News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

My Policy Changes for America

Started by Rizuidad, July 21, 2011, 05:36:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rizuidad

It's not secret that Los Estados Unidos are in bad shape. I don't claim to know everything. I'm certainly not an expert in the field of policy, though I have read extensively in the real of economics and am familiar with agricultural development and urban local planning. In any case, I am of the opinion that the United States is suffering from a breakdown in critical government structures and leadership. What I would propose to be done in the way of policy change is to increase spending on capital goods, decrease spending on consumption, nationalize education, and utilize the romnian healthcare system.

Capital goods are differentiated from consumption in that capital goods represent investments towards longevity. Capital goods usually are reusable, or designed to be fixable, while consumable goods are usually disposable. Not only this, but Capital goods can be extended to increase production of more goods. Capital goods increase manufacturing capacity, increase agricultural output, and create jobs.

I would encourage the creation of capital goods by offering tax breaks to business that create capital goods. And by placing tax duties on imports of consumer goods. I would maintain the federal sales tax.


The education system in this country is a mix of different associations and organization. These programs often conflict and clash with each other, creating problems in how children are educated. Following the principle that if there must be an organization to regulate education, then one organization will do it, A separate NGO will be created  and given the authority to regulate educationn. It certainly isn't the optimal solutioin, but this is not a perfect world. The romnian healthcare system has already proven to ensure  the entire state of Massachusets and still cut down on waasteful spending. I would propose to adopt it posthaste.

Tank

I would just raise one point regarding education. Do not centralise it as it becomes a political ping-pong ball, subject to the vagaries of political posturing and dogma. This is what has happened in the UK and it has crippled (and continues to cripple) our young people by continually measuring them against performance criteria set by government. We are brining up kids to know everything and understand nothing in a tick box system that cripples creativity, individuality and free thought. If you retain variety and free choice in the education system at least some kids will get a good education and hopefully enough to lead the country, science and business in the future.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

The Magic Pudding

I think we share a problem with the USA, popular news media seems to be diseased.  I think the US infected us, the disease mutated into Murdoch and we shared our wonderful contribution to globalisation.

QuoteInstead of working through a larger, long-term vision - as an opposition party preparing for government might - Australia's conservative parties have taken a page from the US Republican playbook, embracing one negative, short-term populist campaign after another. Australia is now on course to become the only advanced economy outside the US where rejecting climate science remains a mainstream part of conservative politics.

Australia stands at an intersection. Can Australians be convinced to forgo short-term benefits to secure greater prosperity in the future?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/mature-debate-on-our-future-needed-not-tea-partystyle-militancy-20110714-1hfra.html

Popular media is making mature debates difficult, billionaires sponsor shock jocks who somehow convince people the billionaires interests are theirs.
I have no idea how to fix this, our national broadcaster seems to give a balanced view, they are hated for it by some.

Rizuidad

@Tank: Yes, I certainly share your beliefs about the Education system, and your concerns about it being a political ping-pong ball are well founded. I'm sure that we both can agree that in any broken system, like the United State's current one, there are some shining stars that do manage to gain a true education and become good, great leaders of the country. I believe that it would be the same under a nationalized education system, however, my primary reason in nationalizing the system was to minimize as much waste as possible.

Possibly, if done with a minimum of errors, the system could minimize wasteful expenditures, increase funding, and give the average child at least as good a chance as with the same system, if not more. Of course, I'm sure we can both agree that one should never, "let schooling get in the way of education".

I hope we can understand each other.

Tank

Quote from: Rizuidad on July 23, 2011, 05:22:57 AM
@Tank: Yes, I certainly share your beliefs about the Education system, and your concerns about it being a political ping-pong ball are well founded. I'm sure that we both can agree that in any broken system, like the United State's current one, there are some shining stars that do manage to gain a true education and become good, great leaders of the country. I believe that it would be the same under a nationalized education system, however, my primary reason in nationalizing the system was to minimize as much waste as possible.

Possibly, if done with a minimum of errors, the system could minimize wasteful expenditures, increase funding, and give the average child at least as good a chance as with the same system, if not more. Of course, I'm sure we can both agree that one should never, "let schooling get in the way of education".

I hope we can understand each other.
I think I understand exactly what you are saying. The amusing thing is what you are saying is exactly what the Labour party in the UK was saying before it completely buggered up our system. The road to hell was paved with good intentions. I think I should mention that my wife has been delivering education to a range of people since 1995 and it is through her experience that I have gained my understanding. She has been involved in meetings with Government ministers and has come away despairing at there naive and shallow attitude to the processes they were responsible for.

The problem in the UK was that the system became totally results driven and schools were rated on their performance and league tables published. This lead to a ridiculous level of focus on outcomes at the complete disregard of the well-being of the individual. Teaching turned into task driven training.

Politicians started to rule the curriculum. Not only in content but in delivery too so the natural mentor style creative teaching was stifled. Loads of great teachers left the education system because they had some inspector telling them how to teach!

Centralised education policy can work, it does in France in Sweden. But they learned the pitfalls many years ago and their cultures respect the professional to do a good job while in the UK people are presumed to be incompetent.

Ideologically what you are proposing is good. But the implementation has the potential to be catastrophic. Given the appalling inability of American power blocks to be able to effectively cooperate with each other the thought of making education a political issue in the same way that medical care  is a truly horrifying thought.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

fester30

Romneycare and Obamacare I think are both broken.  It hurts the lower middle class unevenly.  The poor will be provided health care, and the rich can afford it.  The ones who will be hurt the most will be those who make just enough money to not qualify for the free health care.  The health care prices will really hurt them.  As it is, if an emergency happens to these people and they don't have health care, they will get free stabilizing service in the hospital, and prices will be increased on services to those who can afford it or do have insurance.  This person would not have to pay fines for not having insurance.  With these Romney and Obama plans, this person will get fined.  So this person is better off without these plans.  In this way, we are already using a form of socialized medicine, as those who can afford it pay for those who cannot. 

The only way to go capitalist with health care and lower prices is to change laws to force hospitals to get proof of insurance before treating anybody with any ailment.  Even if you are having a heart attack, you're out of luck unless you have proof of insurance.

That is heartless and cruel and will never happen.  The only way to cut costs and improve the system to keep health care from driving our country into the ground now would be to completely socialize it.  Health care should be available to all and paid for by taxpayers.  Some services would suffer, mainly those on the leading edge of research and development that help really old rich people live to be really, really old rich people because they are the only ones who can afford it.  But everybody would be covered, including those who currently are not.  We use taxes to support our police, fire, and rescue, but not our emergency medical services.  They all use lights and sirens on their vehicles.  If everybody gets health care, fewer will be able to use the excuse that they cannot get their ailments taken care of so that they can work.  They won't be able to get away with laziness by saying they can't afford healthcare.

This would take the place of medicare and medicaid.  Sure, we'd have to raise taxes.  However, people would no longer have to pay for health insurance.  Companies also would not have to pay for health insurance for their workers, and could raise salaries.  Overall, I believe it will save the average American money, and we could fix a lot of our budget problems with this and wind up actually freeing up some money to create more jobs. 

Also, we need to bring our troops home.  I'm in the Air Force and I'm telling you we have much too large a military.  Spread all over the world as it is makes it very easy to be the world's police, and in fact the world expects this.  The UN security council voted to bomb Libya.  The US, UK, and France did the bombing while Russia and China sat on the sidelines.  Russia and China always sit on the sidelines because they know we'll take care of the world's problems and they can sit back and enjoy the savings.

Before WWII, Congress actually had to declare war and institute the draft for us to fight anybody.  Our military was only large enough for self defense.  If we had to go to war, emergency powers that come with a declaration of war were necessary to ramp up the war effort.  We had to turn factories into defense contractors.  Auto companies, for example, were making tanks and jeeps and airplanes.  Nowadays, we have such a presence in the world that it's far too easy to go to war, and is one of the largest three parts of our budget.  The US Department of Defense is the largest user of petroleum IN THE WORLD!

If we were a self defense force with only a few transportation hubs out there, we would be smaller, would cost the taxpayers much less, and would deter Presidents and Congress from fighting wars we have no business fighting.  We put our military in all these places to defend our interests, and our foreign trade suffers for it.  You know how China goes about their business?  Not with foreign military presence.  They go to another country and say "Hi, I'm China.  Nice to meet you.  I would like to sell you my shit, and discuss allowing you to sell me your shit.  What do you think?"  It works.

With all the savings from defense cuts, we could repair our roads and bridges, upgrade our electrical grid, and put a Europe-style rail system in areas such as the east coast and west coast where there are a lot of people.  Rail would be difficult in the middle of the country with so much open space, but I think helpful in those other areas.  All these projects would also create jobs.

Rizuidad

@fester, we both agree that healthcare is as important as ever. My understanding of the romnian system is that it is socialized medicine. While I understand that socialism is not the most popular, wealthy individuals or not all contribute to society. It is easy to forget that taxes are an efficient way to do that. This is why I believe public goods are public goods. Raising taxes to pay for healthcare is a public good, as I'm sure we both can agree. I decided to go with the romnian system because it seems to save money while raising taxes the least.

Also, pardon the formatting. On a cell phone right now.

Rizuidad

@tank

I was thinking something more along the lines of Japan's ministry of education. Something outside normal government oversight.

Crow

Quote from: Tank on July 21, 2011, 05:45:28 PM
I would just raise one point regarding education. Do not centralise it as it becomes a political ping-pong ball, subject to the vagaries of political posturing and dogma. This is what has happened in the UK and it has crippled (and continues to cripple) our young people by continually measuring them against performance criteria set by government. We are brining up kids to know everything and understand nothing in a tick box system that cripples creativity, individuality and free thought. If you retain variety and free choice in the education system at least some kids will get a good education and hopefully enough to lead the country, science and business in the future.

I couldn't agree more. The system I grew up with was teaching how to take tests and doesn't seem to have changed, if you have ever seen season four of The Wire this aspect of teaching is exactly what they attack.

@Rizuidad, What would you do about the drug problem as that has massive social issues that resonate through the entire of society and the current solutions are seriously not working. Im not sure if you will be able to get it in the States but check it out Our Drug War - Episode 2
Retired member.

Tank

Quote from: Rizuidad on July 24, 2011, 06:40:02 AM
@tank

I was thinking something more along the lines of Japan's ministry of education. Something outside normal government oversight.
I'm not familiar with the Japanese sytem but a totally apolitical organisaion does sound like a better idea.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: Rizuidad on July 24, 2011, 06:40:02 AM
I was thinking something more along the lines of Japan's ministry of education.

There used to be a stereotype that Japan used a lot of rote learning.
I don't know if it was justified in the past or if it is different now.

fester30

#11
Quote from: Rizuidad on July 24, 2011, 06:36:51 AM
@fester, we both agree that healthcare is as important as ever. My understanding of the romnian system is that it is socialized medicine. While I understand that socialism is not the most popular, wealthy individuals or not all contribute to society. It is easy to forget that taxes are an efficient way to do that. This is why I believe public goods are public goods. Raising taxes to pay for healthcare is a public good, as I'm sure we both can agree. I decided to go with the romnian system because it seems to save money while raising taxes the least.

Also, pardon the formatting. On a cell phone right now.

Romnian healthcare is very similar to Obamacare.  Neither are socialism, but many people believe it is due to Fox News coverage.  They have that much influence.  Both favor insurance companies.  You must purchase health insurance or get fined if the government figures you make enough money.  The healthcare system is still privately owned and run.  Single payer would put the billing and payment in the healthcare system under government control, it would be funded through taxes, and take insurance companies out of it.  There would also be more controls on prices.

Rizuidad

@Crow

For the drug war, I would support funding for drug rehabilitation programs, and education and preventative measures towards preventing kids from getting hooked on drugs in the first place. Funding programs like after school programs would have to be done at the local level, of course, but I would offer incentives for state governments to attack the solution by providing constructive environments to take children off the streets, and to educate and prevent addiction.

My approach would be similiar to the way anti-smoking campaigns reduced demand for cigarrettes in the 80's, 90's, etc. With luck, if demand falls, the drug cartels might be forced out of business. And the drug cartels are primarily businesses, after all.