Ok, I left off explaining how John Dewey and his disciples were spreading their progressive agenda and ideals to thousands of college students. Now let me get into how that has effected our education system in the last hundred years.
Progressives have been continually assaulting education as we know it traditionally. Dewey said that the "traditional scheme...imposes adult standards, subject matter, and methods upon those who are only growing slowly toward maturity." So you see guys if we were all a little fester on the up-take then they wouldn't feel the need to change our education....yeah that's BS. No, the real reason they want to change education from the traditional order is because they want to keep us DUMB! If we are ignorant to how our government works, what kind of economic systems actually work and what ones don't, what our country stands for, what our country was founded on, and what our rights and duties as citizens are then they will have power over us. That is the only way that they can stay in power. The moment we get our heads on straight and understand that WE THE PEOPLE have the power; that is when the progressives lose. Now back to what I was saying.
"Dewey's pragmatism left little room for the education as it had been conceived over the centuries. Aside from the most basic fundamentals- reading, writing, and arithmetic say- education, or at least formal education has been premised on the belief that philosophers, historians, essayists, scientists, and theologians have discovered and learned much. But pragmatists would have none of that. They wanted to cast aside the religious and humane learning, experience, and revelations and to launch out into uncharted sea of the future, armed only with the determination to experiment and find out what would work in transforming man in his world."
That is a quote from the book and yes it is very lengthy, but I wanted you to see just how amazing this man's writing is. He wrote this 25 years ago and it sounds like he is describing August 20th, 2010! I mean think about it. People in our education system are predominantly telling us that we don't need to listen to our fathers, our grandfathers, or anyone who is older and wiser. No, no, no they're all old fashioned and they don't know about how the world is changing, they can't keep up with the times. You need to go out, find yourself (yeah that's a joke), and find your own way in this world. I'll tell you what. You go and do that and you will make history repeat itself. That's all you'll do. Instead of learning from your parents, humbly recognizing that they have valuable wisdom to impart to you, you will go out and make the same mistakes they did when you could avoid them just by stopping, listening, and learning. Why do you think we are in the worst economic times since the great depression (or so they say)? Because our politicians didn't learn from history! They forced their progressive agendas at us and we all plunged headlong right into them!
Ok, again, back to education. It's still happening today just to let you know. Progressive education may be at it's strongest right now actually. Progressives want to, in their own words, "socialize" the young. "To foster this, they emphasized the importance of what they called 'child-centered' education, that is, focusing on the values and desires of children rather using the schools to inculcate what adults wanted." So again it's all about the children, remember. We are doing it for the kids. Yeah...that's BS too. No the only thing they are doing is getting smart and realizing that without parents input they can focus on what the children want which is, because or our fallen sin nature, going to be selfish sinful values and desires. You have to give it to them, they are very smart. They are able to "change schooling, change the child, and send him forth to change his world." It's ingenious really.
This next part is something I want to you think about though because this was one thing that really sent me for a loop cause I had NEVER thought about this before. "Spontaneous participation by the students in the classes was one of the progressive ideals." What? You're saying that getting kids to participate is progressive? That's what I thought at first, but listen to this now. "By participation the children would learn to adjust to one another, would be socialized, and be fitted to conformity to the wishes of the group." Now which one of you has ever thought that? It sounds absurd at first, but really think about it. If you don't have Jesus as your Lord and savior and you can't stand on your convictions with confidence, then participation in class would do exactly THAT to you! Now think of all the kids out there that are not christian and in a classroom setting everyday. They don't even realize it, but if they are not strong in their convictions and beliefs then they are going to be socialized and fitted to CONFORMITY. Think about that! I am totally serious here, I really want you all to think about this because this is the kind of stuff that has got to change in our country. It's small and it's unbelievably subtle, but it's changing us, and not for the better.
"The term that tied all this together for John Dewey, and for his followers generally, was "democracy". Dewey took this term, which americans were coming to accept as describing their political system, and used it as a word to conjure with. Democracy, for him, was the ultimate good...the thing to be striven for above all else,and that which his educational system was bent on achieving. What did it mean? It meant whatever Dewey would have it mean, at least for him; it meant equality, freedom, concern for others, participation in the 'formation of the values that regulate the living of men together...'" "Above all, though, 'democracy' was a word to be used to change schooling in the direction he wanted. What he wanted to do was build a new social order along what is generally known as socialistic lines. As he wrote, on one occasion: 'the schools will surely...share in the building of the social order of the future...they will of necessity...take an active part in determining the social order.'"
Again, another lengthy quote, but I just can't say it like Mr. Carson does so there it is. Also, again, it sounds like he is writing about right now! People all over the U.S., politicians especially, are abusing the word and concept of democracy to get whatever they want done accomplished. At the beginning of that quote he says that Americans are beginning to think that their political system is a democracy.....what did I JUST post about? How people today think that we are a democracy! Is that not a little crazy?! Please, please, please! Think about this and let it provoke you. Educate yourself, cause God knows you are not going to get far listening to me rant, and start preparing for when you can vote, whether it's in November or in a couple Novembers from now. Start getting equipped right now!
Wow, my eyes are about to explode. Going to bed y'all. Peace out, have a good night, hope you enjoy the post. Thanks for reading!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Pragmatism, John Dewey, and Progressive Education
Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow I am being totally blown away by what I am reading in this book guys. It is truly incredible the amount of foresight this man had when he was writing this. As I promised, this post will be about Progressive Education and the Progressive Education Movement, but I have to tell you a little bit about a man named John Dewey and a philosophy called Pragmatism before I go into that. So here it goes, I am going to start with Pragmatism.
"Pragmatism is not so much a philosophy as a way of doing without philosophy." That is a quote from the book The Growth of America and it goes on to explain that "pragmatism as a philosophy is a philosophy of process, of change, in a word, of flux. Pragmatists held that everything is continually changing, growing, altering, and becoming." In simple terms it means that they believe that there is nothing that is absolute, nothing that is unchanging, nothing that is eternally the same. A pragmatist named Charles Sanders Pierce said this about pragmatism: "[pragmatism will] serve to show that almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish...or else downright absurd." Now if you are like me you need a little help on those two words "Ontological" and "Metaphysics". So I looked them up to make it clear for you what he is saying here. Both of those words have to do with the explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. So what he is saying is that there is no point in learning about why we exist or how we got here because he thinks that it doesn't matter at all. So you can see what this philosophy (or lack thereof) looks like.
A little while later in the book the author says that "the central concept of pragmatism...is that the truth of any thought, so far as it contains any, consists in the effects or results of believing and acting on it." What?!? Do you know what this means? It means that truth is relative! There is a quote from John Dewey where he says of "ideas, meanings, conceptions, theories, systems....." that if they are "instrumental to an active reorganization of the given environment..., then the test of their validity and value lies in accomplishing this work. If they succeed in their office they are reliable, sound, valid, good, true." So basically what he is saying is that if something works for you then it is truth to you. There is no room for morality or any kind of ethical standards in these men's minds! They are saying that you can create your own truth! This is what John Dewey believed. Now why am I going into this crazy philosophy lesson when I was going to be talking about education? Well because like I said, John Dewey believed in pragmatism, he was a pragmatist. You just read that quote from him that basically sums up his beliefs in one sentence. Now this may seem irrelevant to education, but it's not because the Progressive Education Movement was John Dewey's "brainchild" as Mr. Carson put it. So now that you know a little bit about pragmatism and John Dewey let me get into the education part of all this.
John Dewey along with many other "reformers" wanted to use education as means to transform society. Lestor Frank Ward said that "education was the 'great panacea'-for political as well as all other evils." The "Great Panacea" is like the great cure or solution. Albion Small, a disciple of Ward, said that "Sociology knows no means for the... reform of society more radical than those of which the teachers hold the leverage." So it's obvious that these guys saw how huge of a piece education was to their progressive puzzle they were trying to construct. They made quick on trying to spread their fever to others too. In 1904 John Dewey went to Columbia University and as a result Teachers College there became the center for the diffusion of the ideas of progressive education over the country. A man named William H. Kilpatrick, who was a student of Dewey's, "taught some 35,000 students from every state in the Union at a time when Teachers College was training a substantial percentage of the...leaders of American education....In the hands of the dedicated, compelling Kilpatrick, the chair became an extraordinary strategic rostrum for the dissemination of a particular version of progressive education....." I am up way to late right now so I can't put up all the definitions of those crazy big words, but if you don't quite get what he's saying then look up some of those words and it will make more sense. Basically it just means that they were influencing thousands of young students with their progressive ideals and agendas. Not a good thing.
I have to finish this tomorrow y'all cause I am working tomorrow and I need sleep. Peace out and thanks for reading.
"Pragmatism is not so much a philosophy as a way of doing without philosophy." That is a quote from the book The Growth of America and it goes on to explain that "pragmatism as a philosophy is a philosophy of process, of change, in a word, of flux. Pragmatists held that everything is continually changing, growing, altering, and becoming." In simple terms it means that they believe that there is nothing that is absolute, nothing that is unchanging, nothing that is eternally the same. A pragmatist named Charles Sanders Pierce said this about pragmatism: "[pragmatism will] serve to show that almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish...or else downright absurd." Now if you are like me you need a little help on those two words "Ontological" and "Metaphysics". So I looked them up to make it clear for you what he is saying here. Both of those words have to do with the explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. So what he is saying is that there is no point in learning about why we exist or how we got here because he thinks that it doesn't matter at all. So you can see what this philosophy (or lack thereof) looks like.
A little while later in the book the author says that "the central concept of pragmatism...is that the truth of any thought, so far as it contains any, consists in the effects or results of believing and acting on it." What?!? Do you know what this means? It means that truth is relative! There is a quote from John Dewey where he says of "ideas, meanings, conceptions, theories, systems....." that if they are "instrumental to an active reorganization of the given environment..., then the test of their validity and value lies in accomplishing this work. If they succeed in their office they are reliable, sound, valid, good, true." So basically what he is saying is that if something works for you then it is truth to you. There is no room for morality or any kind of ethical standards in these men's minds! They are saying that you can create your own truth! This is what John Dewey believed. Now why am I going into this crazy philosophy lesson when I was going to be talking about education? Well because like I said, John Dewey believed in pragmatism, he was a pragmatist. You just read that quote from him that basically sums up his beliefs in one sentence. Now this may seem irrelevant to education, but it's not because the Progressive Education Movement was John Dewey's "brainchild" as Mr. Carson put it. So now that you know a little bit about pragmatism and John Dewey let me get into the education part of all this.
John Dewey along with many other "reformers" wanted to use education as means to transform society. Lestor Frank Ward said that "education was the 'great panacea'-for political as well as all other evils." The "Great Panacea" is like the great cure or solution. Albion Small, a disciple of Ward, said that "Sociology knows no means for the... reform of society more radical than those of which the teachers hold the leverage." So it's obvious that these guys saw how huge of a piece education was to their progressive puzzle they were trying to construct. They made quick on trying to spread their fever to others too. In 1904 John Dewey went to Columbia University and as a result Teachers College there became the center for the diffusion of the ideas of progressive education over the country. A man named William H. Kilpatrick, who was a student of Dewey's, "taught some 35,000 students from every state in the Union at a time when Teachers College was training a substantial percentage of the...leaders of American education....In the hands of the dedicated, compelling Kilpatrick, the chair became an extraordinary strategic rostrum for the dissemination of a particular version of progressive education....." I am up way to late right now so I can't put up all the definitions of those crazy big words, but if you don't quite get what he's saying then look up some of those words and it will make more sense. Basically it just means that they were influencing thousands of young students with their progressive ideals and agendas. Not a good thing.
I have to finish this tomorrow y'all cause I am working tomorrow and I need sleep. Peace out and thanks for reading.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
History Lesson (for you and for me)
Oh guys, where do I start? I have no clue, honestly. After my last post my genius of a friend Kayla suggested that I write more about history and what has happened in the past so as to better understand what is going on right now and I thought "Duh! Why didn't I think of that?!" Well, after she made that brilliant suggestion I went and found a book that I had used as a reference in one of my papers and started reading it more in depth. The book is called The Growth of America by Clarence B. Carson and I encourage you ALL to read it. It will open up your eyes!
I started reading in the middle of the book (I'm weird like that) because I saw that the chapter name was "Progressivism". Progressivism is an ideology that links progress to reform and believes that progress can be achieved through the use of government power. I am trying to explain this as best I can, but it is really kind of hard because it's a very complicated thing to explain and I still have a lot to learn about it myself. I hope that above definition, however rough it may be, will help you though.
Progressivism started to show it's face about a hundred years ago or so in the early 1900's and one of the biggest things it did was link government instituted reforms to the idea of progress. What this did (and does) is gives people the feeling that progress is being made because the signs of progress are all around, or at least what people think the signs of progress are. Wouldn't you say that sounds like what's happening right now? I mean there is progress being made isn't there? We have computers that fit in the palm of our hand, we are going to have cars that are run off electricity pretty soon (or so we hope), and I could go on and on with things that are being made better every day. So yeah, there is progress happening, but is it the right kind of progress? You may want to be careful how you answer that question if you are out in the world somewhere like a classroom or a meeting or even just talking with friends. Why? Well because by linking government instituted reforms to the idea of progress it makes anyone who is opposed to reform look like they are opposed to progress. Again, I know this may be hard to follow, I had to read this chapter twice over just to get my head a little bit around it and I am still basically just telling you what I read in the book only in a little bit simpler terms. So, I hope you are able to get this from my scrambled way of explaining it.
Here is the thing though. This book I am reading and referencing was written in 1985! 25 years ago! And this guy who wrote it is saying the exact same stuff about progressives and big government that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, and any other true conservative right now is saying. Isn't that a little crazy? Well not really, cause here's the other thing: The guy who wrote this book has his doctorate in history. He knows that by learning about the past you can predict the future and by learning from the mistakes of the past you can try to change the future by not making those same mistakes again! Knowing our history is important guys! Now, you don't have to go crazy and all go major in history, but I think it would be a really good idea to educate yourself a little more thoroughly on history in general, but U.S. History especially. Thank you Kayla again for the suggestion! I really need to do some homework on history =).
You doing your homework and learning history is something that progressives are scared of though. Progressives are trying to change how we are educated so that we don't know about history or they make it so we don't care or they color it their way. Because they know that if we are dumb to history then we will never learn from it and as a result just go on repeating the mistakes of our fathers. Guys (and girls), lets be the first generation to prove that old saying that "History repeats itself" wrong. What do you say?
My next post is going to be about Progressive Education, where it all started, and how it has effected our country in the last 100 years. Thanks for reading. Let me know if you like this post, whether you want me to keep going on this track, or whether you want me to do something else.
I started reading in the middle of the book (I'm weird like that) because I saw that the chapter name was "Progressivism". Progressivism is an ideology that links progress to reform and believes that progress can be achieved through the use of government power. I am trying to explain this as best I can, but it is really kind of hard because it's a very complicated thing to explain and I still have a lot to learn about it myself. I hope that above definition, however rough it may be, will help you though.
Progressivism started to show it's face about a hundred years ago or so in the early 1900's and one of the biggest things it did was link government instituted reforms to the idea of progress. What this did (and does) is gives people the feeling that progress is being made because the signs of progress are all around, or at least what people think the signs of progress are. Wouldn't you say that sounds like what's happening right now? I mean there is progress being made isn't there? We have computers that fit in the palm of our hand, we are going to have cars that are run off electricity pretty soon (or so we hope), and I could go on and on with things that are being made better every day. So yeah, there is progress happening, but is it the right kind of progress? You may want to be careful how you answer that question if you are out in the world somewhere like a classroom or a meeting or even just talking with friends. Why? Well because by linking government instituted reforms to the idea of progress it makes anyone who is opposed to reform look like they are opposed to progress. Again, I know this may be hard to follow, I had to read this chapter twice over just to get my head a little bit around it and I am still basically just telling you what I read in the book only in a little bit simpler terms. So, I hope you are able to get this from my scrambled way of explaining it.
Here is the thing though. This book I am reading and referencing was written in 1985! 25 years ago! And this guy who wrote it is saying the exact same stuff about progressives and big government that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, and any other true conservative right now is saying. Isn't that a little crazy? Well not really, cause here's the other thing: The guy who wrote this book has his doctorate in history. He knows that by learning about the past you can predict the future and by learning from the mistakes of the past you can try to change the future by not making those same mistakes again! Knowing our history is important guys! Now, you don't have to go crazy and all go major in history, but I think it would be a really good idea to educate yourself a little more thoroughly on history in general, but U.S. History especially. Thank you Kayla again for the suggestion! I really need to do some homework on history =).
You doing your homework and learning history is something that progressives are scared of though. Progressives are trying to change how we are educated so that we don't know about history or they make it so we don't care or they color it their way. Because they know that if we are dumb to history then we will never learn from it and as a result just go on repeating the mistakes of our fathers. Guys (and girls), lets be the first generation to prove that old saying that "History repeats itself" wrong. What do you say?
My next post is going to be about Progressive Education, where it all started, and how it has effected our country in the last 100 years. Thanks for reading. Let me know if you like this post, whether you want me to keep going on this track, or whether you want me to do something else.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
What do you want to hear about?
I need you all to let me know what you want to hear about on my blog. I have been really out of the loop these past few months with politics mainly because I got sick of them, but also cause it was Summer and I was just chillin out. So anyway I am a little behind on things and I need to catch up so I want you all to tell me what you want to hear about and then I will start doing some research and try to inform you and maybe entertain you a little bit ;).
So tell me, what do you want to hear?
Comment below =)
So tell me, what do you want to hear?
Comment below =)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Pop quiz! Who's been listening in school?
I was listening to my good friend Glenn Beck today and it was a video that he had done with a bunch of teenagers asking them about the United States, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. It was a great video and I was really encouraged to see that there actually are other teenagers out there that have a good head on their shoulders when it comes to politics. One of the questions Beck posed to the group of teenagers was "What is the difference between a Democracy and a Republic?" The reason I am highlighting this particular question is because it's a good thing to know the difference, but I wanna ask you all a question on top of this one. First I wanna ask you what the difference is, and don't look it up. If you don't know then just say that you don't. Second, though, I want to ask you what you think of how we are set up here in America as a Democratic Republic (emphasis on republic). What do you think are some pros and cons of a democracy or a republic or both?
I take that part back about not looking it up. If you don't know then look it up cause it's kinda important to know that before you answer the second question.
So if you want to do this, then please do, because I would really like to see the responses and see what you all think.
Thanks for reading.
I take that part back about not looking it up. If you don't know then look it up cause it's kinda important to know that before you answer the second question.
So if you want to do this, then please do, because I would really like to see the responses and see what you all think.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
So sorry guys, but I am back
I'm sorry everyone. I have neglected my blog and it has just sat here....so sad, and I'm sorry for that. Today though I read something that thoroughly enraged me. I apologize for the picture you all may have gotten in your head when I said that, like "whoa! Taylor, enraged?.....SCARY!!", but I that is how I feel right now and so I am back on my blog to let it all out and hopefully get you all just a bit fired up and maybe even a little ticked off? Maybe. It depends on how you are feeling, but anyway here it is.
I got home from church and I was eating lunch at the table with my dad when he showed me an article about Daytona State College and how they are airing a program call Al-Jazeera (English version). This program is, as I said, the English version of an Arabic program that airs in the Middle East. The program contains anti-American sentiments to say the least and it is being broadcasted using taxpayer dollars! It is, in my opinion, completely outrageous! You are going to see a lot more exclamation points and a lot more intense writing in my future blog posts so I hope you all stick with me and don't get too scared.
The defense of this program is coming from very highly educated individuals who say that it's important for us to see things from different perspectives and be more open to opposing views, even if we don't agree with them (don't you love having super smart people to shed light on what us simpletons are too slow to comprehend?). Got that? Us hate-filled, gun loving, war mongering, Americans need to become more openminded to the viewpoints and beliefs of other countries and cultures. Because you know, it's not like we have been the first ones to respond to any major disaster that has happened anywhere in the world in the past 100 years (Haiti). It's not like we have been the guys who come in and settle conflicts between nations and bring peace back (WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Dessert Storm, Iraq and Israel). And it's not like we are the only country in the WORLD that is completely free in allowing any person from anywhere to come live, speak, work, worship, and prosper as they see fit. No, that's not America.....is it? Wait a minute! Yes it is!! in case you all have ever doubted this or have been deceived by the public media, we are the good guys! Remember! "On Nation UNDER GOD (whether you like it or not), indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL" Hello!! That's America! That is US!
So here it is. This is all you need to really take away from this: There is a program that Daytona State College is airing on their school televisions that is anti-American and it is being broadcasted using taxpayer dollars. I have a problem with that and I hope you all do to. I don't care who says what about America, it could be the flippen Pope for all I care, I DO NOT CARE. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. There has never been one like it and in all probability never will be again. That is all I need to know, and I do know it. More than that I believe it and no one is going to change my mind. We have screwed up, we have caused our share of problems, we still do and are going to continue to mess up, but we are still America and that is what this is really all about. Anti-American sentiments being broadcasted on public airwaves for all of the young people in the Daytona area as well as 10 other counties to hear. We don't need that! We have enough idiots in our own government that are trying to take us down as a nation, we don't need to be hearing other countries talk about how much they hate us and how evil we are (when we aren't).
You can believe whatever you want to believe, you can say whatever you want to say, and you can hold your own point of view, those are rights we have. But when you start tearing down the country that has given you those rights, then this is what I say: "Get out! Adios! See you later! We don't need you, and we don't want you!" I don't care who you are or what you believe. If you abuse the rights given to you by this great nation and use them to tear it down, then you welcome, no, more than welcome to leave!
We don't need to "hear from different people what they think of us (Americans)" and we don't need to see things form other viewpoints. I don't know when this started, but that seems to be the new thing in politics; "Be more open, more accepting, more compassionate". You can perceive, analyze, and see very clearly what a point of view is all about just by looking at it and seeing what kind of fruit comes from it. You don't need to look from that point of view yourself. You can be compassionate to people without agreeing with them or even liking them too. That's a command in the bible. And you can accept someone for who they are and still not agree with them and not like what they believe. It's unbelievable that we have come to a place where we think we all need to get a little slice of every religion, every political system, and every culture just so we can "understand" someone.
So there you go. DSC is in the wrong trying to air this program and so is anyone else who airs in on public stations. If they pay to have their own private channel then there is nothing we can do to stop them, that is their right to free speech, but on public channels, not happening!
I got home from church and I was eating lunch at the table with my dad when he showed me an article about Daytona State College and how they are airing a program call Al-Jazeera (English version). This program is, as I said, the English version of an Arabic program that airs in the Middle East. The program contains anti-American sentiments to say the least and it is being broadcasted using taxpayer dollars! It is, in my opinion, completely outrageous! You are going to see a lot more exclamation points and a lot more intense writing in my future blog posts so I hope you all stick with me and don't get too scared.
The defense of this program is coming from very highly educated individuals who say that it's important for us to see things from different perspectives and be more open to opposing views, even if we don't agree with them (don't you love having super smart people to shed light on what us simpletons are too slow to comprehend?). Got that? Us hate-filled, gun loving, war mongering, Americans need to become more openminded to the viewpoints and beliefs of other countries and cultures. Because you know, it's not like we have been the first ones to respond to any major disaster that has happened anywhere in the world in the past 100 years (Haiti). It's not like we have been the guys who come in and settle conflicts between nations and bring peace back (WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Dessert Storm, Iraq and Israel). And it's not like we are the only country in the WORLD that is completely free in allowing any person from anywhere to come live, speak, work, worship, and prosper as they see fit. No, that's not America.....is it? Wait a minute! Yes it is!! in case you all have ever doubted this or have been deceived by the public media, we are the good guys! Remember! "On Nation UNDER GOD (whether you like it or not), indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL" Hello!! That's America! That is US!
So here it is. This is all you need to really take away from this: There is a program that Daytona State College is airing on their school televisions that is anti-American and it is being broadcasted using taxpayer dollars. I have a problem with that and I hope you all do to. I don't care who says what about America, it could be the flippen Pope for all I care, I DO NOT CARE. America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. There has never been one like it and in all probability never will be again. That is all I need to know, and I do know it. More than that I believe it and no one is going to change my mind. We have screwed up, we have caused our share of problems, we still do and are going to continue to mess up, but we are still America and that is what this is really all about. Anti-American sentiments being broadcasted on public airwaves for all of the young people in the Daytona area as well as 10 other counties to hear. We don't need that! We have enough idiots in our own government that are trying to take us down as a nation, we don't need to be hearing other countries talk about how much they hate us and how evil we are (when we aren't).
You can believe whatever you want to believe, you can say whatever you want to say, and you can hold your own point of view, those are rights we have. But when you start tearing down the country that has given you those rights, then this is what I say: "Get out! Adios! See you later! We don't need you, and we don't want you!" I don't care who you are or what you believe. If you abuse the rights given to you by this great nation and use them to tear it down, then you welcome, no, more than welcome to leave!
We don't need to "hear from different people what they think of us (Americans)" and we don't need to see things form other viewpoints. I don't know when this started, but that seems to be the new thing in politics; "Be more open, more accepting, more compassionate". You can perceive, analyze, and see very clearly what a point of view is all about just by looking at it and seeing what kind of fruit comes from it. You don't need to look from that point of view yourself. You can be compassionate to people without agreeing with them or even liking them too. That's a command in the bible. And you can accept someone for who they are and still not agree with them and not like what they believe. It's unbelievable that we have come to a place where we think we all need to get a little slice of every religion, every political system, and every culture just so we can "understand" someone.
So there you go. DSC is in the wrong trying to air this program and so is anyone else who airs in on public stations. If they pay to have their own private channel then there is nothing we can do to stop them, that is their right to free speech, but on public channels, not happening!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Cut Spending and Lower Taxes
Ok so since I haven't posted in FOR-EV-ER I am posting a paper I wrote for government. You can read it, critique it (it has some grammar and spelling problems), tell me what you think, and yell at me for not posting for the past decade or so. So yeah, if you want to read it, it is probably ridiculously long and boring to you all, but I felt really bad about not posting so here it is. Also, the format is messed up because it doesn't carry over from my Word document so that will make the long boring paper even harder to read, so sorry about that. Thanks for reading.
With the economy the way it is and with government solutions proving over and over that they are inadequate there are just two things the government can do to get us out of this recession: cut spending and lower taxes. Cutting spending would obviously save the country money because the government wouldn’t be spending it. Lowering taxes would increase federal revenue, so we would be making more money.
Cutting spending is the first thing the government needs to do. Last year our government spent hundreds of billions of dollars on health care, TARP, and the federal stimulus all while our national debt was over 12 Trillion dollars. It doesn’t take a genius to know that that is not fiscally responsible. Our debt is growing every day, our dollar is losing its value, our economy is still in a recession, and yet our politicians keep spending. A little common sense would tell you that when you are in debt and when you are struggling financially you don’t keep spending; you cut down your spending. That is what our politicians need to realize and then they need to stop the irresponsible spending trends that have developed in Washington.
Cutting spending is something that comes with a price though. It would be ignorant to think that cutting spending wouldn’t mean cut backs on certain things that we as Americans have gotten used to. It would mean cutting certain government programs to save money and stabilize our dollar, but the important thing to realize is that if we continue with this reckless spending, our dollar is going to become worthless and our economy is headed for collapse. If that happens then we will lose those government programs that we were going to cut anyway. So cutting spending is not going to be an easy thing to do, but it is the only thing that is going to stop us from spending ourselves into oblivion.
We need our politicians to start being honest with us and to start making decisions based on what the people want and not on their own personal interests. President Obama’s spending freeze was something that appeared to be a good thing. At first it seemed like “yes, freeze the spending”, but “freeze” doesn’t mean “cut”. The thing that many people didn’t understand was that freeze didn’t mean cut and, that the part of the budget they were freezing was only a tiny piece of the whole budget. What that means is that they aren’t cutting spending. Freezing spending is just the government saying “we won’t spend more than we spent last year”. They aren’t stopping spending; they are just not going to go over what they spent last year. So really there is no reason to be overjoyed with the spending freeze Obama enacted. It is only going to reduce the federal budget by “less than one percent” (Spending Freeze).
The total amount of savings this spending freeze is supposed to bring is 250 Billion over the next ten years. The thing is the freeze only lasts for 3 years so I would not be expecting those kinds of savings. Fox News’ Major Garrett said this in an article he wrote about Obama’s Spending freeze: “Next year, a "non-security" spending freeze would save between $10 billion to $15 billion -- a fraction of the current $3.5 trillion budget” (Spending Freeze). So we are saving 10 to 15 Billion dollars when our budget is 3.5 Trillion. Not exactly what I would call fiscally responsible, but it sounds good and that’s really all that matters to most of our politicians.
The worst part about all of this spending that is going on in our government is that our politicians are still pushing for more. Even after the stimulus’ glaring failure to do anything except add to our debt Congress is trying to pass a second stimulus pack that is even bigger saying that the first one didn’t work because we didn’t spend enough. It is total madness and it is crippling our economy.
Then there is always Obama’s baby: healthcare. Obama’s healthcare plan will cost our government one Trillion dollars that they don’t have to give the American people something that more than half of them don’t want. Now if our politicians were making decisions based on what the people wanted and what they truly thought was good for our country is there any way they would even consider passing such a thing? No! Absolutely not, because it is unsustainable and it will plunge our economy even further into recession.
This is the kind of spending that must be stopped. It is the only way that we will ever really pull out of this recession.
The other thing that needs to happen is tax reduction. Just one look at the U.S. tax code is enough to convince anyone that our tax system needs to be seriously rethought. And not just rethought in terms of lowering or raising taxes. We need to be thinking of reforming our current system and implementing a flat, consumption based tax. Using a flat, consumption based tax would increase federal tax revenue, help small business, allow the free market system to really work, and it would be fair to all.
The Fair Tax is the one that is being pushed the most right now and it is a flat, consumption based tax. The Fair Tax:
• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS (Fairtax.org)
This tax would ensure all these things without the IRS and with only one simple tax. It would simplify our tax system dramatically and create a fair, high revenue tax system. As the Fair Tax website puts it: “The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system” (Fairtax.org).
Many people have criticized the Fair Tax saying that the use of it is not realistic and there have been many very good issues that people have brought up against it, but there has been a provision for every one of the arguments I have seen so far and that is what has led me to believe so strongly in this tax. To see some of the arguments and challenges to the Fair Tax you can go to: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main and read the Fair Tax’s defenses on many of the issues brought up against it.
One of the biggest arguments against the Fair Tax is that its rate is not high enough to generate enough federal revenue. This is a very interesting argument because of a concept that very few people know or understand. The concept is that by lowering taxes you actually increase federal revenue. Now that may seem impossible, but if you look at history it is very clearly seen that increasing taxes does not necessarily lead to higher federal revenue.
Art Laffer, a former member of President Ronald Reagan’s Administration and very well known economist, came up with what is now called the “Laffer Curve”. It is a graph used to show the relationship between tax rates and federal revenue. When explaining the “Laffer Curve” Art Laffer said this:
The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment--and thereby the tax base--by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities (The Laffer Curve paragraph 6).
Basically what he is saying is that even though lowering taxes may cause an initial drop in federal revenue the long term effects will have a positive impact on things like “work, output and employment” which will lead to increased federal revenue. To help my point a little bit I have included a picture of the “Laffer Curve” below.
As you can see there is a point of optimum tax revenue, but it is not at 100% tax or at 0% obviously. It is somewhere in between 0% and 100% and here is the thinking behind this: If there are no taxes then obviously there will be no revenue, but if there is a 100% tax then there will also be no revenue because people will not work for an after-tax wage of zero dollars (The Laffer Curve Paragraph 6). So there is a point of maximum revenue, a happy medium if you will, in between 0% and 100% and that is what the Fair Tax is trying to attain.
When taxes are raised taxpayers are not able to keep as much of what they are earning and many ordinary citizens who are tax payers are also small business owners. So when taxes go up it handicaps small businesses by not being able to keep as much of the money as they used to. As a result small businesses are not able to expand because they don’t have the money to pay more employees. Since they are not able to expand their business, they are not able to produce efficiently, which leads to smaller revenue for the business, which then leads to smaller tax revenue for the federal government.
This is why lowering taxes is so important to helping small businesses function and grow. Our economy is based on a free market system that runs on small businesses. So when we impair small businesses with high taxes we impair our entire economic system.
If we ever want to truly pull out of this recession and get our economy back on its feet then I think it’s time our government starts cutting spending and lowering taxes.
With the economy the way it is and with government solutions proving over and over that they are inadequate there are just two things the government can do to get us out of this recession: cut spending and lower taxes. Cutting spending would obviously save the country money because the government wouldn’t be spending it. Lowering taxes would increase federal revenue, so we would be making more money.
Cutting spending is the first thing the government needs to do. Last year our government spent hundreds of billions of dollars on health care, TARP, and the federal stimulus all while our national debt was over 12 Trillion dollars. It doesn’t take a genius to know that that is not fiscally responsible. Our debt is growing every day, our dollar is losing its value, our economy is still in a recession, and yet our politicians keep spending. A little common sense would tell you that when you are in debt and when you are struggling financially you don’t keep spending; you cut down your spending. That is what our politicians need to realize and then they need to stop the irresponsible spending trends that have developed in Washington.
Cutting spending is something that comes with a price though. It would be ignorant to think that cutting spending wouldn’t mean cut backs on certain things that we as Americans have gotten used to. It would mean cutting certain government programs to save money and stabilize our dollar, but the important thing to realize is that if we continue with this reckless spending, our dollar is going to become worthless and our economy is headed for collapse. If that happens then we will lose those government programs that we were going to cut anyway. So cutting spending is not going to be an easy thing to do, but it is the only thing that is going to stop us from spending ourselves into oblivion.
We need our politicians to start being honest with us and to start making decisions based on what the people want and not on their own personal interests. President Obama’s spending freeze was something that appeared to be a good thing. At first it seemed like “yes, freeze the spending”, but “freeze” doesn’t mean “cut”. The thing that many people didn’t understand was that freeze didn’t mean cut and, that the part of the budget they were freezing was only a tiny piece of the whole budget. What that means is that they aren’t cutting spending. Freezing spending is just the government saying “we won’t spend more than we spent last year”. They aren’t stopping spending; they are just not going to go over what they spent last year. So really there is no reason to be overjoyed with the spending freeze Obama enacted. It is only going to reduce the federal budget by “less than one percent” (Spending Freeze).
The total amount of savings this spending freeze is supposed to bring is 250 Billion over the next ten years. The thing is the freeze only lasts for 3 years so I would not be expecting those kinds of savings. Fox News’ Major Garrett said this in an article he wrote about Obama’s Spending freeze: “Next year, a "non-security" spending freeze would save between $10 billion to $15 billion -- a fraction of the current $3.5 trillion budget” (Spending Freeze). So we are saving 10 to 15 Billion dollars when our budget is 3.5 Trillion. Not exactly what I would call fiscally responsible, but it sounds good and that’s really all that matters to most of our politicians.
The worst part about all of this spending that is going on in our government is that our politicians are still pushing for more. Even after the stimulus’ glaring failure to do anything except add to our debt Congress is trying to pass a second stimulus pack that is even bigger saying that the first one didn’t work because we didn’t spend enough. It is total madness and it is crippling our economy.
Then there is always Obama’s baby: healthcare. Obama’s healthcare plan will cost our government one Trillion dollars that they don’t have to give the American people something that more than half of them don’t want. Now if our politicians were making decisions based on what the people wanted and what they truly thought was good for our country is there any way they would even consider passing such a thing? No! Absolutely not, because it is unsustainable and it will plunge our economy even further into recession.
This is the kind of spending that must be stopped. It is the only way that we will ever really pull out of this recession.
The other thing that needs to happen is tax reduction. Just one look at the U.S. tax code is enough to convince anyone that our tax system needs to be seriously rethought. And not just rethought in terms of lowering or raising taxes. We need to be thinking of reforming our current system and implementing a flat, consumption based tax. Using a flat, consumption based tax would increase federal tax revenue, help small business, allow the free market system to really work, and it would be fair to all.
The Fair Tax is the one that is being pushed the most right now and it is a flat, consumption based tax. The Fair Tax:
• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS (Fairtax.org)
This tax would ensure all these things without the IRS and with only one simple tax. It would simplify our tax system dramatically and create a fair, high revenue tax system. As the Fair Tax website puts it: “The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system” (Fairtax.org).
Many people have criticized the Fair Tax saying that the use of it is not realistic and there have been many very good issues that people have brought up against it, but there has been a provision for every one of the arguments I have seen so far and that is what has led me to believe so strongly in this tax. To see some of the arguments and challenges to the Fair Tax you can go to: http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main and read the Fair Tax’s defenses on many of the issues brought up against it.
One of the biggest arguments against the Fair Tax is that its rate is not high enough to generate enough federal revenue. This is a very interesting argument because of a concept that very few people know or understand. The concept is that by lowering taxes you actually increase federal revenue. Now that may seem impossible, but if you look at history it is very clearly seen that increasing taxes does not necessarily lead to higher federal revenue.
Art Laffer, a former member of President Ronald Reagan’s Administration and very well known economist, came up with what is now called the “Laffer Curve”. It is a graph used to show the relationship between tax rates and federal revenue. When explaining the “Laffer Curve” Art Laffer said this:
The basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect. The arithmetic effect is simply that if tax rates are lowered, tax revenues (per dollar of tax base) will be lowered by the amount of the decrease in the rate. The reverse is true for an increase in tax rates. The economic effect, however, recognizes the positive impact that lower tax rates have on work, output, and employment--and thereby the tax base--by providing incentives to increase these activities. Raising tax rates has the opposite economic effect by penalizing participation in the taxed activities (The Laffer Curve paragraph 6).
Basically what he is saying is that even though lowering taxes may cause an initial drop in federal revenue the long term effects will have a positive impact on things like “work, output and employment” which will lead to increased federal revenue. To help my point a little bit I have included a picture of the “Laffer Curve” below.
As you can see there is a point of optimum tax revenue, but it is not at 100% tax or at 0% obviously. It is somewhere in between 0% and 100% and here is the thinking behind this: If there are no taxes then obviously there will be no revenue, but if there is a 100% tax then there will also be no revenue because people will not work for an after-tax wage of zero dollars (The Laffer Curve Paragraph 6). So there is a point of maximum revenue, a happy medium if you will, in between 0% and 100% and that is what the Fair Tax is trying to attain.
When taxes are raised taxpayers are not able to keep as much of what they are earning and many ordinary citizens who are tax payers are also small business owners. So when taxes go up it handicaps small businesses by not being able to keep as much of the money as they used to. As a result small businesses are not able to expand because they don’t have the money to pay more employees. Since they are not able to expand their business, they are not able to produce efficiently, which leads to smaller revenue for the business, which then leads to smaller tax revenue for the federal government.
This is why lowering taxes is so important to helping small businesses function and grow. Our economy is based on a free market system that runs on small businesses. So when we impair small businesses with high taxes we impair our entire economic system.
If we ever want to truly pull out of this recession and get our economy back on its feet then I think it’s time our government starts cutting spending and lowering taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
