Originally posted by uzlessAre you dense or just not paying attention? I didn't suggest getting rid of the public school system I've just said that we don't need the federal Department of Education in order to fund and maintain it. This can be done entirely by states and local governments. Why send the money to Washington first, where no doubt large chunks of it are wasted on bloated beauracracy, when the money can do directly to the schools or at least less indirectly.
What kind of school system are you proposing then? Home Schooling? I admit sure, I hadn't considered that you are proposing that all kids be schooled at home. Is that what you are getting at?
If not, what kind of non government, non-private school system are you suggesting?
I'm starting to get the impression that you're so used to the idea of a federal government taking care of everything that you can't wrap your head around the idea that perhaps we can indeed survive quite nicely without them meddling in and trying to manage all our affairs like the schools that our children attend.
Originally posted by uzlessSocial programs? What type of social programs are you referring to? Also, don't most jobs provide some sort of service for a community? I suppose you could catergorize people according to why they work. For example, is it just to make money or do they care in the least little bit about the people they serve while doing their respective jobs? As for myself I can say that I don't work just to generate revenue but to help people and I can assure my job is of great benefit to people within the community.
From a social perspective however, you may not be considered a liability. You may contribute to your community in ways other than strictly financial. You may provide services to the community that are not renumerated to the degree that reflects their true value. If you were to leave, a void would be created and the service to your community would drop. Pullin ally, that's all this is. Are you someone who helps others, or someone who helps themself?[/b]
You must also realize that not everyone has a "community" as you percieve one should exist. For example, some may live out in the country and commute to their respective jobs. In fact, some don't even live close to a major city! Are these types of people to be blamed for not being more "social" in their living arrangements? Are they to be forgotten?
From what I can ascertain, socialism is the most appealing to those who live within major cities. For example, New York, Chicago, and LA are all examples of cities that lean to the left in regard to their politics. Why, you may ask? It is because in large part they are dependent upon the infrastructure in and around major cities and are dependent upon Big Brother to take care of things. Many depend on such things as subway systems and other forms of mass transit etc as where those who live outside of cities are more self reliant and do for themselves. The reaction of course is that those who live in major cities expect the government to take care of them in the city and need greater government involvment as a result. Conversly, those who live outside major cities simply want governement to leave them alone.
So which living arrangement is better? Well that is up for interpretation. On the one hand living outside a major city is cheaper and requires less governmental intervention to oversee how society operates and on the other hand, we have a system that is reliant upon one another but requires generating greater revenue for people to function within a large metropolis. One system is cheaper and facilitates an independent spirit of self reliance and the other is extremly expensive and facilitates a spirit of team work and community. Arguements could be made for both livng arrangements in terms of their virtues as well as there short comings.
Originally posted by uzlessThe price of gas does not effect free trade? The price of gas effects the overall economy which does effect free trade. As a matter of fact, you have provided eveidence that gas effects free trade by your arguement that the US has an upper hand in free trade in comparison to the rest of the world because of their lower gas prices. Is this not what I am arguing? Lower the price of gas further and gain even greater benefits economically for it.
The price of gas in the US doesnt' really impact Free Trade that much. Free trade is usually referred to as trade between countries. In the case of the US, the price of gas within the united states will only really affect goods shipped via NAFTA...namely products shipped to mexico and canada.
Now, Canada has a higher tax rate on gas than the US does so from having lower gas taxes compared to the rest of the world so the US has a trade advantage.
Originally posted by whodeyFree trade is just a reduction in import taxes that the country you are trying to import your product to charges you for selling your product in their country. So i'm not really sure how a gas tax reduction in the US helps free trade per se. It might make US companies more competitive but that's about it.
The price of gas does not effect free trade? The price of gas effects the overall economy which does effect free trade. As a matter of fact, you have provided eveidence that gas effects free trade by your arguement that the US has an upper hand in free trade in comparison to the rest of the world because of their lower gas prices. Is this not what I am arguing? Lower the price of gas further and gain even greater benefits economically for it.
But are you asking to lower the gas tax because it slightly favours US companies engaging in free trade, or because you, as an individual, won't have to pay as much money for gas?
If it's the former, you should realize that any subsidy given to US companies is a violation of the Free trade agreement and is illegal. A reduction in transportation costs would likely trigger a WTO violation and the US would be taken to court. When found guilty, a fine would be imposed that would be equal to the amount of benefit the companies in the US received.
The key here though, is that the government would likely be on the hook to pay the fine here, not US businesses, so taxpayer money would have to pay the fine. In the end, you'd have businesses saving money from the tax reduction, but tax payers footing the bill.
The only way around that would to be to argue that the tax reduction is not intended to help companies have a free trade. advantage, but that would diminish your argument for doing the tax cut in the first place.
Originally posted by UllrDo you know what the Department of Education actually does? What do you think they do? Do you think they just take your tax dollars and then send it the individual states...like some kind of middleman?
Are you dense or just not paying attention? I didn't suggest getting rid of the public school system I've just said that we don't need the federal Department of Education in order to fund and maintain it. This can be done entirely by states and local governments. Why send the money to Washington first, where no doubt large chunks of it are wasted on bloated ...[text shortened]... eddling in and trying to manage all our affairs like the schools that our children attend.
The DOE's mandate is to ensure that ALL states provide the same level of education as the rest of the country does. The role of a federal agency like the DOE is ensure that a kid that grows up in New York receives the same education as a kid in Phoenix.
Here are 3 of the main goals of the DOE.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.
Are you suggesting this isn't important or can somehow be done on a state or local level with no federal input?
Originally posted by uzlessWell, then they fail, because NCLB is unequally enforced in the different states because the states interpret the vague guidelines. For example, California has a more rigorous testing process than most other states I believe.
Do you know what the Department of Education actually does? What do you think they do? Do you think they just take your tax dollars and then send it the individual states...like some kind of middleman?
The DOE's mandate is to ensure that ALL states provide the same level of education as the rest of the country does. The role of a federal agency like the ...[text shortened]... this isn't important or can somehow be done on a state or local level with no federal input?
Originally posted by uzlessI think this is the main candidate.
Who's the Libertarian candidate for president? They haven't mentioned the person in our media too much.
I'm not a "know it all" as you profess. Maybe a "know alot" but not a "know it all" That'd just be way too much pressure.
But as an intelligent person like you must realize, a war isn't really a program and it isn't being funded by taxmoney. It' ...[text shortened]... e in mind for the chopping block from the federal budget. Please enlighten us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root
Originally posted by uzlessTax is a punishment for the voluntary exchange of value for value. The more one trades with their nieghbour, the more they are punished.
Free trade is just a reduction in import taxes that the country you are trying to import your product to charges you for selling your product in their country. So i'm not really sure how a gas tax reduction in the US helps free trade per se. It might make US companies more competitive but that's about it.
But are you asking to lower the gas tax because advantage, but that would diminish your argument for doing the tax cut in the first place.
So less tax means people are punished less and are therefore; free to trade more.
If tax is reduced only for certain fuel companies i.e. US owned and operated within the US. then there would be a case for accusing the guvamint of protectionism. but if the tax is reduced on all fuel, that cannot be regarded as a subsidy.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe DOE sets the minimum standard. Each state is free to exceed that standard.
Well, then they fail, because NCLB is unequally enforced in the different states because the states interpret the vague guidelines. For example, California has a more rigorous testing process than most other states I believe.