We do not have any kind of debate here. We have the same kind of free-for-all that is found on every other board on the internet. We essentially have the same arguments over and over again with no chance for any serious discussion.

And you don’t get it any more than Barak Hussein Obama does. If you are President of the United States you owe allegiance to the United States and only the United States. You shake hands with foreign heads of state, you do not bow to them.

BTW: What would Barak Hussein Obama have to do or fail to do for you to conclude that his is a failed presidency?

Actually, nationalizing the public schools system so that every school uses the exact same textbooks and curriculum materials should reduce the cost since schools could buy in bulk. It kills me when a private for-profit company like (@$#@^%&^$%&%(&)&$^%$#@%#&%$^#@) Wal-Mart can buy things like toilet paper in bulk for practically nothing, but the government, which should have greater purchasing power than a hundred Wal-Marts, cannot buy anything without paying through the nose.

“I don't think this is true, if the price was reasonable and the difference was made obvious, I think there would be a large market for this kind of school.”

We have a local private school here that has a boarding school component and I heard several years ago that tuition and room and board at this school was $30,000 a year. Florida offers two scholarships for private schools- one is for schools that teach the public school curriculum and which must administer the state’s standardized exams; the other is for brats that any school can take with no strings. Needless to say of the 100+ private schools in my part of Florida only a half-dozen or so take the scholarship that comes with the standardized testing- but they all take the scholarship that comes with no strings. If your child has failed a year in public school and has been diagnosed with any kind of learning disability (i.e., he’s a brat), you can send him to any private school in town with the state paying the full cost of tuition. A school taking these students can make money hands-over-fists while graduating the next generation of burger-flippers. Most parents here that would want their child in a good college prep school could not afford or would not pay to send their child to a private school (we have 2 nationally recognized public college prep magnet schools). And my experience on the net tells me that few parents would accept the 45 week school year that my curriculum would require.

Beside the point for this debate, but you know this how?

You’re telling me. Once when I worked for a tutoring service I had students for 8th grade math who went to different public schools and used different textbooks. And then I had 3 8th grade math students from the exact same public school who were using the same textbook but because they had different teachers they were not covering the same material since the teachers were allowed teach whatever they wanted to teach.

“A national school system would help ensure that each student is given the same opportunity and that poorer schools can be given money needed to educate the students to the same level as schools in rich areas.”

I have seen too much money wasted in public schools (and private ones as well) to believe that money spent is a good indicator of quality. Raising and standardizing teacher qualifications will do more than simply spending money will. By private industry standards public school teachers in Florida make very good money (starting salary for a new teacher with no classroom experience here is at least $30,000 a year). But at the same time I don’t see how we can expect anyone to want to work in some public schools for what teachers get paid. No amount of money is worth putting your life on the line on a daily basis outside of war and this is precisely what we expect some public school teachers to do.

“All schools should educate students to the same levels and there should be no way for a student to do less work, try less, and take easier classes while still receiving a diploma that carries as much weight as a hard-working, intelligent student.”

Ever since I got out of college I have wanted to establish a non-profit K-12 school that would have a 45-week school year and a reformed curriculum that would let students graduate with the equivalent of an associate’s degree. But I seriously doubt that there would be a market for such a school because most parents do not care.

Furthermore, each school created for this national school system should have a board of directors consisting of the parents/guardians of the students enrolled and this board would have the power to set disciplinary standards for the school, hire school administrators and teachers and make regulations regarding religious observances.

The federal government should provide a minimum level of funding for each school (mainly $50,000 teacher salaries) and each school should be allowed to use BINGO games and lotteries as fundraisers if the school is located in a state where the government runs a lottery.

The national curriculum should not include any material pertaining to the origin of life or the history of life, i.e., evolution and creationism/intelligent design should not be addressed.

The solution to public schools with low standards is not private schools with no standards.

Neither private schools, nor home-schools in Florida are regulated by state law in regards to their curriculum, teacher qualifications, accreditation or student testing. As a consequence there are at least 100 private schools in my part of Florida and with very rare exception they are simply diploma mills for brats that cannot or will not do the work required by public schools. In the absence of government regulation private schools do not work and cannot serve as an alternative to public schools.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy and this is how the Founding Fathers wanted it to be since they feared democracy as nothing more than mob rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

The British King cannot establish law courts without Parliament’s consent, nor can he act as a judge in any court proceedings. The same is true for the U.S. President.

Only Parliament can levy taxes, as is the case with the Congress under the U.S. Constitution.

British subjects have a right to petition the crown for redress of grievances- comparable to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The British government cannot have standing armies during peacetime; under the U.S. Constitution Congress can establish and maintain an army providing that money for the purpose cannot be appropriated more than 2 years in advance. The British Army cannot be deployed against British subjects without Parliament’s permission except during wartime. As commander-in-chief the President of the U.S. can call on the national guard to enforce federal law as per federal law even in peacetime. In this regard the President has more power than the king.

Protestants could bear arms in their own self-defense. The right to bear arms in self-defense was inherent in American society long before the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

British subjects have freedom of speech comparable to the U.S. 1st Amendment.

Members of Parliament have freedom of speech while in Parliament. Members of the U.S. Congress cannot be sued for anything they say during the proceedings of the Congress.

The British government cannot impose cruel or unusual punishment or impose excessive bail; comparable to the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

No British subject can be punished for a crime without a trial and Congress cannot pass any bill of attainder.

Furthermore, English subjects had enjoyed a right to trial by jury, due process of law and a speedy trial for over 500 years as per the Magna Charta.

My information can be found in any number of history/political science textbooks and anyone who has been exposed to high school American History/Government would be familiar with the information.

“Without a doubt, the type of government that was set up by the founding fathers of the United States was not only very different from that of Britain at the time, but it is also much more flexible and much weaker with respect to the figurehead.”

Sources? Sources? Sources?

Where are your sources for this information? What powers did the British government have that the U.S. federal government did not have?

[quote]Sure, the President is a powerful person, but nowhere near as powerful as a King.[/quote]

You obviously do not know history. Ever since the first of the Hannovers arrived in London without knowing a word of English the political power of the Crown has been sorely diminished.

As long as supply and demand are in equilibrium there will be no change in price. If the price for something goes up it either means that there are more consumers or the same number of consumers want to buy more or there are fewer producers or the same number of producers are producing less than they were before or the supply of raw materials has declined relative to demand over time so it costs more to produce the same amount of finished product.

What we are having now- high consumer prices and high unemployment- is just what we had during the Carter Administration. You cannot stimulate an inflationary economy- something Carter tried doing with $50 government stimulus checks. The economy couldn’t produce enough energy and food and manufactured goods to meet consumer demand. People who had money would try to buy more than they needed or could use right away because they knew that if they waited to buy, prices would go up in the meantime. Inflation in the late 1970s became a self-fulfilling prophecy. We are not far from the same thing now.

But either way our tax code is skewed to tax the rich. The working poor and the middle class are pretty much one and the same thing when it comes to taxes. They both either have little taxable income relative to the rich or their deductions erase whatever taxes they do pay.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

This data is in a table format; I don’t know how it will show up here:

Individual Income Tax Due in 2008,

Bush Law versus Clinton Law

For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children

Taxpayer Tax That Would Have Been Owed under Clinton-Era Tax Law Tax Owed under Current Law, with Bush Tax Cuts

Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25

Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25

Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50

Married, income of $60,000 $6,585.00 $5,512.50

Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25

Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50

Single, income of $125,000 $29,378.50 $26,472.25

Married, income of $125,000 $23,426.50 $19,462.50

*This chart does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004657.html

People with an annual income greater than $364,657 file only 1% of the total number of federal income tax returns, but they pay 38.39% of all federal income taxes that are collected.

People with an annual income greater than $103,912 file only 10% of the total number of federal income tax returns, but they pay 70.3% of all federal income taxes that are collected.

50% of the people who file federal income tax returns earn less than $30,881 but they pay 3.07% of all federal income taxes that are collected.

Immanuel Velikovsky

Herman Wouk

Judy Garland

Victor Borge

William Harvey

John Adams made it a point to provide legal counsel to the British soldiers that were charged in the Boston Massacre. Adams wanted to show the world that America was not a lawless frontier on the outskirts of civilization. Adams wanted everyone to know that law and order was still in place in America. Adams wanted the world to know that Americans were not opposed to legitimate government.

Furthermore, Americans with money and social prestige behind them were appalled by the destruction of private property that resulted from the Boston Tea Party, when the redistribution of property is usually the goal of revolutions (French, Russian, Cuban, Mexican).

And then the Constitution gave the federal government pretty much the same powers that the British government in London had exercised over and which Americans were supposedly rebelling against- if you believe the libertarians’ spin on history.

Contrary to what libertarians would have us believe, the American Revolution was not about getting less government.

You obviously haven’t purchased groceries any time in the past 20 years. If supply had kept up with demand, grocery prices would be the same now as they were 10-20 years ago. Over the past few years I have seen price hikes for groceries that remind me of Jimmy Carter’s stagflation.

The same is true for taxes. We have better options that soaking the rich. Taking someone’s money just because they have money that can be taken and laws on the books saying doing so is OK may be legal, but it also immoral in the extreme.