CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What should be the top priority of the American government in the next decade or so?
Title says it all.
Personally, I'd probably say that global warming SHOULD be top priority because otherwise the human race is pretty much screwed, and ignoring it doesn't change that. But that's just me, and I am not educated on all the going on's in the world, and there are lots of other thigns to talk about.
What do you expect will be the talking points in the upcoming election, and what should be the talking points in the upcoming election?
The next link is to another liberal website, who makes claim that our welfare system has helped the poor.
So, because they make the claim that welfare helps the poor based on data, they are wrong? I am not sure what the reasoning is here.
I am guessing you meant ED and not DOE. Well, the first example that comes to my mind would be the GI Bill or the AP program. Even if the intention was to crush the ruskies or reward the veterans, it was actually effective at increasing educational opportunities in the US. The US was actually a pioneer of secondary education (beyond literacy) during the early 20th century. It was ranked #1 for a large portion of the 20th century. So yeah, the ED benefited a lot of people for many generations.
To me effective tax reform, is really starting over. The IRS would simply be obsolete.
I am not really sure what you mean. Why not just change the current tax policy to whatever "flat tax" means to you instead of demolishing the entire infrastructure?
What exactly do you mean by "fair tax"? And who do you think would be collecting it if you abolish the IRS? If you mean to suggest that somehow the state IRS branches would continue to operate independent of the larger IRS system I am mildly incredulous, but more importantly I wonder where you think the federal government ought to get its funding from. Besides, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution permits federal taxation so the IRS does not strike me as inherently problematic even if it could use reformation.
Sudden drastic reductions in the budget would have terrible if not catastrophic repercussions. Individuals, businesses, and all levels of government need more time than a matter of months to accommodate significant alterations in finances.
Why exactly do you want to cut HUD?
Most federal lands ought to be returned to the states, but I would suggest that there may be some case by case situations where such holdings are valid (ranging from military to environmental or otherwise). There are some states in particular where federal holdings are particularly out of hand though, and unjustifiably so.
DOT could certainly be scaled back, though I lack the knowledge to assess whether I would scale it back quite so thoroughly.
You are conflating welfare with disability, and while the latter frequently correlates with the former not all cases of the former correspond with the latter. Welfare might be extended to those who cannot find employment for any reason, but particularly due to a weak economy with high unemployment as well as criminal history which is fairly prevalent due to excessive incarceration practices nationwide. Not everyone who wants to work can work in a bad economy, including those who are qualified with clean histories. And there are those who do work but who still receive government aid because working does not guarantee making a living wage in this country.
Out of curiosity... How do you feel about slashing the prison system back, repealing and/or reducing drug laws at the federal and state levels, reducing military expenses, demilitarizing local police forces, etc. These also feel like wasteful spending at best, and I am curious as to your stance on the matters.
I'd say the best thing our government could do right now would be to grant clearance to a group of independent contractors chosen by popular vote, kept under strict NDA to take the entirety of the decade to do an exhaustive cost/benefit anaylsis of everything the government has its hands in, and assisting in coming up with ways to improve the efficiency of the wasteful areas, or eliminate them where preferable and possible.
Exactly where would one find these magical independent contractors?
More importantly, if such a body could be formed would their advice be heeded and implemented despite political realities that are oppositional to them?
Further, would such a body be allowed to evaluate costs/benefits beyond traditional economic conceptions (e.g. GDP, etc.)?
Apologies, my incredulity came out as unduly sarcastic. The proposition simply struck we as being entirely unfeasible. Any person of credible knowledge is somehow affiliated, and the chance that whomever might somehow be an exception actually being selected by parties who have everything to lose by selecting them strikes me as so phenomenally low as to render it purely idealistic.
Apologies for the delay in my response, I've been offline for a couple of weeks, swamped at work and dealing with personal issues.
My biggest issue with your initial response isn't the 'magical contractors' bit. Though I do object to your choice of words there, it's a valid point that would need to be addressed. I don't have an answer for that aspect at this time- that would likely require a group effort amongst any who actually agreed with my proposition.
My biggest issue with your response was rather when you said 'More importantly, if such a body could be formed would their advice be heeded and implemented despite political realities that are oppositional to them?' This is applicable to any and all proposed programs and priorities- the only thing that this is not solidly applicable towards is maintaining the status quo. If we're acting under the assumption that the specifics of a proposed program will go ignored and/or unimplemented, then literally every idea put forth is invalidated by that assumption.
I should also note that the main goal here is not to actually 'fix' the issue of the government 'wasting money' per se. A larger issue, as I see it, is an overall lack of faith in the government at all. This has numerous affects, one of which is voter apathy and lower voter turnout. I believe that making a visible effort to acknowledge that things could be better, and demonstrating willingness to identify and improve those areas where money is being wasted could do much to improve that overall level of faith. Ultimately, what I feel we need most is more voters that are engaged with and educated regarding politics, so that we can actually make legislative changes that are in-line with the direction that america- as a people, not as a government- want to take our country.
I do believe some tangible financial benefits could arise from such scrutiny, but I freely acknowledge that I view this mostly as a PR stunt that the government could pull to alleviate some of the mistrust and tension, with the ultimate aim of 'reclaiming' those voters who are apathetic due to perceiving themselves as being de facto disenfranchised.
I suppose I should state that the top priority of the government should be to alleviate tension and encourage voter education and turnout, and that this is just one possible plan of action to START that process. It's entirely possible that the biggest issues that we should be making the largest priority are all but invisible given the status quo; even if not, certainly some factors influencing those issues are. Those won't be touched on while we're throwing rocks at each other. The government asking the populace to stop throwing rocks without actually making an effort to acknowledge mistakes and attempt to correct them is an exercise in futility, the way I see it.
My question about the efficacy of this body was not an assumption; it was a question, one which you notably avoided addressing by attempting to render it non-topical. In a discussion of what policies should be prioritized in American politics, however, the matter of solvency is not only relevant but important. Which brings me back to the interrogation: what makes you think this body could be formed, that it would remain unbiased, and that its recommendations would translate into anything of consequence?
I think that politicians have been making these promises and gestures as long as there has been a democratic system that demands an appeal to the masses. I think they are doing it now, and I think the lack of faith stems from decades of realizing these promises and gestures rarely culminate in substantively improved conditions. At best, a failed gesture will inspire moderate to low rises in confidence that are short lived (e.g. first Obama election). I agree that we need an engaged and educated electorate, but I hardly see where your proposal will actually create that unless you can demonstrate that it would lead to real changes. Another talking head making promises about a committee to which they have delegated the problem is unlikely to change multi-generational apathy derived from decades of consistently systemic poverty and other issues. The fool me once, fool me twice phenomenon if you will.
My question about the efficacy of this body was not an assumption; it was a question, one which you notably avoided addressing by attempting to render it non-topical.
It wasn't an attempt- I assert that it is not non-topical, but rather non-unique, and as such is something that needs to be addressed regardless of the plan put forth; it is not a specific criticism of the stated plan. I'll frame it with a question- can you conceive of any prioritization plan on the part of the government that is immune to (or even significantly mitigates) the issues that you have put forward with this particular plan? From where I stand, the issues you put forth are not valid criticisms of the plan itself, but rather criticisms of our government and human tendencies that are equally (or almost equally) applicable to any plan put forward. If one accepts that these are going to be issues with any plan put into play, then they aren't exactly valid as criticisims of this specific plan.
All that said.
what makes you think this body could be formed
There are numerous individuals with a background in economics that are not currently affiliated with any form of government entity, some of whom have a vested interest in the financial success of the nation. As such, the individuals who would form the body exist, therefore the body could be formed- I lack data for how difficult the process would be, as I suspect most who would put forth plans here do.
what makes you think [...] that it would remain unbiased
Nothing. I don't believe there is such a thing as an unbiased individual. I hope to address this problem by using a sizeable and diverse group reflecting multiple political and economical ideologies, the idea being to eliminate the overall aggregated bias as much as possible.
what makes you think [...] that its recommendations would translate into anything of consequence?
Transparency for all non-classified information, for one. Given that this is intended primarily as a PR move (with the potential for meaningful change), there are basically three cases we would see here for any given program.
1) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds 'no problem,' the government does nothing.
2) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds problems, the government does nothing.
3) The body of contractors inspects a program, finds problems, and the government takes steps to correct said problems based on those recommendations.
Realistically, I would expect to see all three cases. The government itself is not without its own analysts, and should this program be put into effect, the awareness is there that an outcome consisting entirely of case 1 and case 2 will backfire significantly and just make the problem worse. Real change will happen in this scenario, because case 3 will have to be in at least a significant minority for the plan to have any benefit whatsoever.
I think that politicians have been making these promises and gestures as long as there has been a democratic system that demands an appeal to the masses.
I don't believe that a systematic large-scale 'housecleaning' plan with complete transparency into all non-classified aspects has been attempted. As the usefulness of this plan is predicated on actually making some visible changes, empty words and blatant pandering aren't exactly comparable.
At best, a failed gesture will inspire moderate to low rises in confidence that are short lived (e.g. first Obama election).
This is known, and is precisely why such a plan would have to be taken seriously, given the potential for backfire.
I agree that we need an engaged and educated electorate, but I hardly see where your proposal will actually create that unless you can demonstrate that it would lead to real changes.
This proposal will not create an engaged and educated electorate- it is a necessary concession on the part of the government to foster attitudes that can eventually lead to a more engaged electorate.
Another talking head making promises about a committee to which they have delegated the problem is unlikely to change multi-generational apathy derived from decades of consistently systemic poverty and other issues.
My proposal was not that a politician make an empty vague promise about putting forth a similar plan to this one and never delivering. My proposal was that an actual plan along these lines be put into action. This is not a valid criticism about the plan I noted- it is a criticism of the politicians themselves.
Can you name a single plan of action that would yield any benefit if it was never put into action in favor of empty words?
The fool me once, fool me twice phenomenon if you will.
Do you believe that most of the population holds this view? It seems to me that below a certain threshold of intelligence, 'fool me once, fool me twice' simply doesn't occur to people, and further that above a certain threshold of intelligence, 'fool me once, fool me twice' is not applicable because the government and politicians are not seen as a single entity, but rather for the body of individuals that they are. Do you believe that the average citizen falls between these thresholds?
The talking points in the forthcoming election will likely center upon relative non-issues and avoid addressing anything of substance. Things such as abortion, same-sex marriage, grossly over-simplified views on taxation and unemployment, fallacious partisan accusations, etc.
Issues of actual importance would be things like the expanding wealth divide, environmental and resource insecurity, militarization, excessive incarceration, etc.
Beyond those issues I think we are in dire need of a more extreme restructuring. A dissolution of federal powers back to the states, departure from the divisive and ineffectual two-party model, and reconfiguration of the (inter)national economy to account for hidden costs would lead my list.
This seems so obvious I do not even understand why so few people grasp its simplicity. Then I remember what prison industrial complex means in the context of a mostly passive, ignorant electorate...
Generally speaking and especially with Marijuana I agree. I think with some substances that concern might be more valid (e.g. as with alcohol which increases incidence of domestic violence, DUI fatalities, and other harms to others), but generally those concerns always strike me as to unequivocal and overblown. The righteous body is a temple people get under my skin though, and I find their perspective perplexing.
My perspective as well. Address the actual harm rather than trying to prohibit behavior that may cause it to happen. Restricting liberty on the basis of potential harm is a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If the causes still pose a pressing concern, then address them but not with judgement or criminalization if for no other reason than that those approaches have been proven ineffectual.
Then you support alternative energy investment and fiscal deterrents for traditional energy such as coal and oil, right? You also support restrictive international trade and business policy that limits importation and requires domestic hiring quotas and headquartering for tax purposes, right? Or did you have some other suggestions beyond the more tried and true approaches? Advocating self-sufficiency is one thing, but being willing to endorse the policies necessary to realize that goal is something else altogether.
Your notion of self-sufficiency is also a bit naive. The US did not arrive where it did unintentionally. We outsource our production while limiting our advocacy for working conditions abroad in order to drive down consumer costs, and we use our military might and consumption power to maintain our dominance over our countries of production. Rather simple, actually, and even strategically and ethically defensible depending on our perspective (not a view I personally hold, for the record).
1. Simplify the tax code. A flat tax rate with no deductions would be an improvement over the clusterf##k we have today. Eliminate the distinction between capital gains and income. Eliminate the tax cap on social security.
2. Entitlement reform. Replacing welfare with workfare for all able-bodied people. Somehow effectively help people out of poverty.
3. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.
1. While the current tax system of inefficiently complex, there is something to be said against going to the opposite extreme of over-simplification. The reality is that a flat tax rate does not affect all income brackets equally, and that there are very real economic and social costs to that inequity of effect.
2. While social support infrastructure needs reconfiguration, I am not entirely sure what you are suggesting let alone if it would work. Welfare is not exclusively for the employed, and unemployment checks already require recipients to be actively applying for employment. If by "workfare" you mean to suggest supplementing wages I would suggest that this is coddling unstable and nonviable businesses to the detriment of the strength of our economy with limited returns for the working force.
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed, except that production and distribution of legitimately harmful drugs ought still to be targeted at its higher levels.
5. This seems idealistic, but not necessarily practical over the course of a decade. Any suggestions as to how this might be done without incurring more harm than benefit?
6. Agreed, although removing the redistricting process from political/financial interest would be an incredibly challenging task. To me the effort required for the return places this rather lower down on my priority list personally.
7. Agreed, although I would take it back even further and revoke corporate personhood altogether.
1. Moving to a flat tax would have many negative, short-term side affects. To mitigate these the move would need to be staged and perhaps quite gradual.
2. We need to figure out how to help people out of poverty, especially generational poverty. Almost certainly there are several factors that are to blame. I was suggesting we attempt to change peoples' patterns of behavior. Get them out doing something between 9 and 5. I was thinking only of welfare - not unemployment benefits. Workfare would require all able-bodied people to do work no one else is doing. If nothing else, fixing up homes, picking up trash, etc. This is just one idea though. We will probably need many more.
4. I agree with your clarification. Again, perhaps a staged approach would be useful. Start with the less harmful, less addictive drugs first, evaluate the consequences, then adjust the plan.
5. Perhaps idealistic, but not necessarily unrealistic. How about indexing the flat rate tax percentage? The more we spend, the higher the flat tax rate. Right now there is an apparent disconnect between government outlays and revenues. I fear this could have dire consequences. Disclaimer: If/when WWIII starts, we could resume deficit spending.
6. I wouldn't think redistricting would be that difficult. Being an engineering-type, I look at it as a mathematical (geometrical) problem. Don't let any district's shape get too wonky.
1. The negative effects of a flat rate tax are even more pronounced in the long run. A 15% tax for someone earning $20,000 annually will always be a disproportionate burden and obstacle to basic stability than it is on someone who earns $1,000,000.00 annually.
2. Welfare was never designed as a long term solution, but as a supplement to existing but inadequate income or in cases of unemployment or disability. The problem is that the investments necessary for addressing inadequate income and unemployment never materialized, causing welfare to become a long term practice even though it was not designed to function that way. Workfare would be similarly afflicted, with the additional drawback of penalizing those already employed with longer work hours and taking away from the time unemployed recipients have to search for long-term, independent employment. While welfare could benefit from reform, I think the focus being placed upon the collection of programs which comprise it is sorely misguided. Slashing funding, altering implementation, or maintaining welfare as it is will do very little to alter the fundamental economic issues underlying poverty: broken education system, lack of living wage employment options proportionate to the number of workers, over-incarceration, etc.
4. We know the economic, social, and health costs of most drugs rather well. We also know what does and does not work in terms of addressing addiction and individual consumption; namely, that incarceration makes the problems worse whereas rehabilitation, education, and other support helps. In my opinion, the only challenging component is discerning whether or not production and distribution should be criminalized and even that is rather clear cut for me in most cases. Criminalizing production and distribution has not markedly affected either, because the market is so profitable, but it has ensured that we spend a lot of money attempting to curtail it. Strictly regulated legalization would be far more effective at separating production and distribution from violent cartels and other organizations, though both the alcohol and tobacco industries stand testament to the risks of legalization.
5. The problem with an indexed flat rate tax is that it would counteract any expenditures directed at reducing poverty and economic insecurity. We would effectively be taxing out the benefits of expenditures designed to increase personal income for the lower income bracket, and with a flat rate tax this effect would be even more pronounced as the greater the targeted expenditure that greater the simultaneous reduction in income. A variable tax operating upon an index system might be more feasible, though I think that too would be delicate.
I think strategic long-term budgeting that can incorporate over-expenditure in the short-term is more feasible. This should include reducing expenditures that are unnecessary and eliminating inefficiencies (e.g. prison system), but would still permit the expenditures necessary for correcting the current economic imbalances (e.g. education). It would need to be accompanied by legislation which is not strictly economic, but which targets inefficient infrastructure which produces economic inefficiency (e.g. healthcare system, physical infrastructure, prisons, etc.).
6. The actual non-partisan redistricting would not be challenging, but successfully removing the pre-existing partisan influence and interest the prevents that would be.
7. Corporate personhood underlies many of our corporate finance issues, as well as the undue influence of corporate influence in politics. (In my estimation, at least.)
I just went out and read several articles on flat tax and what it means. Let me first clarify that I am for a flat tax rate with zero deductions. These must go hand in hand.
Since the cost of goods is fixed, a flat tax would affect the poor more than everyone else. Not my intention. How about this? What if the amount of income needed to be at the poverty line (whatever that is) is not taxed at all? Besides this, the tax rate would be flat, albeit a little greater.
Many of the articles said a flat tax would lower the tax rate of the wealthy. I know our current tax code is progressive, but with all its deductions and loopholes, how can anyone really know the effective rate paid by a wealthy household? I suspect the wealthy actually pay a lower effective tax rate than the rest of us. Of course, I have no way of knowing this, but I base my suspicious on the belief that money begets power, which in turn begets more money. With the influence the wealthy have on our government, it seems quite possible they are paying a lower tax rate after deductions.
Most people would agree that our current system is far to complex. I am still a proponent of gradually reducing deductions while flattening the tax rate (with something to protect the poor). It seems the only way of knowing we all pay a fair share.
Income tax exemption based upon the poverty line is problematic because that line does not actually reflect an even moderately stable household income. Establishing this line as the basis for exemption would likely exacerbate this reality and make it even more resistant to being raised to reflect an actually adequate income for living. There would be a definite incentive for those above the designated line to keep the line low or push it even lower to alleviate their own financial burden by spreading it across more of the population.
Even if the poverty line were an accurate reflection of minimally requisite income for a stable household, I would find it objectionable still. Basic stability afford little to no opportunity for the improvement, growth, and micro-innovation that characterize healthier economies. It makes more sense to me to implement a variable income tax because it gives us greater capacity to distribute financial burden relative to financial gain. Established and highly successful businesses and individuals benefit from the economy they operate within and I see no problem in expecting them to pay into that system proportionate to their ability. Implementing a flat tax that treats mid-level, emerging, and start-up business ventures and varied income households as having the same capacity and realized potential simply makes no sense to me.
I do agree that our current system is too complex and unnecessarily inefficient. I do not think this is inherent to a variable rate tax system, but is owing more to a proliferation of exemptions and deductions that while well-intentioned have become to numerous and complex.
(P.S. My apologies for taking so long to reply - I was without a reliable internet connection for some time. Long story.)
I believe the top priority should always be education of the electorate. Everything else depends on an informed voter (also government officials).
It would depend on the bureaucracy to carry out any meaningful reform, so I guess the main focus should be government bureaucracy. Then again, I did say that better education will improve the bureaucracy as well. Chicken and egg.
An educated electorate is anathema to the status quo in politics and governance. Nor is it likely to gain traction any time soon, given that the uneducated/unintelligent majority does not know enough to demand it.
Government bureaucracy benefits the people most capable of dismantling it, which makes meaningful reform through this tract rather unlikely though in my estimation considerably more probable than attaining an intelligent populace. A dissolution of federal powers back to the states and the (re)localization of power would render governmental bureaucracy more susceptible to deconstruction.
A dissolution of federal powers back to the states and the (re)localization of power would render governmental bureaucracy more susceptible to deconstruction.
While a smaller bureaucracy would certainly be easier to manage and regulate, many of the states have corrupt and giant bureaucracies. Many of the states can no longer function independently. With California producing a majority of the fruits/vegetables, it would have influence over all other states that currently rely on its interstate commerce. I do not see the possibility of dissolution except through civil war. Don't forget the giant lobbies that already influence politics from grass roots all the way to the presidency. The dissolution of the federal government just creates a void. There should be no need to remind you what happens when a dynasty ends.
An educated electorate is anathema to the status quo in politics and governance. Nor is it likely to gain traction any time soon, given that the uneducated/unintelligent majority does not know enough to demand it.
I disagree with you here. I think people, even the uneducated, believe an education is not only beneficial but fundamental. The current issue seems to be academics vs trade skills; ivy league vs blue collar. Both are still forms of education and rely on the fundamentals of language and math which are essential to critical thinking.
You seem to misunderstand my stance, although that may be owing to my own ambiguity. I was not advocating the total dissolution of the federal government by any means. There would still be a legitimate need for certain federal powers, including a more limited exercise of the regulation of inter-state commerce which was an original investiture of power to the federal government under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
I would also suggest that where states have become overly bureaucratic a further decentralization of power (though, again, not complete dissolution) might be a consideration with merit.
I think people, even the uneducated [...] essential to critical thinking.
I suspect we understand "education" to mean rather different things. Academic and trade schooling are not generally speaking something I would consider an "education", since neither generally encourage the independent, critical thought upon which I think successful and vibrant democracies rely upon. I confess to being rather cynical that most people are capable of genuine critical thinking; whether this is owing to poor schooling or general incapacity I would not hazard to say at present.
The only thing we disagree on would be the "best" way to develop critical thinking skills. I wasn't suggesting higher education or trade skills as the source. I meant basic language and math.
That depends entirely upon how you define critical thinking, but at best I think teaching language and math alone develops an inherently limited type of critical thought that lacks fundamental breadth. Personally, I do not think language and math teach truly critical thinking at all, at least not inherently; critical thinking would involve questioning the rules of language and math rather than merely learning those rules.
I am not sure what your local education system is like. My understanding of teaching is that it involves articulation of processes as well as analysis of premise. To only focus on processes would not count as teaching as the student would be unable to evaluate any similar processes. This would be more like training or programming.
It would be like teaching a man to fish in a specific pond without teaching the man how and why the fish are caught.
The process of mathematics reference the rules of mathematics, and the same may generally be said for language instruction. The integrity of the institutions of mathematics and language are assumed in their teaching; one is trained into the process and structure already developed around mathematics and language, and only rarely taught to think beyond those structures and challenge them with any kind of critical analysis.
I reiterate my stance that even were this not the case, learning predominantly only mathematics and/or language fails to provide the breadth of knowledge and reasoning I consider necessary to inform any process of thought meriting the label of critical thought. One of the greater detriments to education in my estimation is the segregation of fields from one another as independent fields with minimal inter-relation. In my estimation, critical thought must include not only an understanding of these fields but also the ability to assess them in relation to one another and to synthesize between them.
The integrity of the institutions of mathematics and language are assumed in their teaching; one is trained into the process and structure already developed around mathematics and language, and only rarely taught to think beyond those structures and challenge them with any kind of critical analysis.
First, language is different from mathematics. That was why I brought them up together to include two modes of learning. One is static, the other is fluid.
Second, in order to understand how/why a process works (which goes beyond learning to repeat the process), you have to analyze the way the process is developed. This is key to critical thinking/analysis. This is the key to learning in general.
learning predominantly only mathematics and/or language fails to provide the breadth of knowledge and reasoning I consider necessary to inform any process of thought meriting the label of critical thought.
What would you define as critical thought? This might be where our disagreement arises.
One of the greater detriments to education in my estimation is the segregation of fields from one another as independent fields with minimal inter-relation. In my estimation, critical thought must include not only an understanding of these fields but also the ability to assess them in relation to one another and to synthesize between them.
Again. I have no idea what type of system your country uses.
From my perspective, the higher you go, the more integration there is. As you move beyond learning the foundations of language and math in primary/secondary education, you begin to see more integration of subjects. For language, higher education offers a wide breadth of writing types each with their specific focus. A student of scientific writing will learn why certain syntax/structure reduce bias. Through this, they would be able to analyze the reasons for bias in communication. This would be different from a student of expository writing. The focus would be on presentation of bias. On the topic of bias, they would be analyzing it from different perspectives. This is just one random example.
For math, it is integrated into many subjects like physics, economics, biology, anthropology, computer science and so on. Each uses it in a slightly different way.
2. Entitlement reform. Government employed doctors certify who is really unable to do any kind of work. Those recipients of welfare who can work must work to receive benefits.
4. End the war on drugs.
5. Eliminate deficit spending. Take Georgia for an example: implement a balanced budget law - constitutional amendment maybe?
6. Put an end gerrymandering.
7. Eliminate the US D.o.Edu.
8. Remove DOT and leave coordinating to the States.
We should give up on all global warming initiatives.
If the sun is responsible for GW, then there's little we can do and we could save a lot of money and spend it on something else, like giant umbrellas that block UV light.
If the problem is man made, then we need to get rid of people to reduce the problem. If we do nothing, it will get worse, people will die and the problem will correct itself.
In the conservative states, cuts are being made to welfare, education, and so on. Conservatives always scream "not my wallet" when liberals try to help the poor.
Better education system. Don't just throw money at the problem. Highest spending per capita in the world has done nothing and will continue to do nothing.
