people would at least know what they were getting for the money. If an items seemed not worth the cost, then people could support politicians who either improved that service, or lowered that tax.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:58 PM

JAYTEE


Now that is a fresh approach. Just because you're destitute doesn't mean you can't run for office. God only knows this country can use some politicians with integrity and new ideas instead of the same old brand of crap spewing liars we have on both sides of the House and Senate nowadays. I'm much more inclined to lean in another direction entirely. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying, "A little revolution now and then is a healthy thing". Maybe it's time for American Revolution: The Sequel coming soon to a House and Senate near you.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 3:20 AM

KJW


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I basically agree to what you have, let me enumerate the final changes I'd make.

1) The public oversight is the state accreditation board, not the local school board. The local school board can have some input, like if they want to complain, there should be a process, but the local schoolboard in my experience is the most likely part to be corrupt, and so it can't have full power. State accreditation board would be more visible and accountable, statewide.

2) Funds would be in voucher form, and the amount of the voucher could be variable. It should cover the full cost of education, but I can see reducing it for higher income groups. There's no need for the state to pay $10,000 or $15,000 for a family already earning a million a year.

3) All schools would have a free right to compete, level playing field, and funds through voucher would be on a per enrolled student basis.

4) Previously stated standards would of course still apply.



Public oversight has to be local, because that is where the school with be located and where problems will develop. Perhaps a two-tier system, with accreditation at the state level, but a local schoolboard can initiate procedure to repeal a charter.

I just have a problem with vouchers, because it will end up taking money from public schools. Its like the lotteries that were meant to improve school funding, but actually reduced funding. I agree with choice, but our first priority has to be public schools. Public schools have to deal with all manner of special needs, which is one of the reasons their costs are so much higher than private schools. Private schools simply don't have the resources to deal with these students. If money is shifted away per capita for a non-special needs student then the special needs students will suffer in public schools. But I am still thinking about the idea and open to counter arguments.

I agree tax deductions only help the middle and upper classes, but I think encouraging spending on a child's education is good policy. Maybe a system in which the poor get vouchers and the middle and upper class get deductions, not committing just tossing out an idea.

JayTee, I agree with your analysis on the state of the Union. The fact is that politics have changed and liberal thought is on the fringe, but things will change it always is a pendulum. This thread though does show that opposite views can reach some sort of compromise and that is what is best for this nation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 4:47 AM

DREAMTROVE


1. Sure, the local school board can begin such a process, but since it would stand to benefit financially from the process, it can't gave control over the final decision. Our local school board here considered a proposal to merge with the neighboring district. The citizenship was overwhelmingly opposed to the idea, but the measure went through, and two school board members pocketed a good deal of the $15M allocated by budgeting 'transitional administrative tasks' and hiring themselves. Then, when seeking a site, they selected land owned by one schoolboard member's husband, who then refused to sell, and the state was forced to seize the land, and then reimburse the husband ten times the going market rate. Then another school board member was given the new job of joint superintendent with a quarter million dollar salary. Local corruption doth abound.

You need to not look at money in the public school system as a total dollar amount. It is the 'money per child' amount that matters, and that will not go down if children leave the system. The public school system does not have a divine right to that money. If children leave the system, its budget should go down.

Your first priority is the public schools. Mine is the private schools. Our first priority is to education. I am absolutely convinced that that goal is best served by private schools. You are equally convinced that that goal is best served by public schools. We are not going to change each other's mind by this compromise. If we did, we'd defeat its purpose, because we know that we're never going to change everyone in America's mind. The compromise is about making a solution we all can live with, rather than forcing one side to force the other side out.

Re: Special needs students, I have a couple of things to say. I think you're making some assumptions I don't share.

1. Special needs students are a priotity. They may be your priotity, but again, they are not mine. My priority is to those who are most likely to be most useful to the overall productivity of the nation.

2. That special needs students will all remain in the public school system. When equal public funding is available for all students, private special needs schools will spring up because there will be just as much money in it as there will be for gifted and talented schools or for special interest schools such as performing arts schools.

Okay, as long as everyone is covered. While we're at it, forcing the rich to pay for education, why not make them pay regardless? I mean, back on my welfare for the rich rant, we're paying $17,000 for white children, who the rich are, so if a rich family has four kids, we're giving them $68,000 a year in free public education. They could also pay for this. On some graduated scale. Anyway, my goal here wasn't to create a voucher program for millionaires. It's to create equal funding for children everywhere, something we don't have as it stands now.

BTW, I don't believe in the pendulum. I believe in the Juggernaut. Many political trends move steadily in one direction. Like the issue of federal control. Definitely been on the increase in this country since its founding. Patriot Act etc. scare me because I see in other countries how this sort of thing has started and never stopped.

So, to review final changes, I am basically accepting all of your final points here:

local school board can initiate a repeal request, but can't make the final decision, that rests on an accreditation board.

vouchers will be need based.

money will not be shifted away per capita, only the capita itself will have the freedom to shift to private sector providers, or back if it chooses.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 10:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Special needs students are a priotity. They may be your priotity, but again, they are not mine. My priority is to those who are most likely to be most useful to the overall productivity of the nation
This brings up a deep philosophical question. Apparently, your goal is to improve productivity, the nation's "bottom line", as it were.

So- why do you want to improve the bottom line? In other words, what is the purpose of all that extra productivity?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 18, 2005 6:29 PM

DREAMTROVE


Productivity feeds progess, progess is why we exist, if not for progress humanity is just another dumb animal, and a rather destructive one at that.

I think we got to a decent compromise on education and I'm ready to tackle another platform point. Someone else want to choose one from the list?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 3:18 AM

KJW


Personally, I believe all American citizens can add to the productivity of our nation and that every citizen denied a proper education (which may be a more vocationaly-based education) will likely be a drain on our society. The fact that any child can get a free education is one of the wonders of the U.S. and one of the things that unites us.

As for the compromise I think we have something that would likely be workable with some tweaking so we can move on.

What about the environment? It is one of those issues that I have found that more reasonable people relatively agree upon.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 4:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Productivity feeds progess, progess is why we exist, if not for progress humanity is just another dumb animal, and a rather destructive one at that.
What is progress? Technological? Spiritual? Scientific? Economic? Social?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 19, 2005 5:01 PM

DREAMTROVE


I would say progress is movement in the direction of an unstate ideal society. I suspect that different people have a different idea of this idea, but most people would probably agree that is accorded a certain amount of individual freedom, a minimal impact on the environment and moment towards curing the common ails and ills of the current society order, disease, famine, etc. Science is obviously a part of this.

Now on to the environment, because that was the first one posted for next topic.

My principle environmental concerns are related to preservation of biodiversity. This probably means applying some pressure internationally, because the biggest threats to biodiversity are attacks on first growth rainforest and overfishing by asian fishing concerns, particularly China.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 21, 2005 12:29 PM

KJW


Interesting view of a future world, not one I believe in, but interesting one nonetheless. For me all I want is a wiser humanity, which all things considered is happening. Take for example the environment.

Well I don't think we have any disagreement on the environment, but to play devil's advocate how do you reconcile your devotion to the capitalistic free market system and restrictions on that system for environmental reasons? This is the classic conflict and I am curious how you reconcile it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 21, 2005 6:50 PM

DREAMTROVE


To me, there's no conflict. Good healthy world is good for business, end of the world, bad for business. There are a few exceptions:

A few rather small insignificant industries such as the clearcut logging and the ocean trawling industries are causing most of the damage while generating a tiny tiny fraction of the world's profit. Since I can easily and rightfully blame over 99% of the earth's destruction on a small group of companies that account for less than a thousandth of a percent of the worlds profit.

By contrast, ecological preservation concerns and principally, more than anything other single industry, rainforest derivative scientific research for medical applications, dwarf these profits to a staggering degree. The combined environmental industries out-earn their destructive counterparts over 100 to 1, and are sustainable industries, unlike the desert making cretins.

The idea that somehow environment has to be balanced against profit is a total myth. It's a fabrication of a handful of braindead thugs with their hands deep in the pie of a very stone age industry. Anyone living in the now could see that the potential economic value of the remaining biodiversity is so staggering that it makes evne the oil industry insignificant by comparison.

It's roughly analagous to setting your house on fire because you need the heat.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:55 AM

KJW


You sound like me talking about public education. ;)

Anyway I do agree with you, but what about energy production. For me that is a key issue, I would like to see a move to alternative sources of power and an end to fossil fuels. This though would require government action, which I have no problem with, but would you support raise mileage standards and increasing environmental protections? Related what about Kyoto should it be ratified, though it does place stricter demands on more developed nations? I am a yes on both counts, how about you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 25, 2005 9:21 PM

DREAMTROVE


Actually education has little to do with it. The people destroying the Earth know what they're doing and don't care.

I'm going to go no on both accounts.

1. Kyoto is pretty flawed, and signing it exempts China, and China is an environmental disaster. I want to see the ideas in Kyoto merged into a word trade agreement where everyone who wants to trade has to agree to certain environmental standards. countries and companies both should have to agree.

Underdeveloped nations are the big environmental destroyers. I think that a trade package like this would be a big incentive for them, because they also lack trade and want it very badly. They don't however fear international law, so an environmental convention on the lines of the geneva convention would mean nothing to them.

On that note, we can continue the environment talk, but also I want to talk about healthcare, because I think that will attract a lot more attention. People don't disagree on what should be done with the environment (stop the bad people) they just disagree on a couple of minor points: who the bad people are (this is mostly a factual point) and what way to best stop them.

As to Healthcare, half of us seem to want a public health, and half of us have no interest in a public health. Ergo, the compromise solution has to provide a public health as a standard and as a service for the poor, but it has to do some at a reasonable cost. It's best if it can pay for itself.

Here's my first thought on that: Medical school is expensive. What if the govt. agreed to pay for med school in exchange for 5 years service at normal type (not doctorific) salaries. This would give it a lot of personel very cheaply.

The second wing of the plan would have to include a type of deregulation that would increase competition and lower costs to customers in the private sector.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2005 9:22 AM

KJW


OK we can switch to healthcare. I agree not much really to discuss about the environment, though the truth is that the developed nations are the major consumers and polluters in the world. The problem with combining treaties (environment and trade) is that they get watered down in negotiations, the less negotiated the more on point the treaty, plus trade is a quagmire and it is best to keep environmental concerns separate. Though it is an interesting idea, and may work if there was more support for the environment from key nations.

Now of all the topics I can say that Healthcare is one that I am not that familiar with, but I do know that Americans pay far more for less when it comes to healthcare. My medical bills for my children, who are healthy, have been staggering. A simple examination with a machine that goes 'ping' is quite expensive. Dealing with our doctor is fine, but going to see a specialist is an exercise in patience as appointments are never on time.

Yes, the cost of medical school is a problem, so it is with law school (from personal experience). Many law schools have loan repayment plans for public interest work, I wonder if medical schools have the same. Personally, I think a federal program for loan repayment for public interest work would be a good idea for both doctors and lawyers. So I agree something here is a good idea.

I dislike the idea of a two-tier healthcare system, one for the poor and one for everyone else, this is a recipe for abuse. We need one system for everyone. Personally, I favor a state-managed coverage, for I have doubts about private industry, which right now is in control of our healtcare system, which is clearly broken.

The main problems as I see it is cost, poor administration, insufficient medical resources, and care of the elderly. Administratively medicare is far more efficient than private industry, because there is genuine pressure on public entities to be lean and efficient. I think a state-managed coverage system, such as medicare for all Americans just makes sense to me.

Still I am curious on what you want to deregulate and how that would lower prices?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


KJW

DevelopING nations are the biggest destroyers, with the biggest offenders being China, Brazil, and also on a smaller scale Thailand, Vietnam, the CAR, the Congo, etc.

Healthcare is a big topic so I'll post later on that, but I'm in complete disagreement. I don't think that it's being done well anywhere, I think it's bearly being done at all.

A few regulations I'd like to see go: There's all sort of stuff to limit who can practice medicine, which cuts down on competition, and raises prices. This was once done to ensure quality, but now I feel certain it's being done to raise prices.

Another one is there are regulations that say "you can only prescribe this or that for XYZ condition, and ones that say you have to prescribe this AND that, which is sometimes just pure corruption to help the sale of 'that.'

I would prefer one which was tied to informing the patient, and not prohibiting, like "here's the info that says this works, and why, and here's the argument for this alternative."

I like competition, I prefer private vs. public to all public no competition, I'd prefer all private. But since this is a compromise, it's going to end up as a two part solution.

This is not going to be one for the rich and one for the poor. Public health facilities wil probably cost money, and medicare will probably pay for private care. It's a matter of solving the two main problems with healthcare:

1. The cost is outrageous, as much as ten times other first-world nations' private services.
2. The quality sucks. It's so bad that often it's better to not go at all.

The third problem, the fact that some people have no insurance, and maybe can't afford any healthcare, refers to people like me. Since I'm frequently in the position of not being able to afford medical care, I am very familiar with this problem, but it is still not the major problem. If we could solve 1 and 2 I would be happy to let this third one slide. But both Dems and Repubs seem to focus on 3 so you won't pay any attention to 1 and 2.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:16 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
1. The cost is outrageous, as much as ten times other first-world nations' private services.
2. The quality sucks. It's so bad that often it's better to not go at all.

Are these comparisons of private healthcare to public healthcare?
If so I think they are incorrect.

Private healthcare isn't less expensive, not in real terms, it's more profitable because it gives less care, not more.

For instance the overnight team of a post-op ward in an NHS hospital will consist of nurses, doctors and consultants.
The same ward in a private hospital will consist often of just two trainee doctors, as this saves money that goes back to the shareholders.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 14:36 - 7470 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
Is the United States of America a CHRISTIAN Nation and if Not...then what comes after
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:33 - 21 posts
The Rise and Fall of Western Civilisation
Thu, November 21, 2024 10:12 - 51 posts
Biden* to punish border agents who were found NOT whipping illegal migrants
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:55 - 26 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:52 - 11 posts
GOP House can't claim to speak for America
Thu, November 21, 2024 09:50 - 12 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL