GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PUBLIC SCHOOL

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PUBLIC SCHOOL

If they would educate our kids’ government sponsored schools may not be so bad.  But when they are not educating and test scores are steadily going down each year, I see no need for public schools.

Ever since the government create the DOE and started throwing money at schools back in the 60’s, thing have progressively gotten worse.

Since 1962, SAT verbal scores have declined despite billions of federal dollars pumped into public education. The more federal money Congress pumps into education the worse it gets. Why? Because educational malpractice is very expensive, and without federal funding we’d have much less of it.

Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area.  The national average in fiscal year 2009 was $10,499, a 2.3 percent increase over the previous year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, citing data from Public Education: 2009.

Federal education grants subsidize the liberal academic elite with its secular humanist, socialist agenda, thus violating the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a state religion. It's a religion that preaches conformity, forces you into dependency, and teaches you to spend your life doing what everyone else tells you to do:  Humanism.

According to the pro-education reform documentary Waiting for ‘Superman,’ one out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine.

One out of every 97 lawyers loses their license to practice law.

In many major cities, only one out of 1000 teachers is fired for performance-related reasons. Why? Tenure.

Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job. So that they would feel protected if they took a political stance that disagreed with the local school board or community.  Also to work as a check against administrators purposefully firing teachers and replacing them with friends or family members. 

We are often told that free-thinking academics need the security of tenure to preserve academic freedom and open debate. Really?


Far from securing a free and open academic culture, tenure can have the opposite effect. 
Colleges and universities want to give jobs and tenure only to qualified applicants—and qualified applicants are those who think the same way as the already tenured professors on the tenure review committees. So, no, tenure does not encourage a fluid, energetic, and open-ended culture of intellectual give-and-take. Rather, tenure encourages conformity, like values, total equality at any cost, and forces you into a thought process of dependency.

After around the 5th grade, schools in this country don't teach anything useful anyway. They break students down into the mindset that they need to listen to their self-appointed superiors. They promote the fact that students need to listen to the teachers, and not question what they say. They teach us to be cogs in the machine. As a result of this blind obedience, many questions go unanswered, and many answers go unquestioned.

I have an example of our local school system.  When my daughter was in the 5^th grade, 11 & 12 year olds, in her spelling class at the beginning of the year, every student took a test to get what I believed the teacher called a “bowling” score.  You would be tested on how many questions you missed on a impromptu spelling test.  Some kids scored very well, they earned a 90, 95, and even a 100.  And some received scores of 50, 45, 40, and some lower.  So when it came time for the real test a few weeks later, each child would get out a newspaper and as a class read it for current events, then the teacher would tell the children to choose 10 words out the story they had just read.  Some of the words these 11 & 12 year olds choose were, the, them, it, dog, foot, we, etc.  Then the teacher would choose 10 words from the story.  Her words were like, attend, banker, breakfast, household, etc.  So the teacher would collect all 20 words and put them on the test.  Now if a student that had a bowling score of 95, if she missed 1 word she would still get a 100 on the test.  Now the child that had a bowling score of 40, he could miss 12 out of 20 words…he could still get a 100 on his test. 

I also work with 4, 5, & 6^th graders at Church that attend public school.  The majority of them can’t spell, several have trouble reading, and most can barely write legibly.
And all this is in the name of “Fairness”.  I don’t see how this is fair to any of the students.  The one that has a score of 95 not only gets discouraged because she works hard to get her score, but the other child just shows up and doesn’t care, doesn’t study or even try, but yet still gets a score of 100.  And then in the long run, he hasn’t been taught.  How is he going to be able to get a good job when he gets out of school?  More than likely he will be on the government dime, but isn’t that one of the things that having tenure teachers promote?

I don't know why schools use these idiotic teaching methods. I think they get away with it because the public schools are government-run monopolies. Most everything government controls turns to poison and I don't see why public schools should be any different. Public schools don’t go out of business no matter how bad they are or how stupid their teaching methods because they are government monopolies. That’s a prescription for education disaster. 

More people need to form some type of community private school.  My daughter is home schooling her 2 children.  They both could use sign language before they were 1.  They both could read words like clap, head, nose, before they were 1.  My grandson is 28 months old and knows how to count to 10 and show you each one of them.  He can say all his alphabets and put them in order when picking them up from a pile.  He can also say and point out most Presidents of the USA.

The United States government says that everyone has a “right” to a free education.  Instead, they gave us school.  Obviously, there has been a failure to communicate somewhere along the line.  You can refuse any of your "rights" if you so choose……. So why are children forced to go to school?  Doesn’t sound like a "right"….

Right (n.) - a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.

Obligation (n.) - something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.

Which category does school fall under?  Obligation, of course, school is something that millions of students are bound and obliged to attend.  Unfortunately, many people don't see the problem that lies within this system.  "School is good," they're told, and they listen without question.  Now you want to know why this so-called "education" system is so bad, I'm sure.  Simply put, it discourages individual thinking.  It takes in children and pumps out robots.  Why is this continuing? 

WAKE UP AMERICA

The Five Basic Forms Of Government Explained

Hermain Cain Educates Clinton on Economics in 1994 HC Town Hall Forum

Must see TV from an interview if Clinton and Cain in 1994 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vy542UgSelQ

INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION

INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION

There are usually two lines of thinking when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.  The first is to say that it needs no interpretation, that is can just be read.  The second is that the Constitution should be interpreted using rules that are applicable to today’s society.

The founders did believe that the Constitution should be interpreted, but they also believed that the interpretation should and would be limited by long established legal rules and guidelines.

At the time the Constitution was put together, the fundamental guideline for interpreting a legal document was that the document be construed according to the intent of the people putting the document together.

The Constitution should be interpreted by what the ratifiers understood the Constitution to mean.  But sometimes there is a lack of evidence of what certain phrases mean.  In that case you should interpret the Constitution in the same way a reasonable, involved person would have construed it at the time.

 

HISTORY SHOWS HOW LOWER TAX RATES HELP THE ECONOMY

One thing we can see from our history is that when tax rates were high the economy slowed, but when taxes were cut, the economy prospered.

An article from the Cato Institute explains:

 “Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows.” 

There are four distinct examples of instances of U.S. tax-rate reductions that illustrate the point.

(1)  In 1913 when the Federal Tax system was enacted the rate was 7% for the top wage earners, 1% for the lowest earners. President Wilson said that the rates would not go any higher, yet 3 years later the rate was 15% for the highest wage earners.  By 1918 the rates were 6% for the lowest and 77% for the highest.  And America's real Gross National Product (GNP) fell by 16 percent between 1919 and 1921.

Then in 1921 congress passed the Revenue Act and started lowering the tax rates.  The top rate fell to 56% for the top wage earners.  Treasure Secretary Andrew Mellon, who proposed the tax cuts, explained his rationale:

"The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people." 

In 1921 federal revenues collected were $719 million (73% rate) and by 1928 revenues collected were $1.164 Billion with a top rate of 25%.  Between 1922 and 1929, America's real GNP grew at an average annual rate of 4.7 percent, and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent.

Notably, as tax rates were reduced, the share of the tax burden paid by the rich (those earning $50,000 or more in those days) rose from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928. Moreover, taxes paid by people earning in excess of $100,000 soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year.

(2) Then in the 30’s  Herbert Hoover dramatically increased tax rates and Franklin Roosevelt had pushed marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent.  President John F. Kennedy recognized that high taxes were hindering the U.S. economy. Kennedy cut rates from 91 percent to 70 percent.

As a result of Kennedy's tax cuts, the federal government's tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent.

And like in the 1920s, the share of the income-tax burden borne by the rich increased following the Kennedy tax cuts. Tax collections from those earning more than $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose by just 11 percent. Consequently, high earners saw their portion of the income-tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

(3)  In the 80’s, Regan pushed an across the board 25% tax cut for everybody.   And as a result, revenues rose by 99%.  The average annual growth rate of America's real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1983 to 1989 was 3.8 per cent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981. 

From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs or roughly 2 million new jobs each year.

Also, the share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent of earners saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

(4)  In 2001 the Bush administration passed income-tax cuts that lowered individual tax rates by about 7% on the low end of the income spectrum, and around 9% percent on the high end. Two years later, capital gains tax rates were lowered from 20 percent and 10 percent to 15 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Cumulatively, these cuts led to a period of economic prosperity that lasted until the housing crisis of 2008.

WHY I CAN’T VOTE FOR RON PAUL (UNLESS HE IS RUNNING AGAINST OBAMA)

I like a lot of things he stands for, but he loses me on his drug policy, his military policies and the last thing is, is he is just another politician. 

Case in point: In an interview with Tim Russert, Ron Paul was asked about his pork barrel spending. Ron said, "I have never Voted for any pork barrel spending" (here is where the politician comes out). This statement is true, but there is more to the truth that he doesn't tell you.

Ron would load up a bill, that he knew was going to pass no matter how he voted, with pork projects for his district in TX. Then he would vote no for the bill, and the bill would pass, and the money (pork) went to his district. (This may explain how he has gotten re-elected for all these years) 

This is the biggest reason why I can't vote for him, (unless he is running against Obama). 

He has been a congressman for over 20 years. 

He is a Rhino and he has to go, even as a congressman.