We Need a New Republican Party

[BrianSD_42]

P.S. It should be noted that the Dept. of Education was not even a pipe dream during WWII (it came around in the 1970s, I think) and our schools were generally MUCH BETTER then than they are now.

Actually [MENTION=4670]Jeff Kleb[/MENTION]

It has existed since 1867, they just renamed it in 1980.

In 1867 the Department of Education Act authorized the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education *

* The US Dept. of Education as established in 1867 was later known as the Office of Education. In 1980, under Public Law 96-88, it became a cabinet-level department. Therefore for purposes of consistency it is referred to as the US Department of Education (in history books) even in those tables covering the years when it was officially the “Office of Education”

/////////// now on to my thoughts ////////////

If you're against any national government level involvement in providing free education for all citizens then good for YOU!

You are only standing in the wrong against history and the beliefs and practices of 100+ years of US policy AND the current policy of EVERY major industrial power in the entire WORLD. Because in order to be a major industrial power you need nationalized education.

Now I already said that I'm all for reform and governance by whatever party is in power. If the republicans have a plan for fixing education ... great! I may even vote for it... seriously. But I want to know the plan and I want to know that it ensures free quality education for every American.


:hiding:

 

[BrianSD_42]

The Democrats have gone far-left into European-style socialism. They're not coming back and you cannot reason with them.

[MENTION=4670]Jeff Kleb[/MENTION] ... Can you back this up with some facts please?


Socialist Programs because of Obama? Actually they existed in America long before he was even born.

1. The GI Bill - I used the GI-Bill to pay for my college after serving 6 years enlisted active duty in the US military. My father used it after serving 3 in the 70s. My grandfather used it to pay for college after serving overseeing in Germans in WWII. That is a socialist based program, originally created by FDR. You are OK with the GI-BILL aren't you? (I'll assume yes). BTW this program was supported by both Bush presidents.

2. Social Security - You, or your parents, or your friends collect or will collect social security. That is a socialist program that is overwhelmingly supported by REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS in every county in the United States. That is a socialist program. Do you disagree? Again ... supported by both Bush presidents.

3. Pubic Education - Public education in the United States, be it funded by states or the federal government is a socialist government structure, even if it is funded locally. Again .... supported by both Bush presidents.

4. Medicare - Again ... overwhelmingly supported by super majorities of the constituents of Democrats and Republicans across the entire country. Totally socialist. One last time ... supported by both Bush presidents.


The fact is that America has been quasi Socialist-Capitolist for the last 100 years and you just don't want to admit it. Obama did not turn America socialist. In fact (mind blowN) his policies are not that far left of the Bush administration. Even his healthcare plan was originally drafted by the Heritage foundation - look it up.

As for Europe.... you misrepresenting the differences between USA under Obama and EU. The EU states really do have HORRIBLE (in my opinion) crazy ass left off the charts policies like these:
* totally freedom of movement of peoples from any EU country to any other for any reason
* gender quotas in management positions mandated on companies by law
* super affirmative action, mandated by law

Now I do understand your overall stance of not wanting the US to become the EU. I don't want that either but I just think all this calling Obama a socialist is a bit disingenuous to say the least.


:target:

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

Just out of curiosity, if you personally were on the upper end of the pay gap, would you still have a "big problem" with it?

Why hello there strawman! So nice to see you.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

How do you propose we fix it? High level exec pay is market-based and they can only command that pay because the company's leadership believes it's a worthwhile expense. CEOs for the most part do not decide their own pay.

Plus, consider that the tax rate on those in these brackets is much higher than that of a $10/hour factory worker, I think you'll be hard pressed to find government willing to intervene.

I'm not sure.

But the good 'ol boy system is at play at that level just like it is in Congress. Who votes the folks in Congress their pay and benefits? Themselves! It's the same thing for CEO's, again, I'm not sure how to fix it. But it is a real problem.

As for tax rates, you do understand that even the top tax bracket of 39.6% is only applied to earnings above $406,000 (for 2014), so the effective tax rate is actually lower.

That also ignores that most at that level are paid in stock options, taxed at the capital gains of 15%. For instance, the company I work for is owned by a LARGE multi-billion corp. The CEO's salary was only $550,000......however, he was paid another $9.5 million in stock options. So effectively 95% was only taxed at 15%.


As for taxes, I'd like to see FairTax.org Home Page - Americans For Fair Taxation , but it will never happen because it would remove the IRS/Congress's ability to punish/reward.

 

[RunninInGA]

Actually [MENTION=4670]Jeff Kleb[/MENTION]

It has existed since 1867, they just renamed it in 1980.



/////////// now on to my thoughts ////////////

If you're against any national government level involvement in providing free education for all citizens then good for YOU!

You are only standing in the wrong against history and the beliefs and practices of 100+ years of US policy AND the current policy of EVERY major industrial power in the entire WORLD. Because in order to be a major industrial power you need nationalized education.

Now I already said that I'm all for reform and governance by whatever party is in power. If the republicans have a plan for fixing education ... great! I may even vote for it... seriously. But I want to know the plan and I want to know that it ensures free quality education for every American.


:hiding:

To be fair, federal involvement and funding was slim until the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 mentioned in the wiki quote below. The act expanded the program with federal funding but prohibited a national curriculum. The national curriculum was enacted in 1975. That is the rub with most people complaining about federal education.

Here's a link so every one can clear up some misconceptions:
History of education in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When liberals regained control of Congress in 1964 they passed numerous Great Society programs that greatly expanded federal support for education. The Higher Education Act of 1965 set up federal scholarships and low-interest loans for college students, and subsidized better academic libraries, ten to twenty new graduate centers, several new technical institutes, classrooms for several hundred thousand students, and twenty-five to thirty new community colleges a year. A separate education bill enacted that same year provided similar assistance to dental and medical schools. On an even larger scale the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 began pumping federal money into local school districts.

 

[RunninInGA]

This quote was taken from that same wiki link referenced above.

"The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves."
— John Adams, U.S. President, 1785

 

[BrianSD_42]

And just to say it again .... I do think we need MAJOR education reform in the US ....

I'm open to any politicians plans ... just lay them out and lets vote on it.

One that really makes me go WTF is tenure for HS teachers. Here in CA we give out lifetime tenure to public HS teachers after only 18 months.

Its crazy.

 

[Jeff Kleb]

Much of the problem - and it is BOTH parties who are to blame - is that we keep piling more government programs atop of existing programs.....regardless of their efficacy.

We also fail to ask if it is constitutional or not. Sure, many of these things are 'popular' - but why is that? Because we're promising people benefits that will be paid for (or perceived as such) by somebody else. The folks at the beginning of the line always make out like bandits, but the folks at the end get stuck with the bill.

Social Security is but one example of a "popular" program, but if it is so popular, why not make it voluntary? How many of us would voluntarily participate in it? Quite few, I reckon -- and the percentage would drop faster with folks who are younger and recognize this Ponzi scheme for what it is.

Congress could theoretically meet tomorrow and decide to end Social Security payments immediately, as it is not called for in the US Constitution. There is no mention of retirement in there at all.

The GI Bill? Well, it technically could fall under the auspices of "to raise and support armies" as enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

It is easy to quibble about the veracity or scope of an article or amendment -- but there are certain things mentioned in there and others that definitely are not. Our nation is broke and we're rapidly approaching third-world status if you consider the level of our debt; but we as a society just don't know it. Should the US Dollar ever cease to be the 'reserve currency' of the world or we suffer hyperinflation, the reality of this precarious situation could give us a wake up call.

In a nation with the size & population of ours, making the government large enough to give anybody anything they want will mean that it is strong enough to take everything everybody may have.

Amending the US Constitution is not impossible, but was deliberately designed to be a difficult process. Unfortunately, the Rs and Ds find it much more convenient to circumvent or ignore it altogether and pass laws that run counter to its intent and limitations. I often wonder why we have a constitution at all, since so few elected or appointed officials have even read it - let alone obey or honor it.

 

[bofa]

I'm not sure.

But the good 'ol boy system is at play at that level just like it is in Congress. Who votes the folks in Congress their pay and benefits? Themselves! It's the same thing for CEO's, again, I'm not sure how to fix it. But it is a real problem.

As for tax rates, you do understand that even the top tax bracket of 39.6% is only applied to earnings above $406,000 (for 2014), so the effective tax rate is actually lower.

That also ignores that most at that level are paid in stock options, taxed at the capital gains of 15%. For instance, the company I work for is owned by a LARGE multi-billion corp. The CEO's salary was only $550,000......however, he was paid another $9.5 million in stock options. So effectively 95% was only taxed at 15%.


As for taxes, I'd like to see FairTax.org Home Page - Americans For Fair Taxation , but it will never happen because it would remove the IRS/Congress's ability to punish/reward.

Sorry, but CEOs don't determine their salary unless they also happen to own the company, do not report to a board, and/or are still privately held. The decision is usually made by the executive board and is a reflection of what they believe that person brings to the table.

For example, do you think just anyone could turn Ford around? No, they needed someone like Alan Mulalley, but you don't get someone like that for chump change. He's making between $10-14M a year but he took the company from the brink of disaster and they turned a profit of $8.6B last year. I'd say the company made a wise investment and it's shareholders have been rewarded handsomely, not to mention the jobs saved.

Regarding the tax rates, you do realize most low and middle income American's have a much lower ETR than even the 15% in your lowest example of capital gains, right? In fact, the average ETR for Americans making less than 100K/year is roughly 8%. If we're comparing that to people making, say over $1M, their average ETR is still 23%.

Chart of the Day: Effective Tax Rates by Income Category | Tax Foundation

I will agree with you about Congress though.

 

[LINY4Runner]

It's coming for sure...over the last decade or so I've seen so many people wake up...Rand Paul is doing a good job of making the libertarian movement almost somewhat "trendy". It appeals to the under-40 crowd more than any other party and really reflects what we're all thinking but maybe unable to find it in a candidate or maybe think the country is just too much of a lost cause to care about it. There are still far too many people who just don't care/follow politics and that's a terrible thing.

 

[LandCruiser]

Because in order to be a major industrial power you need nationalized education.

You left out "quality."

Our educational system serves teachers unions. Kids are dumb as hell, bad teachers are rewarded, new teachers are fired because they haven't reached tenure, there are no real standards for teachers, kids are taught BS "core curriculum" classes, forced to study to take standardized tests instead of learning, some schools are as bad as prisons in terms of drug use and violence, kids are socially promoted and enter college NOT BEING ABLE TO READ OR WRITE...

Our national educational system is pure bullshit, for all the money we spend on it we are FAR BEHIND other industrialized nations. All school spending goes into union pockets, and teachers vote as a block due to those unions, so politicians are terrified of breaking their backs for the sake of our future generations,

...also the GI bill would be unnecessary if we didn't pay our soldiers so poorly that many with young families need to be on food stamps.

 

[hikenbike]

You left out "quality."

Our educational system serves teachers unions. Kids are dumb as hell, bad teachers are rewarded, new teachers are fired because they haven't reached tenure, there are no real standards for teachers, kids are taught BS "core curriculum" classes, forced to study to take standardized tests instead of learning, some schools are as bad as prisons in terms of drug use and violence, kids are socially promoted and enter college NOT BEING ABLE TO READ OR WRITE...

Our national educational system is pure bullshit, for all the money we spend on it we are FAR BEHIND other industrialized nations. All school spending goes into union pockets, and teachers vote as a block due to those unions, so politicians are terrified of breaking their backs for the sake of our future generations,

...also the GI bill would be unnecessary if we didn't pay our soldiers so poorly that many with young families need to be on food stamps.

Quality is subjective. The system hasn't changed dramatically or gotten dramatically better or worse.

The "family" and "community" HAS changed dramatically along with what influences and drives or doesn't drive young people. Parents working all hours. Parents putting material "needs" ahead of raising their kids. Could go on and on and on. These aspects of kids daily lives have had MUCH greater impact.

There are A, B, and C people in this world. The A's will find the quality/private education. The C's are the C's they've always been. It's the B's that can matter. But it's up to how driven the young person is. Does he/she embrace and excel or just get moved along happily without challenge or care? Is he/she a B- closer to a C or a B+ closer to an A. That is up to the individual and largely determined in the home.

Certainly schools can be better but that's been the case forever in every generation. Kids today are VERY smart and have tremendous advantages and resources. How they focus it is the key.

 

[BrianSD_42]

.also the GI bill would be unnecessary if we didn't pay our soldiers so poorly that many with young families need to be on food stamps.

Sorry bro but You're wrong.

Even if we paid our soldiers 33% more per year it would not be enough for them to save up $50,000 in just 3 years service.

You really know very little about this topic or you are just horrible at math.

 

[LandCruiser]

Sorry bro but You're wrong.

Even if we paid our soldiers 33% more per year it would not be enough for them to save up $50,000 in just 3 years service.

You really know very little about this topic or you are just horrible at math.

Here's the rub.

While you're paying back the GI bill college tuition, you're making military rank salary, which is typically a fraction of what you can be making in the private sector.

Paying 50k for your college MAY seem nice, but you have to weigh it if you want a 50-70k/year army salary for the next 4-6 years or make 2-3 times that in the private sector and pay your loans off for 30 years.

It's almost as if the system wants you to stay in the military as a career soldier (which with the Federal benefits isn't bad, you can retire at 55, but they DO factor in the money aspect of it).

The military/feds/VA/etc. acts like the benefits of the job justify the lower salary vs. private sector BUUUT it only makes sense if you're "vested" for 15+ years.

If you bail early, you lose most of the benefits and have a shit salary to show for it. If you just want the GI bill to pay for college, the 3-4 years you're paying back (or more if you're a professional) have to be weighed against the civilian salary you would be making.

It's why I don't work for the feds no more, the long term payoff isn't there if you don't plan on making a LIFELONG commitment of working of the military/government.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Here's the rub.

While you're paying back the GI bill college tuition, you're making military rank salary, which is typically a fraction of what you can be making in the private sector.

Paying 50k for your college MAY seem nice, but you have to weigh it if you want a 50-70k/year army salary for the next 4-6 years or make 2-3 times that in the private sector and pay your loans off for 30 years.

It's almost as if the system wants you to stay in the military as a career soldier (which with the Federal benefits isn't bad, you can retire at 55, but they DO factor in the money aspect of it).

The military/feds/VA/etc. acts like the benefits of the job justify the lower salary vs. private sector BUUUT it only makes sense if you're "vested" for 15+ years.

So look. Again -- You are clearly mistaken on how this program works. It's not personal, but you just don't seem to understand why we have the GI-BILL and how it works.



EVERYONE --- This is how the GI-BILL Works


The GI-BILL is mainly meant to help military personnel who are planning to get a college education at a full time state or private college by enabling them to LEAVE THE MILITARY and go to college full time. Military personnel pay roughly $2,600 in salary over 2 years into the program to qualify for the total program benefits. The GI-BILL is to enable people who want to leave the military and go to college full time. The government pics up the tab and pays for everything. You don't even have to work; just go to class like a regular kid.

While yes it is true that it is technically possible to use the GI-BILL in some form while still in the service, that would be a waste because there is already tuition assistance but most guys don't have time to use it. Night school studying STEM while active duty on a warship .... LoL bro yeah right. Most guys who stay in end up turning the benefit over to their wifes or children.

As for using it while still in the service, there are already many other programs to help pay for active military personnel's college, say in night school if they decide to try and stay in and make that work.

I don't know what your job in life is but trust me it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a medical or engineering degree as a full time enlisted active duty person, even if you were on some cush shore duty position. Civilians simply have no concept of military life and unpredictable things that happen every week. Sure you may be able to take business or speech classes at night but what good will that do someone who want to be a doctor or a chemical engineer? --> Not much.​

Summary: The main purpose of the GI Bill is to provide military members the option of leaving the military and going 100% full time, out of the military, to college.



BTW, the GI-BILL is the very definition of a socialist benefit. I paid roughly $2,600 into the GI-Bill and I got back over $50,000 in benefits. Because of the GI-BILL I did not have to take out a $50k loan for college. Instead, the government paid over $50k to cover my college tuition and living costs while attending University of California. I believe I deserve and earned the GI-BILL but hey ... that could be another conversation.



:fish2:




/////////////////// Afterthoughts ////////////////

That is why I use it as an example when I say what ANY college political science professor would tell you which is the US is a hybrid of Socialism and regulated (eg. not purely free market) Capitalism. It has been for over 150 years now. In fact if you look through history you will see that the US was never 100% pure free market capitolism. Just think for a moment ... back to the 1800s .... yeah those railroads were built with Federal Government money in a private sector run, federally funded && regulated program.

 

[BrianSD_42]

I hope I didn't kill your thread.

 

[eddiebx]

Why hello there strawman! So nice to see you.

Nice to meet you too sir :yo:

My only point is that the way you approached your argument sounds more like envy than anything else. The mere fact that there may or may not be a growing pay gap is not the root problem that needs solving...

You left out "quality."

Our educational system serves teachers unions. Kids are dumb as hell, bad teachers are rewarded, new teachers are fired because they haven't reached tenure, there are no real standards for teachers, kids are taught BS "core curriculum" classes, forced to study to take standardized tests instead of learning, some schools are as bad as prisons in terms of drug use and violence, kids are socially promoted and enter college NOT BEING ABLE TO READ OR WRITE...

Our national educational system is pure bullshit, for all the money we spend on it we are FAR BEHIND other industrialized nations. All school spending goes into union pockets, and teachers vote as a block due to those unions, so politicians are terrified of breaking their backs for the sake of our future generations,

...also the GI bill would be unnecessary if we didn't pay our soldiers so poorly that many with young families need to be on food stamps.

We as a society have to also accept some responsibility for the way the education system is too. It's scary to see how many parents out there treat the public school system as pretty much just a daycare/babysitting service. Parents need to give a damn too!

Parents also need to play an active roll to guide their kids, and can't solely rely on the schools/teachers to do all of the leg work in educating our young.

IMO, education is what you personally make of it. ie. sending an unmotivated dipshit to harvard that doesn't want to learn vs sending a complete nerd to a bottom of the barrel community college. Guess who's going to come out with the better education, lol.

 

[Jeff Kleb]

GI Bill


There are many aspects to the Montgomery GI Bill -- and perhaps it has changed over the years. I joined the Army Reserve as an enlisted man and was able to get some of my college costs defrayed, was later able to "cross enroll" in ROTC when I was a full time student at a state university and eventually became a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve. That was a long time ago, though.

It was used mostly by soldiers who served a few years and THEN went to college later; but there were other lesser-known options available.

As for 'socialism', some could go so far as to say that the military is "socialist" -- along with fire houses, police/sheriff departments, paved highways, etc.; but that is a little out there.

:bump2::moon:

 

[BrianSD_42]

All I mean by bringing up socialism is to explain that things are not black & white, capitalism or socialism. They are intertwined in America. Some Americans want less social funded programs I get that. We will let the voters decide. I only brought up the GI Bill to out that socially funded programs are not always bad.

 

[OkieSnuffBox]

Nice to meet you too sir :yo:

My only point is that the way you approached your argument sounds more like envy than anything else. The mere fact that there may or may not be a growing pay gap is not the root problem that needs solving...

My wife and I lead a plenty comfy upper-middle class life, I can assure you there is no envy here.

However, it is easy enough for you to do your own research to see that since the end of the 70s, middle class wage increases have barely kept up with inflation. So the buying power of the middle class continues to decline.

So my volley back to you is:

If the growing pay gap is not the root problem, what is?

Remember CEO's have increased their compensation in relation to the lowest paid employee by a LITERAL ORDER OF MAGNITUDE [10x], and since 2007 95% of all new wealth has funneled to the top 1%.

So I'll reiterate, there is no envy here, it's just the defense of this is my main problem with the Libertarian camp.