American Politics

[svachon 3]

Here's why Reagan was a great president.
President Carter was as liberal a politician.  President Reagan was a conservative politician.

When Carter left office our economy was a wreck – highest inflation rate since 1947 at 13.6%, unemployment at 10.4%, rationing and long lines for gasoline.

 

Reagan, a conservative did four things-reduce growth of government spending, reduced marginal tax rates, reduces govt. regulations, control the money supply to reduce inflation (i.e.- get govt out of the way and give the money back to people and businesses).  The result – inflation fell from 13.6% to 4.1%, unemployment 10.4% to 3.7%, and the private sector created over 16 million new jobs (notice I did not say the govt. created these jobs) and the economy grew by almost 1/3. 

(Sources: http://www.squidoo.com/Reaganomics-Economy and http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0209/0209obamavsreagan.htm)

 

Reagan - “Govt. is not the answer, govt. is the problem.”

 

President Obama and President Carter both used ultra-liberal policies and philosophies. 

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Larks2242 251]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Regan's sole claim to fame from my perspective is that he drove the final nail into the coffin of the CCCP.

quote>

He ended the coldwar, if it wasn't for him and driving the USSR bankrupt who knows what the world would be like today.

I think your best modern president was probably Herbert Hoover.  Measure him by his times not the current ones.

quote>

Yea, the president who had "nothing inside but jelly" as Franklin Roosevelt once said, that did nothing and let everyone live in hoverhuts and eat rats.

George H. wasn't a bad Bush, but that shouldn't have allowed the American people to be saddled with Dubya who was definitely a boot rear Bush. quote>

 

As much as people keep saying George W Bush wasn't that bad he may not have been the wisest, but you have to respect the fact that there was never another terrorist attack on US soil since Sept. 11th.

quote>

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: svachon

Here's why Reagan was a great president.

President Carter was as liberal a politician.  President Reagan was a conservative politician.quote>

That is hardly a reason.  Again, it is a matter of viewpoint.

When Carter left office our economy was a wreck – highest inflation rate since 1947 at 13.6%, unemployment at 10.4%, rationing and long lines for gasoline.quote>

And it wasn't Carter's fault.  Good grief, read your history.  Carter's administration was killed because of his handling of the Iran hostage problem, which can be opinionated either way.

 

Reagan... reduce[d] govt. regulationsquote>

And here we are with corporations treated as people and an economy in a downward spiral because of a lack of regulation.  No one in their right mind should question that a government needs to regulate business, because business is solely interested in capitalism, in making more money.  There is no such thing as a business for-profit being interested in national welfare.

 

Reagan - “Govt. is not the answer, govt. is the problem.”quote>

And know we have all of these idiots calling themselves the Tea Party out there thinking that the government is bad, bad, bad without understanding what it is that the government does, as well as the expense.  People today complain about spending and programs, but if we did what they think needs to happen, we would become a third world country.

Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it!quote>

Yes, so go back to school.

Barbarossa

I'll answer you and address the points without calling you names or throwing insults ("these idiots", "go back to school"). 

1- OK so Carter could only concentrate on more than one thing and let the economy go to hell in record proportions. 

2- No one except you said there should not be any govt regulations.  We simply disagree on the amount.  I and the founders think it should be very limited.

3- I have no idea what you're saying here.  The Tea Party are not idiots, they simply want fiscal sanity for a govt that has run up $14 trillion in debt and treaten an economic collapse of our system.  If you think it can't happen, look at Europe and Greece.  In Ilinois where I live we are billions in debt and our new Governor's proposal is to take out a loan and raise taxes.  How about cutting spending.  If my income were cut the answer shouldn't be, put it on a credit card!!  Taking more money out of the private sector is bad for the economy, even Obama just said so.  Tax cuts work every time they are tried (i.e.Reagan and JFK).  They stimulate economic growth which brings in more money to the treasury. 

Govt is most certainly the problem is most cases.  Anyone who looks to the govt for it's salvation will certainly live in poverty.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you aren't old enough to actually remember someone being president, then it is difficult to impossible to have an informed opinion of their presidency.

So, seeing as Ronald Reagan left office a month after my 1st birthday... I don't know what to think of him.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

From what I learned on the Internet (my main source of information), various news sources (including but not limited to CNN, Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera, Seattle Times, and NY Times), and my education (public school and community college) filtered through my thought process, Reagan and Clinton helped the economy. Wars and frivolous government programs all cost money that the US rarely ever has. The biggest disaster in the foreseeable future is when the "commie loan sharks" try to collect on the debt.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, I missed Hoover by a few years, FDR was president when I was born, but poor old Herbert did his plutocratic best when his world came unstuck.  FDR shouldn't have said that.  It is not good to take a slug at your predicessor in office, but Franklin was never one to mince words.  If he had lived to the end of the war, he wouldn't have had the conscience attacks that HT had over the A-Bomb, he'd just have OK'd it. 

Both FDR and WSC were men for the times.  When Hiter invaded Russia, WSC said that if the NAZIs invaded hell he would have something good to say about the devil in the House of Commons.  {If you don't know the initials WSC, your history education is sadly lacking.}  Remember these guys took on Uncle Joe and at least kept him out of all of Europe.  The place was lying on the ropes and could have easily been taken by the Red Army.  Letting the Reds into Berlin was the biggest mistake of the war that the allies ever made.  Much as I dislike him, Patton could have taken Berlin well ahead of the Reds.  How many political decisions of this type have we all lived to regret?

[Finkle 14]

@ the man that is named after a horse

How many people you know on welfare with big screen TV, I don't think cutting spending would turn the United States of America into a third-world country, it would just be cutting spending. I guess if a D said cut spending you would have a different tone in your voice but thats me.

Lets see 4.1 billion went to China for foreign aid, count less billions go to Africa for aids and aid, billions more go to eastern Europe, not to mention the west; and what about the billions for South America and the middle East. Forget about them for a couple decades, I really do not care if they set around with their coffers, for a couple years.

Have you ever heard of Green business they have been around long before Gore made some stuff up. The government should stay away from business, they tell the oil man when and where to pump, they tell the farmer which seed to buy and from where.

@IlikeSeattle here is a good link for online research http://www.library.cornell.edu/ there is also netlibrary.com I am not sure if you need an account, but cornell.edu you do not need an account.

Being a business type of guy the worst list would be Clinton, I also think JFK was a bad President. So Clinton put tariffs on steel and iron that was shipped to America, and also "fines" on companies that used American steel or iron, so the companies were forced to buy steel or iron from China for less (because the fines cost more). Clinton also talked the other world leaders into doing the same, England moved where their planes were made to southern China, Ireland moved their ship building to China, the list goes on. Not to mention that the housing mess started with him, and Bush was only handed those things, the tariffs were ten years tariffs, signed into law in 2000. they went off the books June 18 2010, I think is the right date.,

I was told by an old man that the best president was one that the newspapers wrote off and never gave a chance, I know it was before 1940 because that was his know area of study, and since my Presidential flash cards don't write the woes of the Presidents. However Herbert Clark Hoover did sound like a great guy.

[Larks2242 251]

@ Finkle not to mention Clinton was the closest thing the US has ever come to a dictatorship.

So Boehner won the speaker election, I found it funny that 19 Democrats protested Nancy as minory speaker

Some even voted for Heath Shuler.

Looks like it is going to be a good Congress, I'm intrestred in seeing what gets done.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

From what I learned on the Internet (my main source of information), various news sources (including but not limited to CNN, Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera, Seattle Times, and NY Times), and my education (public school and community college) filtered through my thought process, Reagan and Clinton helped the economy.quote>

Okay, wait a second.... they taught you about Ronald Reagan in school?  And here I thought venturing past WWII in a public school history class was still verboten (except of course for discussing the civil rights movement, which you are required to do repeatedly).

Anyways, even then, I still stand by my position. You can see points brought up on the news, and you can read up on the subject, but what you are getting is filtered. Only by actually having memories of the time period will you know the things that people don't bring up, and only by having experienced those years can you actually know what things were like.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Okay, wait a second.... they taught you about Ronald Reagan in school?  And here I thought venturing past WWII in a public school history class was still verboten (except of course for discussing the civil rights movement, which you are required to do repeatedly).  quote>

Back in my day, it was WWI.   and we only discussed the civil rights movement during current events.

Anyways, even then, I still stand by my position. You can see points brought up on the news, and you can read up on the subject, but what you are getting is filtered. Only by actually having memories of the time period will you know the things that people don't bring up, and only by having experienced those years can you actually know what things were like. quote>

For instance, I have found that some studies of the civil rights movement don't mention the 1968 riots in Washington, DC when they mobilized the National Guard to restore order to the streets.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

From what I learned on the Internet (my main source of information), various news sources (including but not limited to CNN, Fox, BBC, Al Jazeera, Seattle Times, and NY Times), and my education (public school and community college) filtered through my thought process, Reagan and Clinton helped the economy.quote>

Okay, wait a second.... they taught you about Ronald Reagan in school?  And here I thought venturing past WWII in a public school history class was still verboten (except of course for discussing the civil rights movement, which you are required to do repeatedly).

Anyways, even then, I still stand by my position. You can see points brought up on the news, and you can read up on the subject, but what you are getting is filtered. Only by actually having memories of the time period will you know the things that people don't bring up, and only by having experienced those years can you actually know what things were like.

quote>

I didn't need to live thru the great depression, slavery or WW2  to know it was bad.  How are things "filtered", what do you mean?  Please be specific and back up you claim.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: svachon [...] to know it was bad.  How are things "filtered", what do you mean?  Please be specific and back up you claim.
quote>

Knowing something was "bad" does not amount to knowing "what it was like". I see my last name in the local Gestapo quarter every time I am there; I know what was going on, I have seen the pictures, seen the scars of some of the few remaining survivors, heard the casually mentioned stories by the then kids of the family – I, and anyone else of my generation and those before have absolutely NO idea how living in such a society is.

I take it you're not acquainted with source critisism. All second-hand sources are coloured in some way.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Meg  I have found that some studies of the civil rights movement don't mention the 1968 riots in Washington, DC when they mobilized the National Guard to restore order to the streets.quote>

A lot of what is covered in the current curriculum omits many of the more "troublesome" contemporary periods of American history.  When they are mentioned, they are glossed over.  For example, the Labor movement is almost always ignored, both in my time and today.  The Civil Rights movement is generally mentioned as an afterthought.  Even the Vietnam War is not given the attention it should have.  I've read several papers that indicate Reagan was the cause of this, as a beginning to the right-wing propaganda machine.  I don't know if that is true or not, but that it has happened is a simple fact.

And by the way, I lived through both the Carter and Reagan administrations.  I don't recall a lot of Carter's time in office (didn't pay any attention - I was a kid), but I clearly remember Reagan.  Liked him his first term, but hated him by the second.  Funny thing is, he was an angel compared to today's Republican.

The US has not had what could be called a "good" President in my lifetime.  Maybe in my sister's, but even then I think Kennedy was over-rated.  Not bad, but... well, his career was abbreviated -  and we have to remember the Bay of Pigs, etc.

Barbarossa

quote>

Please explain to me how a president can add or delete things from school text books???

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: svachon

I didn't need to live thru the great depression, slavery or WW2  to know it was bad.  How are things "filtered", what do you mean?  Please be specific and back up you claim.

quote>

Well, I already gave one specific example:  when covering the civil rights movement, not all texts mention the riots in Washington, DC.   Years ago, a member here was interviewing me for a school project.   He needed to find someone from that era who would talk about it.   He was stunned to hear about the riots.   They happened; they lasted for days and only stopped when armed guards appeared on every street corner.  But his class didn't mention them.

As for slavery . . . sure, we were all taught about the triangular trade between England, West Africa, and America.   But were we taught that children were sold away from their parents?   Yeah, that usually gets mentioned in passing.  Were we taught that slave children were used as sexual playthings?  That doesn't get mentioned a lot.

History is always filtered.   It is written by the winners.  Things look very different from the various sides of each conflict.   You've probably heard some version of "How the West was Won".  Well, from some points of view, it was lost.  Big time.

I was an adult before I heard criticism that history was being taught from a "Euro-centric" point of view.   My initial reaction was confusion.  But, looking at it, it was most certainly Euro-centric.

History, as it was taught to me, basically went like this:  Stuff happened in Ancient Greece and Rome.  Then Europe got out of the Dark Ages and started exploring.  The English went here, the Spanish went there, the French went somewhere else.  Then the colonists got their act together and formed their own nation and spread across the continent.  Unfortunately there were some pesky people in the way so we had to take care of that problem.   Then a string of wars happened.

Aside from studying the crops in South America, we learned nothing about history south of the Rio Grande river.  Nor did we cover anything about Asia, the Middle East, Africa, or western Europe.   Well, we talked about southeast Asia during the current events section.  In terms of history of the region, nothing.   I was surprised to hear that, when my parents were in geography class it was called French Indochina.   I hadn't know the French had been there at all.

Yes, my history education was horrible.   But the point is, it was certainly filtered.  No European school, or Japanese school, would teach history that way.

Edit:

Originally posted by: svachon

Please explain to me how a president can add or delete things from school text books???quote>

How text books are made is not pretty.   Even worse than how sausage is made.

Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks.

Talk about rewriting history. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[svachon 3]

Guess you have a point.  Hey Barbarossa thinks American Presidents writes school text books.  Wow!!

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

EDIT:  Holy Cow!  Thanks, Meg!  That was exactly in my mind.

quote>

It is a recent, and egregious, example of filtering history.

On another note, the rule here is:   "Discuss the issues not each other"

A couple of people here need to stop sniping at each other.

[svachon 3]

quote>

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: svachon

I did read your post.  If you read something and then you assert something you should be able to back it up.

How did Reagan do such a thing.  I'm waiting for an explaination.quote>

okay, let's look at what he said:

I've read several papers that indicate Reagan was the cause of this, as a beginning to the right-wing propaganda machine.  I don't know if that is true or not, but that it has happened is a simple fact. quote>

He didn't say Reagan did it.  He said that he heard Reagan did it and doesn't know if it is true or not.

I'll say it again:

   You two need to stop sniping at each other.

[svachon 3]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: svachon

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Meg  I have found that some studies of the civil rights movement don't mention the 1968 riots in Washington, DC when they mobilized the National Guard to restore order to the streets.quote>

A lot of what is covered in the current curriculum omits many of the more "troublesome" contemporary periods of American history.  When they are mentioned, they are glossed over.  For example, the Labor movement is almost always ignored, both in my time and today.  The Civil Rights movement is generally mentioned as an afterthought.  Even the Vietnam War is not given the attention it should have.  I've read several papers that indicate Reagan was the cause of this, as a beginning to the right-wing propaganda machine.  I don't know if that is true or not, but that it has happened is a simple fact.

And by the way, I lived through both the Carter and Reagan administrations.  I don't recall a lot of Carter's time in office (didn't pay any attention - I was a kid), but I clearly remember Reagan.  Liked him his first term, but hated him by the second.  Funny thing is, he was an angel compared to today's Republican.

The US has not had what could be called a "good" President in my lifetime.  Maybe in my sister's, but even then I think Kennedy was over-rated.  Not bad, but... well, his career was abbreviated -  and we have to remember the Bay of Pigs, etc.

Barbarossa

quote>

Please explain to me how a president can add or delete things from school text books???quote>

You are very trying.  Please re-read my post.  I have read about it, I don't know the basis.  I suspect things, but I don't know enough about it.  Besides, ever heard of the Department of Education??  What do you think they do?  Sit on their thumbs all day?  Perhaps you could be enlightened by Thom Hartmann, or one of the sources he points to on his website.  He's a smart guy, although I do not blanketly agree with him, and quite often simply disagree.

Regardless, I would also point out to you the recent fiasco in Texas regarding textbooks and how the Texas Board of Education's decision to revise textbooks has an impact nationwide because the book publishers cannot accomodate variations from state to state very well (their fault, but it impacts everyone).  there is even a thread in this very forum about it.  Look it up.

Barbarossa

EDIT:  Holy Cow!  Thanks, Meg!  That was exactly in my mind.

quote>

I did read your post.  You said you read something and then made an assertion based off of what you read.  So I'm simply asking you to back up your assertion with facts.  If an American President is cooking text books, I think we'd all like to know how he's doing it.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: svachon

I did read your post.  You said you read something and then made an assertion based off of what you read.  So I'm simply asking you to back up your assertion with facts.  If an American President is cooking text books, I think we'd all like to know how he's doing it.quote>

I'll say it once more:  his "assertion" was that he didn't know.

There is nothing to prove here.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: svachon

I didn't need to live thru the great depression, slavery or WW2  to know it was bad.  How are things "filtered", what do you mean?  Please be specific and back up you claim.quote>

Knowing that it was "bad" is very general. How many details do you know? Besides, those are obvious examples. Any idiot can tell you simply based on knowing that six million people were murdered that the situation must have been horrible, and few people would argue that the Nazi regime was evil. The matters we're discussing here are less clear cut. Was Reagan good or bad? Depends on who you ask. How do you know who to believe? There is a huge tendency here to form opinions not based on facts but based on other opinions. That's how it works in politics: you root for your team and against the other team. So, naturally, most liberals will tell you Reagan was awful, and most conservatives will tell you he was awesome. But that is an asessment based purely on the speaker's own political stance, not on any actual facts. If they do quote facts, they will quote all the facts that support their opinion and ignore all the facts that refute it, or spin the facts in a manner such as to support their opinion. It is very difficult to find any sort of actual hard truths on matters like this; it's all very subjective and even if you read arguments made by both sides, you are naturally going to tend to give far more weight to the side you've already decided you agree with. The only way to get a clear picture of the history is to have witnessed it happen.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A lot of what is covered in the current curriculum omits many of the more "troublesome" contemporary periods of American history.  When they are mentioned, they are glossed over.  For example, the Labor movement is almost always ignored, both in my time and today.quote>

We actually went into quite a bit of depth on that in 7th grade. I'll never forget the activity we did where a few kids in the class got to be "management" while the rest of us were the workers and formed a union.

Even the Vietnam War is not given the attention it should have.quote>

Well, this issue remains highly controversial. Can't bring it up without causing a stir at home somewhere.... although, maybe that's changing now that the current generation of kids has parents who grew up after the war ended.

[hamsterTK 93]

Clinton was president during the boom part of the economic cycle in the 1990s. He is more an example of how a "liberal" president does not mean the economy will blow up, but I'm not sure if he was an active part in the economy doing well either. Many things Reagan did were probably meaningful, from deregulation and lowering taxes when they were very high. But then once again, the 1980s were a transitional time and policies like these were obvious IMO, with us being less of an industrial society with a fear of evil monopolizing companies and the war on poverty stuff winding down and signaling a need for less spending. Why else would other nations similar to the US and going through the same trends also have similar leaders(Thatcher in the UK, for example)?

I don't know. Speaking of what we learned in school, one of the things I was taught is that for all the fluff, Presidents or administrations can't really take credit for the economy, mostly they can just say they didn't make it worse. Also, I've always had this belief in a political economy and that politics despite being chaotic are deterministic-larger trends result in who gets elected and what policies are feasible and what ultimately happens is fate. Rarely is there some individual acting on their own making a big difference.

Its going to be funny in the next couple of years. If there is a Republican President in 2012, and the economic cycle is visibly on the upswing, then everyone will give credit to conservatives for "fixing the economy". But if they really wanted to fix the deficit and reform spending, a better time to do that is when there is not an unemployment problem or a recession. Realistically, taxes have to go back up and things like SS and Medicare being fixed will mean some people will lose coverage, so common sense says that a time when the economy is good would make for the smoothest transition. However, when incomes are rising and you have the hardcore anti-tax  types in power, nobody will accept this. Nor will conservative economists like the short term hit it will have on the economy. So will the Republicans fix the deficit? Hell no, unless the economy does so super awesome in the 2010s that it creates a budget surplus, yeah right.

Other subject of textbooks:

Here's my probably wrong theory on how so many crazies infiltrated the Texas School Board: Its one of those obscure choices on the ballot people don't think much about when they go and vote, like "Railroad Commisioner"(which actually deals with pipelines...). So what happens is huge numbers of people vote straight-ticket Republican and don't know who they are voting for while church congregations and other groups would push these candidates to run.

Result is that over time we ended up with a majority voting bloc of jesus freaks who thought the world was formed in a week making our text books.

What changed this in the last election cycle is that it got scandalous enough and recieved a degree of media coverage that got people's attention. Then sane voters from both parties actively went to the polls in favor of normal people to kick out the crazies and succeeded. The two worst, Dunbar and Leroy, are gone now and I think in the future it will never get as bad as it was a couple years ago.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Realistically, taxes have to go back up and things like SS and Medicare being fixed will mean some people will lose coverage, . . . . quote>

A lot of people will lose coverage, mostly in my generation.  We've known since I was a kid that the math would not work; that the baby boomers would break the bank when it came to social security and medicare.   There are just too darn many of us. 

So what are the options?   The usual:  raise taxes and/or reduce spending.  Some interesting Ideas are being kicked around but they all have problems.  (hey, if they didn't have problems we would have implemented them by now.)

-  Eliminate the tax deduction for mortgage interest.    Of all the ideas I've heard, I believe this is among the worst.   It would severely hamper the ability of people to own their home.   Most first time home owners need that tax savings to make the leap from a rent payment to a mortgage payment.   and it would cripple a real estate market that is already floundering.

-  Tax health insurance benefits like income.    What would be the formula for that, exactly?   It is even less obvious than it sounds.   Let's say I go and get an allergy shot, and the shot costs $X then that $X gets added to my gross income.   Simple enough, right?  

Problem is, when I get the bill for that shot, my benefits statement says that the doctor charged $A but the plan allowance is $B so the doctor can only bill $B,  therefore ($A - $B) is waived.  But, the plan only pays a part of $B.   So, $C + $D = $B, and the plan pays $C while I pay $D.   

So which amount would be taxed?

 A - the total amount the doctor wants to charge?

 B - the amount the plan says the doctor can charge?

 C - the amount the plan actually pays?

 D - the amount I pay out of pocket?

It's a non-trivial question.  The amount my insurance company "waived" last year is roughly the same as the amount it paid.

But, for sake of argument (and it's a big leap), let's say that some logical formula is reached and the amount I would be taxed on is $X.

The issue then becomes whether or not I am able or willing to pay taxes on the health care procedures that I want or need.

That is an interesting condundrum that most people haven't thought through but it might be one of the few ways to get Americans to do a cost/benefit analysis on health care procedures.

Harsh.  But we have harsh choices to make.   No matter what we do, it will be painful.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Meg, your history education was typical.  There is so much material that educaterers are allowed to cook the cook books.  If public schools, including secondary schools, ever had to teach a comprehensive history course starting with the founding of Rome, you would be out of Grade 12 before they got past Charlemagne.

One of my pet peeves with people who mandate history curricula is that they probably don't know what the blazes they are are talking about.  One can make a quick skirt over the classical period, but you have to say something about the fall of the Roman Republic starting with Gaius Marius, Sulla, Caesar and Augustus, then on to the decadent periods that came with the Emperors.  If you are going to be frank about it, it is not for children under the age of, say, sixteen.  Sulla was openly gay and Rome was sexually liberal.  You can't discuss history without the social scene.  And you have to use this base to explain the sexual repression that started during the fall and continued to the end of the twentieth century.  This is history and not sociology, but I doubt the two can really be divorced. 

Now the history of North America is indeed derived from European sources, and much European thinking went into our governments, state papers, and so on.  In the United States, if I was running history curricula, the public schools would be enjoined to teach only American history from about 1750 to the present.  In Canada, we could easily start with the Sieur de Champlain in the 1600s.  After all, this guy was our first governor general.

Memorizing wars with dates of battles, treaties, and all that stuff is guff.  Students need to understand the causes of wars, the price of them, and the results.  We are just now finding out the real cost of implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917.  History takes about a century for any kind of sensible view to appear.  So, about now is the time to bring history curricula up to around the Korean War (which is still on).  Anything after that is current events.

Foreign history, after you get through the basics of classical stuff, should be university level.  Public school students don't need to know about the Scottish civil wars, Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the Battle of Culloden (1745).  Nor do they need to know very much about the roots of parliamentary democracy (Magna Charta in the 1200s).  Only that it happened sometime in the dear, distant past, and all will be available if you take post-secondary courses in history or when you read a well-researched historical novel.

---

On the subject of what to do about the baby boomers and the resulting new social expenses, the answer is tax and bill as well, but it will be hard.  The Canadian government is now encouraging people of have RRSP's and there is a new kind of pension plan being touted for people who are self-employed and are not in the Canada Pension Plan (which is broke, by the way).  I believe in the U.S. an RRSP is called a 401K (Registered Retirement Savings Plan).

There is also a new scheme in Canada called a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account).  You put tax-paid money into this registered account, and you can do self-directed investing in it with no tax on any gains you make, and you can take them out tax-free.  May sound too good to be true, but I checked this out very carefully before putting some money into one.  My trustee charges $28.50 a trade if you do anything in the market, but offers no--charge GIC's, savings deposits and mutual funds, all at rather low rates.  The idea seems to be to increase the reserves of the banks by making it attractive to put the money you've got in your mattress into a bank.  Savings deposits are available on demand, other things take longer to get at.  I think it is not very easy to hypothecate one of these accounts, either.  So the funds really do have to be surplus to requirements, and I wonder how many people have that lying about.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Meg, your history education was typical. quote>

Unfortunately, that's true.  It was woefully inadequate in terms of providing an understanding of the world today.

You can't discuss history without the social scene. quote>

You can't effectively discuss history without the social scene.   My classes rarely mentioned the social scene.   There was a lot of "here is what happened" and very little "let's look at why it happened".    I often wonder "What were people thinking?  Why did they believe this is okay?"    

I agree that memorizing dates of battles is guff.  I find it more informative to figure out why the battle happened.   Every conflict has at least two points of view, otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict.   I would like to understand those points of view.    History, and current events, are usually not discussed in that way.

Foreign history, after you get through the basics of classical stuff, should be university level.  Public school students don't need to know about the Scottish civil wars, Bonnie Prince Charlie, and the Battle of Culloden (1745).  Nor do they need to know very much about the roots of parliamentary democracy (Magna Charta in the 1200s). quote>

No, but they do need to have some clue about the governments and cultures on other continents.   My classes contained no such clues other than "communism = bad" and "other places = different".   That doesn't help much.

On the subject of what to do about the baby boomers and the resulting new social expenses, the answer is tax and bill as well, but it will be hard.  quote>

It will be very hard and no one wants to make the hard choices.   This has been the "third rail' of politics for decades.  Touch it and you will get fried.

The Canadian government is now encouraging people of have RRSP's and there is a new kind of pension plan being touted for people who are self-employed and are not in the Canada Pension Plan (which is broke, by the way).  I believe in the U.S. an RRSP is called a 401K (Registered Retirement Savings Plan). quote>

Yes, some of us have the opportunity to have a 401K plan.  They didn't come out and say "yo, contribute to your plan because social security and medicare will not be there for you" but, imho, they should have.   401K plans are offered (or not) by individual employers.   The one I had allowed us to contribute up to 10% of our income with the company matching the first 5%.  I was surprised how many people could not grasp the fact that it was an 100% rate of return on the portion that was matched.   They insisted that they "needed" that money now.  and then they would go buy a $7 cup of coffee.

There is also a new scheme in Canada called a TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account).  You put tax-paid money into this registered account, and you can do self-directed investing in it with no tax on any gains you make, and you can take them out tax-free.  May sound too good to be true, but I checked this out very carefully before putting some money into one.  quote>

Sounds like a Roth IRA (Individual Retirement Account).   With Roth IRAs, the money is taxed going in but is not taxed coming out.  All gains are tax-free, period.

With traditional IRAs (and most 401Ks), the money is not taxed going in but is taxed coming out.  Two major benefits:  you can earn income but not pay taxes on it if you defer it into the plan.  And the gains are not taxed yearly, just at the point when they are removed from the plan, at which point the initial principle is taxed as well. 

Unfortunately a lot of people seem to not understand the math here.  That or they can't envision being at the point you and I are where it's a good thing to have a nice chunk of money to draw on.

So the funds really do have to be surplus to requirements, and I wonder how many people have that lying about.quote>

People have a wide variety of ideas as to what constitutes "surplus".   The authors of The Millionaire Next Door say that the formula for being wealthy is straightforward:  Spend less than you earn and invest the rest.

Obviously it is not as simple as it sounds but, once you start thinking in those terms, it's amazing what you suddenly don't "need".

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

You can't effectively discuss history without the social scene.   My classes rarely mentioned the social scene.   There was a lot of "here is what happened" and very little "let's look at why it happened".    I often wonder "What were people thinking?  Why did they believe this is okay?"quote>

The reason this doesn't happen is because when you start discussing why, you leave the realm of the objective. And when you do that, you inevitably create upset parents.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Meg

You can't effectively discuss history without the social scene.   My classes rarely mentioned the social scene.   There was a lot of "here is what happened" and very little "let's look at why it happened".    I often wonder "What were people thinking?  Why did they believe this is okay?"quote>

The reason this doesn't happen is because when you start discussing why, you leave the realm of the objective. And when you do that, you inevitably create upset parents.

quote>

True. Parents also get upset when major surgical procedures are performed on their children without their consent (abortion, ependectimy [sp], etc) or when the information given to their children is rubbish (alchemy, creationism, magic, phrenology, revisionist history, etc).