If you were president...

[Al6200]

What policy would you try to enact (let's just say that your party has a senate majority)? What would you try to attack?

Here's my agenda:

1. Reform the public school system (K-12)

Today's school system has one gaping problem - the liberal arts. Today's schools have massive departments dedicated to the fine arts, English, and music. While these are all fine pursuits (and great after school activities), it doesn't make sense to spend money educating our kids to study things with no practical careers. English classes where students read Huck Finn or War and Peace give the student nothing but the pleasure of reading old books. I think Literature is a great thing, but it doesn't make kids more prepared for any career and it no way gives them any real skills or abilities.

Kids don't become more articulate or better writers from today's English classes. Instead they read the superfluous and pretentious style of poor writers such as Shakespeare or Dickens. They do not learn useful ideas or abilities. All they learn is how to become bad writers.

Look at this:

"By her high forehead and her scarlet lip,
By her fine foot, straight leg and quivering thigh
And the demesnes that there adjacent lie,
That in thy likeness thou appear to us!"

This is utter garbage. It says close to nothing while consuming FOUR lines. Yet kids are being taught that this is good, so most of them reason confusing = good, a style that they often have trouble shaking as they move into real life - where people want concise and clear writing.

Rather than getting rid of these departments, they should be reformed so that they meet a more practical purpose. Fine Arts wings should be converted into "Graphic Design", "Principles of Drawing", or "Commercial Art", so students learn skills and knowledge that prepare them to fulfill useful needs in society. Students

English departments should be changed to "Written and Oral Communications" departments, where classes like "British Literature" are replaced with "writing effective reports" and "Speech". Students will spend their time writing papers and learning to become efficient, effective speakers/writers. Today, very few high schools even offer these classes, and even if they are offered, they're usually dwarfed by classes that teach you how to write like a drunk poet.

Music departments could be changed to "Acoustic Sciences", with students taught about music concurrently with a study of musics and physics. This could prepare the students to be effective engineers, while they could learn useful skills - whether they go into music careers or not.

Math departments and science departments are already pretty good. I'd like to High Schools add on separate Computer Science departments. There's a national educational campaign called "Project Lead the Way" where students

Also, many schools are adding vocational programs where students not going to college can study a specific program. This is a great idea, since it prevents non-college bound students from clogging up regular classes (and since they don't care about grades, they won't be a disruption).

I'd increase funding to such vocational programs.

2.Fix no child left behind.

No child left behind produces a plethora of state testing requirements and exams. Here's the clincher: there's no reason to do better than the absolute minimum. If you don't meet the minimum, you can't graduate: making it excessively hard for those with mental handicaps, and pointless for those who aren't challenged students. Only a very small percent of students fail the tests, and those who pass usually can do so with no studying or effort.

I believe in testing or rigorous standards, so that's why the HSAs need to be connected to a state scholarship and a small stipend proportional to scores.

3. Stipends for students

All too often, high quality students don't care the hardest classes possible or even do all their homework because (simply put) their time is better spent doing a job.

Now, I have nothing against student's working. But quite frankly, we need our young students at school, taking the hardest classes possible and getting the best grades. But this isn't practical for many low-income students, and doesn't make sense in the eyes of many kids who want money. But here's an easy solution.

Today America has 3 major academic achievement tests: HSAs (easy), SAT Subject Tests (Medium), APs (Hard). But taking the classes to prepare for these tests can often be time consuming, making a job difficult to impossible.

So let's have student's get an annual stipend based on their performance. Students who do well on these tests get a significant amount of money (maybe about $2000 a year). About 500,000 students pass an AP Test each year, so it would cost the Federal government about a billion dollars to provide such a $2000 stipend.

That seems like a lot, but in the scope of the Federal government, that's relatively small (especially if you consider how much it would change HS education).

4. Launch a nuclear fusion "Manhattan Project".

Nuclear fusion has the incredible promise of providing nearly unlimited power from relatively common materials like hydrogen (total energy independence), with useless and harmless elements as byproducts (mostly Helium).

Many of today's most troublesome "limited resources" are dependent on our lack of energy. The limited supply of oil isn't a problem if you have indefinite amounts of energy (since oil is just a simple hydrocarbon, I don't see why you couldn't try to get it to go backwards under high pressure and high energy with H20 and CO2. Look at LeChatlier's law for the chemical explanation). The limited supply of fresh water is really a limitation of desalination. If we made energy a practically limited resource, many of today's most challenging issues would be resolved.

That's why we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear fusion, even if it is decades away from being a commercial reality.

5. Launch a campaign to build nuclear fission plants across the nation

What energy source:

-Comes from Canada (No enemies controlling the supply)
-Has Nearly limitless potential (a very small amount of uranium can yield massive amounts of energy)
-Doesn't harm the environment or cause significant pollution
-Is safe and efficient

Nuclear fission! While it doesn't have the promise of fusion and does produce small amounts of radioactive waste (the popular media blows it totally out of proportion), it is cheap, clean, and efficient.

If I were president, I would invest hundreds of billions of dollars into grants for nuclear fission plants - making it very cheap for existing power companies to do.

6. Implement a flat income tax

The current tax system is broken. It is so complicated and full of incentives/loopholes that the system is in some ways anti-progressive. The richest of the rich have the best resources to find the most loopholes, allowing them to pay the least taxes.

I've given a long-hard look at FairTax, but it seems like it would be too easy to cheat. Imagine how much commerce would go to the internet and informal channels if people didn't have to pay the massive sales tax. Some people might run a business where they manufacture products, use them in a very minimal way, and then sale them tax-free under the cover of "used goods" (since FairTax doesn't tax used goods).

A flat income tax, however, can't be so easily cheated since income is a written-in-stone concept. Rich people will pay the same percentage as poor people.

[Christopherr]

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote: 1. Reform the public school system (K-12)
Today's school system has one gaping problem - the liberal arts. Today's schools have massive departments dedicated to the fine arts, English, and music. While these are all fine pursuits (and great after school activities), it doesn't make sense to spend money educating our kids to study things with no practical careers. English classes where students read Huck Finn or War and Peace give the student nothing but the pleasure of reading old books. I think Literature is a great thing, but it doesn't make kids more prepared for any career and it no way gives them any real skills or abilities.

Umm, reading as a child increases intelligence. Studying the arts teaches kids to think and analyze, rather than just do.

Kids don't become more articulate or better writers from today's English classes. Instead they read the superfluous and pretentious style of poor writers such as Shakespeare or Dickens. They do not learn useful ideas or abilities. All they learn is how to become bad writers.

Shakespeare was a master of the English language, lol. Dickens was an excellent author as well. They teach us to read complex writing styles because it teaches kids new vocabulary and sharpens their analytical skills. Furthermore, works of art have inspired men to do great things. Ghandi was inspired by an essay by American writer Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience."

Look at this:
"By her high forehead and her scarlet lip,
By her fine foot, straight leg and quivering thigh
And the demesnes that there adjacent lie,
That in thy likeness thou appear to us!"
This is utter garbage. It says close to nothing while consuming FOUR lines. Yet kids are being taught that this is good, so most of them reason confusing = good, a style that they often have trouble shaking as they move into real life - where people want concise and clear writing.

Maybe you just never learned how to read it.

Rather than getting rid of these departments, they should be reformed so that they meet a more practical purpose. Fine Arts wings should be converted into "Graphic Design", "Principles of Drawing", or "Commercial Art", so students learn skills and knowledge that prepare them to fulfill useful needs in society.

They have at least one of those three classes in nearly every high school in America

English departments should be changed to "Written and Oral Communications" departments, where classes like "British Literature" are replaced with "writing effective reports" and "Speech". Students will spend their time writing papers and learning to become efficient, effective speakers/writers. Today, very few high schools even offer these classes, and even if they are offered, they're usually dwarfed by classes that teach you how to write like a drunk poet.

The teachers teach kids to write effective reports by having them write effective reports on the books they read. That kills two birds with one stone.

Music departments could be changed to "Acoustic Sciences", with students taught about music concurrently with a study of musics and physics. This could prepare the students to be effective engineers, while they could learn useful skills - whether they go into music careers or not.

They also can use any extra periods on music classes, and take a physics class as their science class.

Math departments and science departments are already pretty good. I'd like to High Schools add on separate Computer Science departments. There's a national educational campaign called "Project Lead the Way" where students

Were you paying attention when learning about sentence fragments?

2.Fix no child left behind.
No child left behind produces a plethora of state testing requirements and exams. Here's the clincher: there's no reason to do better than the absolute minimum. If you don't meet the minimum, you can't graduate: making it excessively hard for those with mental handicaps, and pointless for those who aren't challenged students. Only a very small percent of students fail the tests, and those who pass usually can do so with no studying or effort.

Those who pass have grades that range from exceeding to minimal to help gauge intelligence levels.

3. Stipends for students
All too often, high quality students don't care the hardest classes possible or even do all their homework because (simply put) their time is better spent doing a job.

High quality students do their homework because they are not lazy.

Now, I have nothing against student's working. But quite frankly, we need our young students at school, taking the hardest classes possible and getting the best grades. But this isn't practical for many low-income students, and doesn't make sense in the eyes of many kids who want money. But here's an easy solution.
Today America has 3 major academic achievement tests: HSAs (easy), SAT Subject Tests (Medium), APs (Hard). But taking the classes to prepare for these tests can often be time consuming, making a job difficult to impossible.

Kids can get jobs that only require a few hours of work, a few days a week. It would require less time than being on the football team, so what does it hurt?

So let's have student's get an annual stipend based on their performance. Students who do well on these tests get a significant amount of money (maybe about $2000 a year). About 500,000 students pass an AP Test each year, so it would cost the Federal government about a billion dollars to provide such a $2000 stipend.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We're already in debt, so forget about excess spending.

That seems like a lot, but in the scope of the Federal government, that's relatively small (especially if you consider how much it would change HS education).

Forget about paying kids to study. The incentive to work hard in school is more money later on in life.

4-5. Fission/fusion.

I don't have an opinion on those.

6. Implement a flat income tax
The current tax system is broken. It is so complicated and full of incentives/loopholes that the system is in some ways anti-progressive. The richest of the rich have the best resources to find the most loopholes, allowing them to pay the least taxes.

You've got it all wrong. The rich people pay the most taxes. What is 30% of $30,000 opposed to 30% of $300,000?

[Bruce-Wayne]

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

4. Launch a nuclear fusion "Manhattan Project".

Yes, I like... if you can develop the technology.

Nuclear fusion has the incredible promise of providing nearly unlimited power from relatively common materials like hydrogen (total energy independence), with useless and harmless elements as byproducts (mostly Helium).

well, yes, but where is all the helium going to go? and where are you going to get the Hydrogen,
The Atmosphere. doing this on a mass scale will unbalance the atmosphere, like what we're doing now, with the CO2 emissions, but the consequences of which, we have no idea.

Many of today's most troublesome "limited resources" are dependent on our lack of energy. The limited supply of oil isn't a problem if you have indefinite amounts of energy (since oil is just a simple hydrocarbon, I don't see why you couldn't try to get it to go backwards under high pressure and high energy with H20 and CO2. Look at LeChatlier's law for the chemical explanation). The limited supply of fresh water is really a limitation of desalination. If we made energy a practically limited resource, many of today's most challenging issues would be resolved.

That's why we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear fusion, even if it is decades away from being a commercial reality.

5. Launch a campaign to build nuclear fission plants across the nation

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

What energy source:

-Comes from Canada (No enemies controlling the supply)
-Has Nearly limitless potential (a very small amount of uranium can yield massive amounts of energy)
-Doesn't harm the environment or cause significant pollution
-Is safe and efficient

Nuclear fission! While it doesn't have the promise of fusion and does produce small amounts of radioactive waste (the popular media blows it totally out of proportion), it is cheap, clean, and efficient.

while being true that Fission does produce less waste than it did, It still produces quite a lot of radioactive waste, that will remain dangerous for at least 15,000 years. And it is grossly irresponsible to build more nuclear fission plants, when you don't know how to properly deal with the waste that is already being me.

If I were president, I would invest hundreds of billions of dollars into grants for nuclear fission plants - making it very cheap for existing power companies to do.

6. Implement a flat income tax

The current tax system is broken. It is so complicated and full of incentives/loopholes that the system is in some ways anti-progressive. The richest of the rich have the best resources to find the most loopholes, allowing them to pay the least taxes.

I've given a long-hard look at FairTax, but it seems like it would be too easy to cheat. Imagine how much commerce would go to the internet and informal channels if people didn't have to pay the massive sales tax. Some people might run a business where they manufacture products, use them in a very minimal way, and then sale them tax-free under the cover of "used goods" (since FairTax doesn't tax used goods).

A flat income tax, however, can't be so easily cheated since income is a written-in-stone concept. Rich people will pay the same percentage as poor people.

No.
an income tax of,
e.g. 40%, will hit those with lower incomes much harder than those with higher incomes
i.e. someone earning $20,000 a year, will pay $8000 in tax, leaving them $12,000.
whereas someone earning $80,000 a year, will pay $32,000 in tax, leaving them $48,000.
fair? no, i don't think so....

you have no idea how hard it is for a british guy to talk in american terms.

[Al6200]

At 12/16/07 01:59 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

I'm not crazy about your agenda as far as education is concerned.

I'm curious if you have a different plan (That's not an attack. I really am curious. The point of this thread is to get some ideas out in the open about US policy).

1. Reform the public school system (K-12)

Yes

How might you suggest we go about this?

You're right and wrong. We need to teach children how to think, but we won't accomplish that by :doing away with art. We're focusing way too much on standardized testing right now in my opinion.

What about people who WANT to be writers?

If we do away with creative writing programs, where will script writers come from?

The number of script writers is so small that its ridiculous for the public school system to put it on the same pedestal as Math or Science (which EVERYONE will need to succeed in any career). Imagine if High Schools had a Golf department that was larger than Math or Science! Of course there are some professional golfers and caddys out there, but we shouldn't gear our entire educational system to this tiny minority.

People can learn to write scripts and study literature when they get to college, since that's what college is about: taking general skills and moving in a specific vocational direction.

I have no problem with one creative writing class, since it is fun and there are a few careers in literature.

Music is excellent in helping students with math. Mainly reading music, but actually playing it and :listening to it works wonders.

There's a correlation, but that doesn't mean there's a casual relationship. By that logic, we should create a class where students just take IQ tests, since they probably correlate well with doing good in math.

But I do agree that music is enjoyable - and its a great thing to do. Its fun, and it definitely stimulates the mind. But the number of careers it prepares you for, and the practical skills it gives you for life are too small and insignificant to make it appropriate as a class. But I do agree that it certainly is a great after-school activity.

Also, if the goal is to improve math skills, why not just give the kids math classes? Doesn't that make more sense than trying to support math through music?

2.Fix no child left behind.

Definitely.

I'm curious as to what you'd do to fix it.

I see no point in forcing 504 students to take standardized tests. The tests were created for average :intelligence students who are regular education. Sped students should be exempt.

I agree. Special-Ed students shouldn't be required to take basic exams. I never suggested that they should be.

I teach several sped students, who WILL fail the standardized test we have in April, and guess who :is held accountable? Me. And I shouldn't be. It's not my fault, nor is it theirs. They simply do not have :the aptitude for the exam.

Obviously, they shouldn't be taking those exams. Did I ever say that they should?

YOU must work hard and excel yourself. It is YOUR responsibility to make the grades and succeed.

Yeah, but many students are spending their time on jobs and sports rather than making good grades and succeeding. Many students have no choice (since they need to work to make money). A stipend would solve these problems.

I was very poor growing up. I studied hard, and I passed all the tests.

Most of the standardized tests are reasonably easy to pass if you put in any effort. My idea is that we extend the challenge so that all students feel motivated to study and try their hardest.

I DO agree that the government should pay for students to take the exams, if they cannot. But it's :their responsibility to prepare for it.

I agree. But we need to make it practical for those student's to invest the time needed to succeed. For low income students, taking extra classes at the community college or doing a full load of AP classes (what is really needed to get students into strong colleges) conflicts with a day job.

One other thing I need to say, is that some students DO work very hard, and simply don't do well on :standardized tests. Why should they be penalized when they are intellectually superior, and just :simply don't read fast?

Unless they have a physical disability like dyslexia, reading effectively is a skill. And besides, math/science AP tests do not require students to do much reading. Of course, students with well documented disabilities would get extra time.

In my experience I've never seen anything that I'd call a "poor test taker". The people who usually identify with that label adopt it because they have trouble solving unique problems - so then they say "I can do it in class. I just can't do it during the test". And I respond "That's probably because other people helped you during class, and those problems weren't unique. Your inability to perform in a testing situation comes from your lack of rigorous practice in the field".

There are no "bad test-takers", only students looking for a cheap excuse.

While I appreciate your constructive criticisms, it would be interesting to hear some of your ideas about improving education (or any other issues).

[Bruce-Wayne]

At 12/16/07 04:06 PM, Bruce-Wayne wrote:

when you don't know how to properly deal with the waste that is already being me.

EDIT: The end of that bit ^ should say 'made', not 'me'

[Al6200]

At 12/16/07 04:23 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

Not sure. I listed a few things above. There is no complete fix in my opinion. I'm just not liking some :of what you listed.

Fair enough.

I was just providing them as a small example. It is helpful to know how to write. You're basically :saying we don't really NEED creative expression, so let's eliminate it.

Now that's just out of line. I never said to eliminate it. I just said we shouldn't be giving the same attention and funding to 17th century Literature (something that close to 0% of people use) that we give to Math and Science (that lead to the best and lucrative careers, and are skills that everyone uses).

I actually proposed that we change English curricula to focus on practical writing rather than Literature.

Well, we don't really need alot of things.

Exactly. Should we get rid of those things? No, of course not. But should we emphasis them over things THAT WE REALLY DO NEED (read: math and science)?

Not everyone can afford college.

1. Everyone can afford college if they put their heart into it (and have some good aptitude for a specific subject). Many schools such as Princeton will meet 100% of a student's need, and there exist schools such as Cooper Union, Olin, and Webb, that meet the full tuition of all accepted students. Is it difficult to get into those schools: yes. But a student who excels in school and really dedicates themselves will have plenty of opportunities to go to college for free.

No, there is a correlation between music and success and math. You use math to read music.

I said there's a correlation. I agree, you use math related skills to read music. But you use even more math related skills doing math.

It is a hobby that teaches culture, if fun, exercies the brain, and keeps children off the street.

Agreed. That's why its a great activity.

Some kids hate math. Some kids, we have to use art or music to get them to enjoy learning other :academics.

That's why they're great activities. I know lots of kids who got into Math from video games, or physics from Star Wars - that doesn't mean we should teach a class on Halo 3. If these kids need a special connection to get into a certain topic, then they can do it through after school activities. We need to teach academics during school hours, not play games that

Im not saying we shouldnt help struggling students, Im saying we shouldnt pay them to work.

Why shouldn't we pay them to become successful students? Students have a primary purpose: to become educated and go on to get goods jobs, paying back their debt to society. Why not help them see getting a good education attractive with an influx of cash? As I've already said, even a massive $2000 stipend for passing an AP Test (something which I believe all non Special Ed kids can do) would cost very little on a Federal-government scale.

Ive taught alot of lazy children who could care less about school. Of all ages.

Maybe a stipend would motivate them a little more? Would they care more if they got $2000 for learning the material well?

I'm saying it shouldn't be the goverment's responsibilty to motivate them with money.

Why not? We motivate people to do their jobs with money. We motivate teachers to teach with money. Why not kids? And besides, sometimes its not a motivation,

There's alot of crap you have to do in life, that you will not want to do. Tough.

Is that supposed to be an argument against a student stipend? Given the low cost of such a program, I can't see why anyone would oppose it. Are you just ethically opposed to the idea of paying students? Why not make it a competitive option for them?

Let's look at it from a student's perspective:

Summer Job:

-A few thousand dollars
-Cool stuff

Difficult Classes (time after school spent doing homework):

-No money
-Might make it easier to get into college a few years down the line

But if we add the stipend, we make school a real priority for students. Its a very small investment (about 2% of the current federal education budget) with very real ramifications. How much would you study if you could make $2000+ for doing well (imagine yourself as a HS student, where that amount of money is unbelievable)?

But that's just for passing. It would be economically viable (less than 5% raise of current budget required) to pay over $5000 to student's scoring on the top 10% of these exams.

Dyslexia isn't a physical disability, it's a learning disability. Just like it's possible to have a high IQ but :also have a reading diability or adhd etc.

It is a physical disability, since the brain is a physical structure. It's a learning disability too, the ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Do you teach?

No.

If so, do you teach in a high risk environment? IE students who are low SES with little or no family :support and below the poverty level?

No.

And I see plenty of kids who want to succeed, and they cannot.
No one helps them at home. ALL help they get, they get from me.

Maybe they'd get more help if there was an extra $5000 riding on their success? Just an idea.

And I work my ass off, but 7 hours a day isn't enough to teach them all they need to know.

Wait. How is this relevant? I agree that such is the nature of life and is very sad, and we can't leave special ed kids behind. But I've never suggested that we do that. None of my policy impacts special ed kids at all.

I have no link to provide you with, only my experience in teaching, and knowing several hard :working, intelligent people, who DID attend the prep classes and couldn't pass their SAT.

You can't pass or fail the SAT - I have no idea what you mean by that. But if they took the test with lots of preparatory work (including good work in High School), and good a ridiculously bad score academics probably just isn't right for them. That's not a bad things, its just the way it is. There are lots of great vocational programs for them that will give them a bright and promising future.

[Al6200]

At 12/16/07 04:06 PM, Bruce-Wayne wrote:

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

4. Launch a nuclear fusion "Manhattan Project".

Yes, I like... if you can develop the technology.

Yeah, I agree that it's far on the horizon. But we've already built fusion reactors, and the basic concept works in theory. It just has some big snags (that will probably take at least a couple of decades). However, the benefits of fusion are too great to just ignore it.

5. Launch a campaign to build nuclear fission plants across the nation

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!

Wait, do you have any reasoning?

while being true that Fission does produce less waste than it did, It still produces quite a lot of :radioactive waste, that will remain dangerous for at least 15,000 years.

But the quantities are so small that this is practically a non-issue. It will be radioactive for 15,000 years, but the amount is so small that it's difficult to see where this would be a problem, given the size of the Earth. Burning one gram of methane produces 3 grams of CO2.

To show how little radiation is really produced by nuclear power plants, I'll need to do some calculations (if you don't like Math, you're screwed):

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/chapter s/14/1.html
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progr ess/nuclear-faq.html
(waste figures)

A 793 * 10^6 Watt nuclear power plant (typical) produces 3 cubic meters of waste per year. This plant can produce 2.5 E16 Joules in a year. The US consumes 1.33 E19 Joules in a year. This means that 535 of such plants would be required to supply all of America's energy needs. That leads us to 1605 cubic meters of nuclear waste per year (assuming all of our power comes from fission). The planned Yucca mountain facility will safely contain well over 400,000 cubic meters of liquid nuclear waste alone. Again, that does not include solid waste, of which it will hold a massive amount.

So even using these lower limit figures, we find that the Yucca facility will contain all of America's radiation waste for over 250 years (that's assuming we get 100% of our power from nuclear fission). All of this at less than one tenth of one percent of the "hazerdous" radiation limit as established by the US Environmental Protection agency Environmental Impact Statement on Yucca:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/s eis/index.shtml

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02191.pdf

As for Yucca mountain, people outside the facility will be exposed to less than a tenth of one percent of the legal radiation limit (deemed hazardous by the EPA).

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/s eis/index.shtml

I wish you would look at the science before jumping to silly conclusions about nuclear power that you got from the Simpsons.

:And it is grossly irresponsible to build more nuclear fission plants, when you don't know how to :properly deal with the waste that is already being me.

We do know how to deal with it. In fact, France gets 90% of its power from nuclear fission, and they've been quite successful at handling their waste products. No one has died. No one has exploded or started to glow. I have no idea where you got the idea that we can't handle it.

Nuclear fission is totally safe. Where it is handled responsibly and intelligently (modern France), we don't find the rare and bizzare accidents that occured in poorly funded Russian facilities (i.e. Chernobyl).

an income tax of,
e.g. 40%, will hit those with lower incomes much harder than those with higher incomes
i.e. someone earning $20,000 a year, will pay $8000 in tax, leaving them $12,000.
whereas someone earning $80,000 a year, will pay $32,000 in tax, leaving them $48,000.
fair? no, i don't think so....

Yeah, it's fair: since they both pay the same percent of their income. They both make the same sacrifice. Of course it doesn't alleviate income differences, but that's not what taxes are designed to do, and that's certainly not what they do today.

Of course we'd exempt the extremely poor (i.e. homeless), but overall its a fair system that's easy to implement. Everyone sacrifices equally.

[Al6200]

At 12/16/07 04:05 PM, Christopherr wrote: Umm, reading as a child increases intelligence.

That's an amusing defense that I hear all the time of the arts. And it's so amusing because of its sheer stupidity. What makes you think reading a poem increases reasoning skills more than doing a math problem or reading something useful? Any evidence to back this up?

BTW, did I ever go against the idea of reading? Ever. I just said that kids should be reading worthwhile non-fiction that prepares them for the analytical reading they will do in college and in careers, not the idle fictional fairty tails that smear today's educational systems.

:Studying the arts teaches kids to think and analyze, rather than just do.

Rather, studying useful topics like math and science teaches kids to analyze and do useful things

Studying worthless topics like literature teaches kids to analyze and do worthless things

People try to defend activities with no practical value on the grounds that they "stimulate the mind", without seeing the fact that all mental activities "stimulate the mind" - not just worthless ones. To take kids out of useful classes where they learn valuable skills and use real analytical abilities and put them in classes where they analyze worthless garbage is a ridiculous assertion.

Shakespeare was a master of the English language

His language was superfluous and unnecessary. He is a classic example of "Emperor has no clothes". He wrote meandering garbage, and people today buy it because they want to be in with the smart crowd.

:They teach us to read complex writing styles because it teaches kids new vocabulary

Vocabulary that they only need in order to read books from more bad authors.

In the real world, people try to use simple writing styles since it conveys more data and information.

:and sharpens their analytical skills.

Yawn. More meaningless mumbo jumbo. Where do you define analytical skills? What makes you think that studying random stuff like literature increases it more than any other activity?

By your logic, the greatest thinkers and producers of all time should've been people who studied literature. On the contray, societies most productive people have all studied.

Furthermore, works of art have inspired men to do great things. Ghandi was inspired by an essay by American writer Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience."

Maybe you just never learned how to read it.

Why would I learn how to read it when I could be reading useful things?

They have at least one of those three classes in nearly every high school in America

But clearly, we still have Literature classes, so some resources are going down the drain.

The teachers teach kids to write effective reports by having them write effective reports on the :books they read. That kills two birds with one stone.

I'm not opposing book reports. Its just that in the real world, you're expected to use concise and effective language that doesn't use difficult vocabulary (unless its a field's jargon).

Those who pass have grades that range from exceeding to minimal to help gauge intelligence :levels.

Huh? NCLB tests probably correlate to g, but that doesn't mean they're designed to test for g. My point is that students should be motivated to study to get higher scores, and teachers should be motivated to teach for more than mere proficiency.

High quality students do their homework because they are not lazy.

Are poor students "low quality" in your mind? Just because they have to work long hours to support their family? Besides, it's a little bit cheap to put off stipends on the grounds that good students don't need compensation. We have to be realistic, and acknowledge that we need to make it worth student's time to be competent.

Kids can get jobs that only require a few hours of work, a few days a week. It would require less :time than being on the football team, so what does it hurt?

That makes night classes more or less impossible. And besides, many students have to work beyond that timeframe just to get the money they need.

So let's have student's get an annual stipend based on their performance. Students who do well on these tests get a significant amount of money (maybe about $2000 a year). About 500,000 students pass an AP Test each year, so it would cost the Federal government about a billion dollars to provide such a $2000 stipend.

Money doesn't grow on trees. We're already in debt, so forget about excess spending.

The US has been in debt since WWII, and then defecit as % GDP has actually been declining over the past few years. And besides, we're a nation with a budget in the 1000s of billions of dollars. One billion is a pretty small amount of money.

Forget about paying kids to study. The incentive to work hard in school is more money later on in :life.

Agreed. But, we have to be realistic here. Are you more motivated by $2000 tomorrow or a million dollars ten years down the line (to a High Schooler who has been around for 15 years, that's nearly an eternity).

You've got it all wrong. The rich people pay the most taxes. What is 30% of $30,000 opposed to 30% of $300,000?

Yes, but you're forgetting a few things:

1. The US tax system is progressive, in other words: poor people might pay 0% of their income, while the very wealthy might pay nearly 50% in income tax

2. The tax system is full of loopholes (designed by the government as an easy way to push people) that can be exploited. Many major companies even have teams of tax-people (and some people go to tax professionals) in order to find and exploit these loopholes. In many cases, the rich pay the least since they have the resources to exploit the system.

[Boke]

I would point to people and they would be killed, I would wink at girls and they'd be mine hoohahoohahahahaha........... sorry

[WolvenBear]

Heres my plan:

1) Reform the Public School System
a. Get rid of unions.
The unions are quite possibly the single biggest hurdle to reforming education in any meaningful way. They protect bad teachers and fight against any changes that might benefit the student.
b. Eliminate the NCLB
And federal subsidies with it.
c. Refuse to allow federal courts to oversee School Board decisions.
I'm tired of courts, filled with people who have no clue how to run a school, making decisions that affect an entire nation.

2) Stop funding to the UN
It simply wouldn't exist without us. When it comes to mandates, if we don't enforce it, the mandate means nothing. At best, the UN is silly and on occasion serves our interest. At worst, it is a money pit that is virulantly anti-American.

3) Make energy cheaper
a. Eliminate the federal fuel tax
There is no reason to continue to tax the basic commodity we all need. The feds could take off about 20 cents a gallon just by taking their taxes off the board.
b. Provide incentives for the states to eliminate or reduce their fuel taxes
c. Get rid of regulations that make it harder to drill for oil
d. Provide tax cuts for new Nuclear plants and alternative fuels.

4) Work to Repeal Roe vs Wade
Without the right to life, we have no argument for a right to anything.

5) Stop funding our enemies
No more US funds to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Palestine.

6) Cut Taxes Further.

Those are the first 6 that come to mind.

[Al6200]

At 12/18/07 01:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Overall, I like most of your ideas, but I have a few comments on them

1) Reform the Public School System
a. Get rid of unions.
The unions are quite possibly the single biggest hurdle to reforming education in any meaningful :way. They protect bad teachers and fight against any changes that might benefit the student.
b. Eliminate the NCLB
And federal subsidies with it.
c. Refuse to allow federal courts to oversee School Board decisions.
I'm tired of courts, filled with people who have no clue how to run a school, making decisions that :affect an entire nation.

Getting rid of unions is probably a good idea, but I can't see how you'd actually do it. Also, I can't see how you'd take out the legal power of the judiciary.

2) Stop funding to the UN
It simply wouldn't exist without us. When it comes to mandates, if we don't enforce it, the mandate :means nothing. At best, the UN is silly and on occasion serves our interest. At worst, it is a money pit :that is virulantly anti-American.

Agreed.

3) Make energy cheaper
a. Eliminate the federal fuel tax
There is no reason to continue to tax the basic commodity we all need. The feds could take off about 20 cents a gallon just by taking their taxes off the board.
b. Provide incentives for the states to eliminate or reduce their fuel taxes
c. Get rid of regulations that make it harder to drill for oil
d. Provide tax cuts for new Nuclear plants and alternative fuels.

I agree with nuclear power. But on oil... don't we need to reduce the addiction somewhat? In my mind, we need a fuel tax that keeps the price of gas consistent. That way, car manufacturers will build hybrids and other energy efficient devices without worrying about the price of gas plummeting (along with their business).

4) Work to Repeal Roe vs Wade
Without the right to life, we have no argument for a right to anything.

I agree in principle, although I'd prefer more cases like "Gonzales vs. Carhart" which push back the deadline for abortion - rather than just outlawing it outright. Moreover, the decisions in Roe vs. Wade regarding deadlines do not consider the science that exists today on fetal consciousness.

5) Stop funding our enemies
No more US funds to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Palestine.

I don't believe we fund Iran at all - and our funds to Saudi Arabia are necessary because of their oil resources.

I agree that we shouldn't be funding Iran or Saudi Arabia, but I do think we should be giving grants and aid to Palestinian businessman and poor, as a potential way out of the Israel conflict. A more educated and prosperous Palestinian people are less likely to be terrorists - just look at Islam in India.

[SmilezRoyale]

#1;

Fair enough...

#2:

Again, fair enough.

#3; That's ALOT of money to spend on education. [Though i suppose, morally, it shouldn't be.]

My concern is a radical outcry from the parents of regents children, that the government is paying to elevate the status of the 'elite' in society [Keep in mind natural differences in ability are not an argument, neither is the fact that they 'deserve it' ; it goes against American egocentrism] . If this law was implimented i think begoner would go irate.

[bobomajo]

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

3. Stipends for students

Suppose you know where your going to get the funds from?

4. Launch a nuclear fusion "Manhattan Project".

I would think that more research put into space exploration and development would be a better investments. (Also you know where this money is going to come from)

5. Launch a campaign to build nuclear fission plants across the nation

No may big mistake fission plants are expensive to build, by the time they are built and start paying for themselves, more efficient renewable power generation may become available (which have no fuel costs). If your concerned about the environment I would suggest signing the Kyoto protocol so the pollution produced is canceled out somehow, which would also open up more business opportunities for renewable energy and foresting/orchids/crop farms.

6. Implement a flat income tax

Bad idea that would make tax more unfair (which would probably greatly decrease your growth rate), poor people need most of the money they earn to live off, where middle and wealthy can manage to spare more money to taxes and still live a comfortable lifestyle (although they may not be happy about that and complain the most about taxes).

They are well intended hypothetical policies but when extra funding is intended in one area you usually need to sacrifice funding in another area, or raise taxes but for some reason America seams to be very anti-taxes for some reason.

[iiREDii]

At 12/19/07 12:21 PM, bobomajo wrote:

At 12/16/07 01:44 PM, Al6200 wrote:

They are well intended hypothetical policies but when extra funding is intended in one area you usually need to sacrifice funding in another area, or raise taxes but for some reason America seams to be very anti-taxes for some reason.

Because taxes are theft/robbery. It is a gang of men telling you that they are going to rob you but dont worry! its for your own good!

[Jokeen]

I would turn the tax system into a voluntary tax system with incentives to get people to pay taxes. The beauty of this? It adds more disposable income to the average citizen, thus boosting the economy and would generate more revenue.

Say what? Take the the state lottery. People have given up their whole life savings in order to get a chance at the jack pot. Here in Vegas, much of the gaming industry is highly taxes and many people all over the world come here to contribute to the local county coffers. When you offer people a chance at getting something in return for paying they are more likely to give until it hurts in hopes of getting the price. Plus offer services to the average citizen they have to pay as they go. Water, military, police and fire protection and the such would be billed to citizens. If you dont pay, no service you get. Not to mention the agency to collect and account for the taxes would be small, which means more money left over for government purposes due to less overhead of employees to collect the taxes in the first place. When taxes are mandatory, people do all they can to pay the minimum or get out of paying all together Make a give and take system, not just a take and take system and use psychological incentives to entice people to pay. Las Vegas casinos are masters at enticing people to voluntary shell out money and look how it made the city prosper. The US government could learn such a lesson and pick up such tricks and ideas.
If this is not possible, at the very least have a flat tax. A federal sales tax is a very bad idea since it targets the poor and makes it harder for them to get by (I have lived in a high sales tax states and it is no better then having the state take out 200 dollars out of your pay check directly. It makes living expenses go WAYY UP and makes the working class struggle more.) and make those who serve in the military tax free.

The department of advisement. Our most current dear leader (Bushy) has shown a need for a department that can be able to cultivate our leaders in positions of power into leaders that are capable and guide them into the direction of caring for the nation as well as themselves and teach them finer arts such as diplomacy and knowing basic military strategy and tactics and advise them what has worked in the past and has not.

I agree our education system is a joke. It need to focus on what is really used in day to day life such as finances, economy, our nations laws and human studies and persauion. I sincerely think in our schools our teens are committing shootings and then killing them selves is the lack of understanding of how to persuade their fellow human being and knowing how they are in order to get what they want and resolve differences by being assertive and not either be passive or violent. Most kids in school are taught how things supposed to be, not how they are and this causes problems.

Security is a big issue and securing the borders is one of the basics required to make our nation more secure. Our US forces do it in Iraq to catch Iranians from coming in and prevent them committing acts of terror to secure that nation, so why are we neglecting to do that here?

A guest worker program I agree with but amnesty I do not. Our immigration laws need to be reformed and have some sanity and logic behind them, not the ad hoc mess we have now.

Gay marriage I'd allow on the fact they are fit to be parents are are able to adopt a child. Marriage between gays opens a whole new market and homes for children who have no parents or were given up by their parents.

[KeithHybrid]

I can understand where the OP is coming from with building more fission plants, but that would be a temporary solution at best, since there are many dangers to be had with nuclear power, specifically, a meltdown like the one almost had a Three-Mile Island. Still, we need to look into energy resources that do not derive from petrolium-based hydrocarbons. I once read about a guy who could power his car with vegitable oil. If we looked into bio-fuels like that or, better still, solar power, we could solve the energy crisis.