The public sector in direst need of reform is ...
Displaying poll results.13558 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6299 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Military-Industrial Complex makes the world worse (Score:4, Informative)
It's not like law enforcement and the prison business aren't also in drastic need of reform; there's no excuse for the US to have more people in jail than the Soviet Union did. But all the world's militaries are making their own countries worse for their own people, making them worse for their enemies, forcing their neighbors to beef up their militaries, and the US and Russia are still threatening to blow up the world with nuclear weapons. Militaries are an excuse for governments to have power over their own people, and to give lucrative contracts to their politically connected friends, and defense contractors are happy to contribute to whatever politicians will give them the most business, regardless of how bad they are on other topics.
There are a few countries out there without armies. Costa Rica got rid of theirs back in the 1800s, not because they're any more peace-loving than everybody else, but because their president realized that the primary functions of a Latin American military were to steal land from the Indians (already done!) and to overthrow the civilian president (which he didn't want to happen to him.) Most of the others are countries in civil war, where there's no single official army.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironically, here in Norway May 8. has since WWII been the Liberation Day, where we've celebrated the liberation of Norway from the nazis, and peace in general.
We've never had any tradition for military parades etc. But for some reason they've now all of a sudden decided to put the Veterans Day on May 8. too. So now the Liberation day is full of military personell and vehicles all over the capital. I do agree the Veterans should have their day, but I do not think it fitting to choose the Liberation Day for that purpose.
In Norwegian http://www.nrk.no/ytring/ta-frigjoringsdagen-tilbake-1.11017478 [www.nrk.no]
Via Google translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrk.no%2Fytring%2Fta-frigjoringsdagen-tilbake-1.11017478 [google.com]
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically, here in Norway May 8. has since WWII been the Liberation Day, where we've celebrated the liberation of Norway from the nazis, and peace in general.
We've never had any tradition for military parades etc. But for some reason they've now all of a sudden decided to put the Veterans Day on May 8. too. So now the Liberation day is full of military personell and vehicles all over the capital. I do agree the Veterans should have their day, but I do not think it fitting to choose the Liberation Day for that purpose.
Weren't the veterans the ones who liberated you from the nazis?
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:5, Funny)
Weren't the veterans the ones who liberated you from the nazis?
Aren't Christmas and Easter about the same guy anyway? ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Lest we forget...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd probably start with law enforcement and prison reform, which would make it easier to work on up the chain:
The big problem we have in the US is that we have companies making cash from punishing people. In fact 48 states have an agreement promising 90% bed occupancy rates in their prisons/jails, or they pay fines by the day. The money going to those firms then goes to lobbyists, and then campaigns. If you are a judge in most of the US, you are forced to convict in cases, or your opponent next election
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the problems, such as a bloated military budget, private prisons and environmental regulation, stem purely from corporate money going to political donations. The public sector can't donate to campaigns, so politicians want everything privatized and the public sector evicerated to the point where none of it works. So strong campaign finance reform should be the number one goal for everyone and would probably solve all the problems on the list.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:5, Funny)
As an aside - and please don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't - whenever I hear the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex" I always hear it in some hippie's voice and add a "DUDE!" or "MAN!" onto the end.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:5, Informative)
As an aside - and please don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't - whenever I hear the phrase "Military-Industrial Complex" I always hear it in some hippie's voice and add a "DUDE!" or "MAN!" onto the end.
One such hippie: former Republican president of the U.S., General Dwight D. Eisenhower. From his farewell address:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
Sources:
YouTube [youtube.com]
Transcript [ourdocuments.gov]
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:4, Funny)
The original long-haired hippy. He only became president to avoid going to Vietnam.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:4, Interesting)
In one draft of the speech it was "the military-industrial-congressional complex". To bad Ike didn't leave that in.
Re:Military-Industrial Complex makes the world wor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is all nice and dandy, until you have an unruly neighbor. Ask Kuwait. Or Albania.
That is why you have allies. Ask Kuwait.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes If Canada didn't have the U.S. to protect us, Greenland would have invaded a long time ago.
Education??? You are being lied to. (Score:2)
I know there are only twelve votes right now, so I hope "Education" is just an outlier in this poll at the moment.
If you think Education is in need of reform, you need to check out the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress).
It is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas,
and it confirms what evidence based educators already know: we have been making slow and steady progress, year after year. Never
have we "g
Re:Education??? You are being lied to. (Score:5, Informative)
I voted based on my own country's need for education reform, not the US's. The polls really should be either more specific, or less US-specific.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Education??? You are being lied to. (Score:3, Insightful)
When schools in Tennessee and the Bible belt still teach that man and dinosuars coexisted, that the great flood killed the dinosaurs, that the earth is six thousand years old, and use religious texts as legitimate education tools, education needs some looking in to...
Re: (Score:2)
NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress)
*Assessment: a.k.a. "tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I'll behave" (a.k.a. learning not for the knowledge/skills/thinking but to pass the exams and get that damn-piece-of-paper-the-dumb-HR/recruiters-keep-so-dear-but-useless-in-any-other-way-especially-as-toilet-paper).
* Couple this with "No kids left behind" - a.k.a. "no kid allowed to get ahead" [slashdot.org] (see the reference to the need to "dumb-down their instruction").
If you get over the semantic of Reform == "bipartisan deal between the elites
Re: (Score:3)
No, look at the NAEP before you put it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assessment_of_Educational_Progress [wikipedia.org] http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ [ed.gov]
One of the main reasons that the NAEP is valid is that it only measures statistically valid aggregates, and not individual schools, teachers and students, and it's not used to reward and punish them (although there's political pressure to change that).
I don't think education is in dire need of reform. I think we have a dire need to end poverty in this cou
Re:Education??? You are being lied to. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's worth spending some time on the NAEP web site looking over the data. That is, if you like data, rather than fads and buzzwords.
They've been testing since about 1972, as I recall. During that time, the results have been on a remarkably level curve, with a slight upward trend.
One of the most striking trends is that the achievement of hispanic and especially black students has been going up dramatically, although it doesn't show up in the overall trend curves. So maybe all that affirmative action had some effect. Too bad we're going back to segregation again.
Another interesting thing about the NAEP web site is their comparison of charter schools with public schools. The NAEP is one of the few testing organizations that has statistically and scientifically valid results. They found that charter schools were worse overall than public schools, although a few charter schools were better. (That's when you pick the charter schools that can be validly compared, not the ones that select their students, kick out the problem kids, and have gobs of money from right-wing foundations.)
If you know this much, you probably know about Diane Ravitch, who was assistant secretary of education under both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton. Ravitch said that she started out believing that the solution was charter schools, privatization, high-stakes testing, and getting rid of the unions. But when she looked at the data, all those trendy conservative solutions weren't working. That's the difference between a scientist and an ideologue. A scientist admits it when she's wrong. An ideologue just gets more data to cherry-pick.
Ravitch said that the one factor that most strongly affects educational achievement is family income. So you can throw out all these studies that don't correct for family income.
If you want kids to succeed in school, you have to eliminate poverty, which was one of our national goals from about the time of FDR to GHW Bush. That all ended with Bill Clinton, and his End Welfare as we Know It sellout (Google "Peter Edelman"). So it's not a Democratic/Republican issue. Gee, funny thing, when politicians have to pander to billionaires and corporations in order to get money for their attack ads every election, the Democrats and Republicans both turn into scumbags.
Maybe the great American education system of the second half of the 20th century was an anomaly. We won WWII in large part by science and technology, so after the war boosting science and technology education was actually patriotic. We were competing with the Soviets, who had one of the best education systems in the world, particularly in science. Now there's no public sentiment in the US for broad education any more. Those corporations don't need to put American kids through college. They can hire cheaper employees from abroad.
Right now, the best way for a non-wealthy kid to get an education is to join the military. What does that tell you about America?
Re:Education??? You are being lied to. (Score:5, Interesting)
You might think scores are flat or declining, but this is not acccurate. There is a large gap betweeen what is tested and what is "required" to be taught. State curriculum websites are more of wish lists than actual curriculum guides. They are typically "a mile wide and an inch deep". It is impossible to cover all the material with any fidelity.
And then there's the test. What will be tested and how will the questions be constructed. I can teach you an simple concept like Ohms law and then have a test writer construct a 4-paragraph question with multiple graphs about resistance and current followed by 3 tricky multiple choice questions and there is a good chance you will screw it up.
This is the way I see it. Many schools are "good" and server their communities and students well. Schools is less desiriable communities are understaffed, under-resources, have large staff turn over and are the poster child for school reform and waste.
Some politicians look at education in the same manner that the look at defense spending... LOOK A BIG PILE OF MONEY... HOW DO I FUNNEL IT TO MY FRIENDS? The trick is to constant "reform" schools until they system can no longer respond to change and shows up on test scores as a flat-line or negative grow. Then you can shout, "LOOK ALL THE SCHOOLS ARE FAILING, HA! WE TOLD YOU!" we need an unlimited voucher program. People should be free to choose any school.
What will happen is that schools will accept the vouchers + tuition and education will become stratified. Everyone will pay as much as they can to send their kids to a "good school" while the poor concetrate and languish in the left-over public schools.
As a parent, I like the idea of vouchers and being able to send my kid anywhere, public or private. The voucher could be used as a coupon for that really expensive private school. As a citizen in a democracy, I shudder, thinking that our democracy depends on strong public institutions like public schools and without them our society will crumble. I also believe history bears this out.
What is the solution? ..... ask me and I will share my education policy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, yeah, it's amazing that Education is leading the polls.
The "solutions" all seem to be of the form of either (but not both) "spend more money on good teachers" or "spend less money on bad teachers".
Or of the occasional/omnipresent "introduce new technology in all classrooms" and that will be the silver bullet. Not that computers in every classroom has had much more effect than TVs + VCRs in the 70s, or how expensive projectors have improved over blackboards, or expensive mandatory textbooks have replace
Re: (Score:3)
Vouchers are education "food stamps" for the wealthy. You might not think you're wealthy, but most people cannot afford to send their kids to private schools because they have absolutely no extra money to do that. A voucher that pays a fraction of private school costs could really help you out, but be completely worthless to most people because they could not make up the difference. So vouchers end up being a subsidy for the wealthy and relatively wealthy, while leaving the poor where they are. This is why
None of them (Score:5, Funny)
No contest, surely. (Score:2, Informative)
Health. The USA gets worse outcomes with twice the GDP expenditure of any other OECD country.
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:5, Informative)
Health. The USA gets worse outcomes with twice the GDP expenditure of any other OECD country.
Yeah .. but without education how will the locals know how misplaced is their belief that the US is the best country in the world?
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the problems with our health spending are not primarily in the public sector. Those other countries that have more efficient healthcare than we do have more of their healthcare run by the government, and there's a fairly strong correlation between cost effectiveness and government control. Within the US, the the government is generally more cost effective than the private sector. Within the government sector, the most efficient provider is the VA, which runs its own hospitals rather than just being a glorified insurance company. There's every reason to think that our healthcare system would be improved by turning more of it over to the government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, can you please give an example where the government is more cost effective than the private sector? I sure can't think of one. If the government is so much more cost effective than the private sector then their profit margins must be ridiculously high! Oh wait, they're in debt up to our eyeballs...
Private education is cheaper and more effective than public education.
Private charity is more effective with less funds than public handouts.
UPS and FedEx are cheaper and faster (for comparable services
example already given (Score:4, Informative)
But the problems with our health spending are not primarily in the public sector. Those other countries that have more efficient healthcare than we do have more of their healthcare run by the government, and there's a fairly strong correlation between cost effectiveness and government control. Within the US, the the government is generally more cost effective than the private sector. Within the government sector, the most efficient provider is the VA, which runs its own hospitals rather than just being a glorified insurance company. There's every reason to think that our healthcare system would be improved by turning more of it over to the government.
I'm sorry, can you please give an example where the government is more cost effective than the private sector?
Sure: health care,
Uh, didn't you actually read the post you are responding to?
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure about the other two examples, but you can't ship anything using UPS or FedEx for $0.44. In fact the USPS is so efficient that both FedEx and UPS use it for last mile service in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure about the other two examples, but you can't ship anything using UPS or FedEx for $0.44. In fact the USPS is so efficient that both FedEx and UPS use it for last mile service in many cases.
Actually, you can't send a letter with USPS for $0.44 either -- rate is now $0.46. But your point still stands even with the extra 2 pennies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, last time I bought my Forever stamps they were $0.44.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's ILLEGAL for UPS or FedEx to deliver First Class Mail, which is the only thing the USPS will deliver for $0.44 (or whatever it it these days - I'm still using Forever stamps from years ago too).
And anything that both UPS/FedEx and the USPS can both legally deliver, UPS and FedEx do cheaper.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (Score:2)
The price to the consumer is not the same as the total cost. It likely costs the USPS roughly the same amount to deliver a package as it does UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. That you pay a lot less than that is not a marker of efficiency; on the contrary, it is a marker of the distortions in price as a consequence of Congress meddling with the USPS, which is supposedly a "private" company. Moreover, the USPS should be charging the other carriers for that last-mile delivery; if they're not charging what it costs to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, he doesn't realize that because it isn't true. USPS does not receive any tax subsidy. It is currently running an accounting deficit, but only because it's being required by law to pre-fund health and retirement benefits for the next 75 years in the span of a decade. If USPS wasn't being required to fund retirement for employees who haven't been born yet, it would be in fine financial shape.
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:4, Informative)
No, the Post Office does not get $100 million per year in funding. It is legally required to provide certain services at no cost to the recipients, and Congress appropriates money to make up for the costs. In any case, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of running the Post Office, not a massive subsidy.
And then there are all the ways that the Post Office is required to subsidize other people. They're required to deliver mail to the whole country at a fixed cost, rather than charging different rates according to the actual cost of delivery or refusing to deliver to out-of-the-way places that aren't cost effective. They have to deliver mail for Congress for free, which many Congresspeople abuse. The Post Office is actually very efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Correcting you when you're wrong isn't an irrelevant detail, but don't let that get in the way of your self-righteousness.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry . . .
UPS and FedEx are cheaper and faster (for comparable services) than the USPS.
Actually, I suppose it is I who should apologize -- if an apology is the proper way to introduce a contrary view. When shipping a document last week I found USPS to be the best option whether I needed overnight delivery or just a simple delivery/signature confirmation. Priority mail flat-rate packages also frequently beat UPS and FedEx for smallish stuff -- particularly if it's dense. You should comparison-shop.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had something very similar happen with FedEx before. The big exception is that the address was completely correct. They just thought it would be fun to send the package to Webster township in Ohio instead of Webster City in Iowa.
Bad stuff happens. For the most part the USPS has been quick and reliable for its 200+ year history.
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, can you please give an example where the government is more cost effective than the private sector? I sure can't think of one. If the government is so much more cost effective than the private sector then their profit margins must be ridiculously high! Oh wait, they're in debt up to our eyeballs...
Private education is cheaper and more effective than public education. Private charity is more effective with less funds than public handouts. UPS and FedEx are cheaper and faster (for comparable services) than the USPS. Need I go on?
I keep typing and erasing replies to this, knowing that my points won't hit home. As long as there are a lot of voters that believe that there is no place for government in providing services and investing in the future, things are not going to get better. The other fallacies in the quotation above are equally dismaying; the government doesn't provide services with a profit motive. Government debt is not inherently a bad thing (anyone who compares public debt to a credit card is ill informed). Public education and other services do not threaten private education or private donations, but believing that they are mutually exclusive is a red herring and dangerous. I'm in the USA, but I don't think these ideas are uniquely applicable to my country.
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:4, Insightful)
Government debt is not inherently a bad thing (anyone who compares public debt to a credit card is ill informed).
Because we can just print more money to pay it off. Why, we can even mint 15 $1T coins and deposit them with the treasury, and Wham! There goes our debt. And fortunately, that has absolutely no effect on the value of the dollar, or the dollar's position as the international standard currency. And if there's one thing history teaches us, it's that no regime has ever fallen because it spent itself into mountainous debt that it was unable to crawl back out of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem is not that they are more cost effective, which government run operations may not be, but it is that private run operations need to make a profit. Any cost savings are not passed on to the "consumer", they are passed on to the entity operating the service. THAT is the reason why services from the government can be better cost / value for people. In addition, the government can chose to operate at a loss; this can be seen when governments provide mail service to remote islands at the same rat
Re: (Score:2)
There are two factors you are ignoring in proclaiming the greatness of government-run health facilities:
1. Quality. The military healthcare system is notorious for its terrible (or, at the very least, wildly inconsistent) quality of service and outcomes.
2. Confounding variables. There are examples of facilities (e.g. in India) which are not state-run yet achieve decent outcomes at much more reasonable prices.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming this poll is about the country the respondent is in and not necessarily the USA.
I think the state exists to protect people from the initiation of force. For them to do that they must first stop harming us. This means stop confiscating wealth from us, which means they will need to stop spending money on education, health etc. and insteads leave that up to individual communities via voluntary means.
Re:No contest, surely. (Score:5, Funny)
Well health isn't really in the public sector so it should not be a choice on the pole.
I'll take this as a vote for education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well health isn't really in the public sector so it should not be a choice on the pole.
Depends on what country you're in. In most of Europe it has been for years. Lately in the USA the purchase of strictly defined health insurance has become mandatory for everyone who isn't already on government coverage so that's de facto public sector. The few places where health care is not at all public sector are either communist countries like China and places with dysfunctional or barely existing governments like large sections of Africa.
Infrastructure (Score:3)
All the other options depend on reliable transportation, communication, and power to operate effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Our transportation, communication, and power function 'well enough' for everything else to operate effectively already. Not to say they are perfect or good or even decent, just that you can have good education and research, good healthcare, a fair justice system, a reasonably sized military, and address environmental concerns with the infrastructure we have today.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, they aren't future-proof.
What about peak-oil?
That should be addressed by the public sector, because the private one only cares about the next quarter.
Why education might win this (Score:2, Interesting)
Education might win this if people think like I did: Educate people, and all the other problems get solved.
Note, education doesn't just mean dumping facts into brains. It means instilling integrity, which is the hard part.
I don't see it happening. It's possible to prune the branches of this ugly tree, but truly good education would axe the problems at the root.
Now, this is my opinion and I know it's controversial; but tell the unions to pound sand. Tenure? Bite me. Complex rules for teacher evaluation
Re: (Score:3)
Note, education doesn't just mean dumping facts into brains.
But that's all our public schools are good for in the US! How else are we going to train a nation of Jeopardy! players?
law enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Law enforcement and the justice system needs an overhaul. Long delays for trials, a system where you must show up in person to defend trivial offenses or even ENTER YOUR PLEA, even if you don't live in the same state, one where your own state won't help defend you but they'll help arrest you for outstanding warrants or FTAs. That's a system where it can be more expensive to defend your innocence than to falsely admit guilt. One where you can call up a clerk and they literally won't give any assistance at all because "they aren't allowed to give legal advice". A system so complex and full of contradictions you need a degree to understand it, and even then a lot of it is up to interpretation. A system where laws are intentionally set against social norms (speed limit) or are ridiculously outdated with the only purpose to rob people for the purpose of filling coffers (speed cameras in a school zone near a high school).
The definition of highway robbery now means I got pulled over for doing something trivial that people violate on a daily basis (such as speeding when the flow of traffic is over the speed limit) and given a completely unfair and expensive ticket ($115 for 1 mph over the speed limit), rather than being robbed by actual criminals.
All of the above, in this order: (Score:2)
Military and law enforcement reform need to come first because there are not only harmful but unbelievably wasteful programs there (the various Wars on Abstract Concepts at home and abroad, e.g. Terror and Drugs) which, when trimmed, would free up the money needed to properly reform the rest. Military and law enforcement are the first priorities of a government, the first things you need to have in place to have a government at all, but once those functions are handled satisfactorily, any excess going into
U.S. Census Bureau (Score:4, Funny)
Environment (Score:2)
Being from Norway, where things are a bit different than eg. the US, I chose from the "most likely to kill us"-list; that being the Environment.
A dumb public is an easily manipulated public (Score:5, Interesting)
Education is the only option in the list which, if addressed properly, would lead to resolution or improvement of ALL the other options. How?
Educational level correlates with better awareness of one's health. If kids are taught from a young age to eat well in school (rather than left by the parents to just sit in front of the indoctrination box called the TV, watching endless advertisements for snacks and candy and fast food), we wouldn't be having an obesity and diabetes epidemic. Revitalize the school lunch programs, bring back mandatory physical education, and health education. Furthermore, educational level is a predictor of adult income levels, and the higher your income, the less you are forced to eat cheap processed fast foods as your main source of nutrition.
Education reduces crime and poverty rates, leading to less need for law enforcement, jails, and alleviates the overburdened court system. It also equalizes access to the legal system, which has become exorbitantly costly.
Education creates the engineers who build public works and infrastructure. With better education comes increased income and tax revenue, resulting in more monies to pay for such projects.
Education creates the scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and technologists who run the space program, but education among ALL citizens more crucially increases AWARENESS of the importance of the role of such people in building the economy for future generations. Even if you don't go into a STEM career, having more than a GED-level education will show you the value of such positions in society.
Education reduces the need for large military forces. Smarter people don't fight wars because they don't GET into wars. Wars are fought because the people who have a political and/or financial interest to create conflict and profit off it, incite war through strategic foreign policy decisions. They manipulate and foment paranoia and fear in the public, in order to achieve their goals. Afghanistan and Iraq are the product of decades of foreign policy masterminded by Big Oil, using various excuses such as anti-communism and anti-terrorism, to justify spilling blood for their own profit. If people were better educated, they would be less susceptible to believing the lies that their government feeds them.
Education brings about scientific literacy and critical thinking skills, again allowing people to resist propaganda from climate change deniers (who are, like the military example above, shills from big business interests who are solely focused on short-term profit and are happy to destroy the environment for centuries to come as long as it makes them rich in their lifetime). If you lack those critical thinking skills, you won't know how to formulate questions about the world around you in a scientific and objective manner, and you won't be able to understand why scientific reasoning is fundamentally superior to religious, dogmatic, or ideological reasoning.
The only reason why we have so many problems in this world is because too many people are too damn stupid to know they are being manipulated by those who are in power. And the reason they are stupid is because they are KEPT that way by those in power. The LAST thing the government wants to do is make its citizens smart enough to question its motives and hold them and their campaign backers accountable. All they need from the people is to make them smart enough to turn on their TVs to watch Fox News, and know how to tap a touchscreen voting machine--and that's only until they figure out a way to eliminate the need for them to vote at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that education is a critical issue. I disagree that it's in the direst need of reform. Our schools aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but they are generally capable of providing a basic education to those that choose to make full use of it.
With better education comes increased income and tax revenue, resulting in more monies to pay for such projects.
I have to take issue with this argument. As recent trends have shown, not just in the US but in many other countries, what you can actually get with a highly educated population is not everybody becoming rich, but rather lots of highly educated peop
Re: (Score:2)
I think you would have a hard time demonstrating that "educated" people are less susceptible to brainwashing and propaganda than uneducated people. At least based on what passes for "education" these days. Maybe a "reformed" education system could actually focus on development of critical thinking and problem solving skills. That's not what we have today however.
The current government-run system teaches respect and acceptance of authority. Sit in rows, stand in line, move when the bell rings, obey the t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your thesis is that it looks at correlation and infers causation. This is the fallacy that has driven "education reform" for decades and continues to drive educational outcomes downward. It is the same fallacy that created the previous housing bubble. Home ownership does not give a person responsibility; it used to take responsibility in order to own home. Likewise, education doesn't cause any of the things you say it does. Unfortunately, the causal relationships are in many cases very
Difficult decision (Score:3)
On the one hand, the military-industrial complex is bankrupting the country, spending staggering amounts of money on planes that have never been used and brand new tanks that the Army doesn't even want. For some reason, people who are adamantly opposed to domestic pork have no problems with military pork.
On the other hand, law enforcement problems mean that small-fry potheads are in some cases going to prison for life while the bankers who launder $2 billion of drug money and aid arms deals with Iran get what amounts to no punishment whatsoever. For some other reason, people who advocate law and order have no problems with massive crime if it's committed by their friends.
Suprising. (Score:3)
I voted education, but then again I live in Canada. Since this is a mostly US centric site I sort of assumed that Healthcare would win out as something obvious.
Then again perhaps education is just messed up everywhere.
I guess I could see voting education in the US with all the weirdo divergent curriculum with a 5000 year old bearded zombie Jesus riding a velociraptor to defeat the gay abortionists or whatever...
From a Canadian perspective, sort of the same thing, but much less so. It still has to do with religion and education, but it is more about the administration VS the actual curriculum I think. Where I live there are TWO boards of education that run in parallel, a "public" system and a "Catholic" system, which is also public in every sense of the word, only that everything about it is based on Catholic beliefs. The reason it exists is of course in the fog of time, and was something established back in the 1800's. Anyway the cost of maintaining two boards is stupid. The fact that public money is going to a subset of the population to a religion is stupid. Everything about it is stupid, and the only reason it still exists is that politicians are afraid if they even talk about it every single Catholic will vote against them and they will lose (it has already happened once). On top of that, the teachers Union is CRAZY. Not only do they have their own rules that exist no where else which are nuts, but just like the Catholics, they seem to threaten strike at the drop of the hat, parents don't want their kids at home, and again have the politicians over a barrel, so they basically give them whatever they want for as long as living memory exists.
Anyway not saying I have all the answers, but the system is clearly broken, and needs some work. Two things need to happen, both of which will be wildly unpopular politically. 1) Get rid of the Catholic school board, or at the very least give them ZERO public money (at which time the problem will take care of itself), and 2) Do not capitulate to Teacher Union demands. Make them take a hit just like every other Public Service sector (apart of Healthcare which is something else entirely), and if they decide to strike, let them for as long as they want. Loose a year and see how Teachers hold up to Politicians as far a popularity goes. As for the crazy union rules, not much can be done about that, or I don't know enough about it to know. Perhaps expand union powers, to allow another competing Union to be established... (can you even have competing unions? I have no idea.)
As for Healthcare in Canada, the big this is that it is too expensive, and it getting disproportionally more expensive every year. We cannot support that kind of growth forever. Again it is a very unpopular political fight as the doctors and nurses will all make TV ads about the politicians making you sick and trying to kill you etc... and how they are only there to work selflessly day and night to save your life etc... and we have a lot of old voters, which are easily swayed in this regard. However 6-8% increases year over year, forever will not work. Salaries need to take a hit, simple as that.
Though in listing what I would consider the two biggest issues we have, it is becoming obvious that the biggest problems we have are the ones that politicians simply do not want to touch with a 10ft pole as they are super unpopular. These are also issues that are not new, they have been around for a very long time, and it isn't like no one knows about them, however historically the same problem, politicians don't want to take any action on these sensitive issues. I guess that is the difference between an actual "leader" and just another "politician" looking for election.
Congress (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the best 'Ha Ha, Seriously' suggestions is that Congress Critter should be required to wear NASCAR-style sponsor stickers whenever in session or speaking in public / on TV
What do you mean? (Score:2)
By reform, do you mean restructuring or cuts?
Elections, term limits, and perk reform. (Score:2)
Without election reform, term limits, and changes to the "perks" (like being exempt from some laws) given to elected officials the rest doesn't matter. We can't reform any of those areas without good people in office, and right now the system is rigged to keep good people out.
some hope.... (Score:2)
All of the above or the public sector in general (Score:3)
We need to move away from robbing one group to heap benefits on another. Instead of people being entreprenurial and industrious we seem to focus our energies on how this group, that group or some other collection of people deserves someone else's money that they have done nothing to earn except become adept at lobbying and/or painting themselves as some kind of victim.
We have set the bar far too low for taking money from someone who has earned it and giving to someone who has done nothing except cry about how they need it. I have more respect for pick pockets who use their skills to pilfer their victim's money. At least they are honest about their thievery.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:3)
What claim do those employees have on the business that paid them a wage that they freely accepted in return for the work they did? Or how does forfeiture of the business to the employees work in the case of my father who worked for 42 years for the same company and bought stock in that company in order to make sure there was "enough" to take care of him and my mother in their older years and to hand something down to my brother and me? He owned stock so he owned a small part of the business when he died.
None of the above: finance (Score:3)
Missing option: less public sector (Score:2)
Government? (Score:2)
Legislative, Executive and Legal (Score:4, Informative)
If the government fixed itself, the other things that the government is in charge of would get fixed. Problem is, too many people "believe" in the political "process", when it clearly hasn't worked.
Moving the power from Federal, to local would help, rather than the current trend of the other way around.
Healthcare obviously (Score:2)
The government's massive 40+ year intervention into the healthcare system has been an unmitigated disaster. Skyrocketing costs leave millions of people unable to afford the most basic services. Quality of results lagging behind the rest of the world. A massive insurance industry which sucks profits out of the system but provides very little in the way of value. Government programs doomed for bankruptcy, etc. etc.
Government has absolutely ruined the U.S. healthcare system. Time for them to get out and l
Re: (Score:3)
Did it ever occur to you that there is no developed country in the world in which the government has left the health care system to the free market?
In other words, you can't point to a working model. (Try Switzerland. Make my day.)
Even Adam Smith said that health care was a proper role of the government. He knew about epidemics.
The Government (Score:2)
And the election system needs to get a complete cleanup. The current system makes it next to impossible to get anything done unless you have a crapload of money and buy your position in one of the two big parties.
Forgot an "Is" (Score:2)
public sector reform is like potato chips... (Score:2)
You cannot eat just one.
Healthcare is the cause of our economic problems (Score:2)
Ultimately, this terrible system is part of what keeps the US unemployment rate up. Plenty of people who are looking for work wo
get the money out of politics (Score:2)
It's simple... (Score:2)
Being abolished (Score:2)
Good luck with that (Score:3)
Until the SCOTUS has turned over almost entirely during an era of greater social responsibility, you can look forward to any meaningful attempt to stop the influence of big money to be shot down under the banner of CU. Or the Constitution is amend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure what public sector that is for Americans, but you guys gotta fix that shit...
The laws for corporations in the US are made by folks in Congress. The folks in Congress are elected by the citizens of the US. However, the folks in Congress are paid by whichever corporation donated cash to their election campaign. So the corporations make the laws for corporations through proxies for themselves.
Which is efficient because corporations know corporations best, so they know what laws are best for corporations . . .
. . . um . . . that's kinda sorta right . . . isn't it . . . ?
. . . do
Re: (Score:2)
Then it would truly be Progress.
*Badom-tish*
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Damn straight... I like your style Anonymous Coward!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea... In the US it would probably help tremendously if a third party showed up and actually did something. I think it would not matter what the two others would probably start to get their act together or wither and die. More parties...
Re: (Score:2)
Put all the money wasted in military into space exploration. You still create jobs, a bunch of useful technology is created (some of which may also be of military use) and we would actually get something out of it as humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a colossal waste of money but the corporations that provide the military with all of their killing equipment and war machines provide a LOT of jobs.
Couldn't those same people be building hospitals, new transport infrastructure and researching alternative energy production instead?
(For about a tenth of the price...)
Or is it unthinkable to voters to spend all that tax money on something that actually makes the world better?
Re: (Score:2)
Education is the root of all change. If you don't have people who really 'get' how to do things, and are competitive, you'll end up with everything else failing (as the people who are in the positions of power aren't educated sufficiently to really 'get' how things link together, thus they'll mess up all the rest).
An interesting thing happening in the UK now is a greater and greater acceptance of an International Baccalaureate; that means an end to the "We're getting better marks" brigade that constantly s
Re: (Score:2)
Remove the Political System from our money.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why I chose other. Until you fix the process by which everything else gets fixed, attempting to fix everything else will be ineffective and actually make the situation worse.
Re: Governing bodies (Score:2)
Exactly. Where is the All of The Above option?
Re: (Score:2)
First and foremost priority: redressing the serious flaws in our mechanisms of creating reform. Elected officials too often have a vested interest in maintenance of the very flaws that sensible reform would seek to eliminate.
This, a million times over.
How can we trust the idiots who fucked up the system in the first place, to 'reform' it into anything half-assed useful or productive?
Re: (Score:2)