Federal Government @ MindSay

   

Related tags

 

   


 

   
Education Reform... upcoming feature
"Education reform is of critical importance in America today. Over the past decades, we have witnessed two undeniable trends in our education system. First, the role of the federal government has steadily increased. Second, the quality of our nation's public schools has steadily decreased. These unfortunate developments compel me (and millions of parents across the country) to question our approach, to ask hard questions about the obvious failure of many public schools to provide children with a quality education. Why, given 70 years of ever-increasing federal spending, has government failed to create the wonderful public school system promised us by Great Society politicians? Why do we spend far more per student today than in the past, with far worse results? Why, despite the increases in federal spending, are public school teachers still underpaid (with the brightest young people refusing to enter the profession)? Finally, why have we allowed the federal government to consistently expand its control over our local school systems?"

Congressman Ron Paul, Sept. 2000

Why, given 70 years of ever-increasing federal spending, has government failed to create the wonderful public school system promised us by Great Society politicians?

This is one of the main questions I am going to try to address in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!
 
 
   
 

Food for thought

I referred to the masses as 'sheeple' in my blog post, dated Oct. 28th I believe, in reference to my feelings about Daylight Savings Time. Today, on the day it is implemented (a week later than last year), I see this article. Seemed appropo so I'm sharing it. 

 

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano's new book (released October 30),
A NATION OF SHEEP to our sale list. In this powerful book, Judge Napolitano frankly discusses how the federal government has circumvented the Constitution and is systematically dismantling the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of American democrac
y. He challenges Americans to recognize they are being led down a very dangerous path and the cost of following without challenge is the loss of the basic freedoms that facilitate our pursuit of happiness and define us as a nation.

Judge Napolitano reminds readers what America is all about, that the purpose of government is to protect freedom, and freedom is the ability to follow your own free will and not the will of government bureaucrats. He asks the simple question, which are YOU, a sheep or a wolf? Do you blindly follow behind where you are led, or do you challenge the government at every pass, forcing it to make decisions that will protect our freedoms?

 
 
 

 

(no subject)

Well, I'm back. Yeah Yeah, I know, who cares, get on with it already. When last I was here in any useful capacity jimschweizer and I were going on about tax policy. Exciting, eh? I've been gone but I had wanted to respond so I'll start by reposting his last comment in it's entirety and then responding.


"Snort! Well, I guess we need not discuss taxation constructed on notions of benefit, sacrifice, ability to pay, or economic stability. Nope, only liberal economists bother with such trivia. Since these progressivity hinged notions of equality and distributive justice so destabilize conservative minds, let's do away with the benefits of taxation for those who don't work hard enough to be millionaires.  I think we should start with stripping public funding for unnecessary items like homeschooling . People who want to homeschool their kids had better just work harder so they can make more money."
I can't explain the font change, I'm not enough of a geek to figure that out. Anyway, back to the debate: Jim makes a persuasive arguement, and there's only one thing missing, The Constitution.
Lets think for a moment about why taxes exist, the obvious answer is to fund government operations. As I will show, this is now the conservative/ libertarian position. We believe that taxes should be as unobtrusive as possible, and as fair as possible. And no, not the warped Democratic version of fair, where everyone is treated differently, the oldschool definition of fair, where everyone is treated the same. Hell, this country got along without an income tax for 130 years, and as recently as the '50s, the government share of the GDP was less than 5%, now it's over 25%! Just think about that, out of every $100 spent in this country, 25 are spent by the government.
Jim does a good job of stating the liberal position. They want to use taxes, and by extension, the government, to reshape society to their ends. "Sacrifice"? The only time taxes should be a sacrifice is during something like WWII, not the regular state of things.
"Ability to pay" is another good one. Seldom is liberal hubris better illustrated than here. This is them saying to you, "We know your finances and your life better than you do". Recall, often have Democrats argued against tax cuts saying, "the government can't afford it". Do they ever argue for the the people, their supposed constituency, "they can't afford that tax increase", of course not, because government is their true constituency.
"Distributive justice" is my favorite, though. Holy shit, Jim. Were you chanelling Karl Marx that night? To arbitrarily take from one class of people and give to another is theft tarted up as compassion.
I'm pretty sure Jim threw in that crack about homeschooling because he knows that weirdkid is homeschooled. Whatever, we paid for it before, we can do it again. Hell, from an economic point of view, liberals should support homeschooling. They're still getting the property tax money from those families, without having to worry about the kids. But then if they're not in public school, they can't start learning sex ed in 3rd grade.
In conclusion, liberals believe that the people exist to provide tax revenue to the government, so that the government can "help" them. It's the statist "circle of life".
Conservatives believe that the federal government has only a few basic functions, which are clearly delineated in the Constitution, and that the taxes necessary to support those functions should be as unobtrusive as possible.
 
 
 

   
Canadian Government Debate

Just listened to a debate in the House of Commons. Our Prime Minister, Paul Martin, responded to a challenge from the opposition about the fuel tax revenues raked in by the Government. The opposition feels that the record revenues being raked in by the federal government would easily justify a reduction in the gax taxes paid at the pumps to save Canadians money. Our gas prices have risen quickly and our earnings are already heavily taxed; the equilibrium has been disturbed. This makes his point valid, I'm sure, to many Canadians. The Prime Minster, Paul Martin, refused by justifying the revenues that will be returned to the provinces and municipalities. One example that he used for emphasis was to upgrade roads and highways.I couldn't help think how great that'll be to have such great roads that no one can afford to use. That day could conceivably come sooner than we think. :)

 
 
   
 

Showing 1 - 5.   [ Next ]
 
Latest Comment
Re: Hey Jack..you want "revulsion"? - What brain dead fool told you that?

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help