| Kasz216 said: 1) No, you still have the cause and effect wrong... what prevented the housing collapse in australia was housing scarcity. Unlike most western nations who have more then enough houses. 2) You mean... the downturn 1 year after the downturn in the US. 3) Modern conservatives don't think high taxes on the risk bring instability. They think it slows growth. 4) It's not that States need to compete that states are split up. They're split up because of how huge the US is. The United States is more like the Europeon Union then it is Australia. As for a National Curriculiam. That's one of those edges against the middle fights. A lot of people argue that such curriculums hurt racial minorities by putting them in classes they can't succeed in or ones not tailored towards getting them up to speed with everybody else. Bush was actually the first president to push for it. Obama is the second. 5) American Education is expensive... but it's mostly worth it. Unlike public schools... the universites are still top notch. You have your top notch foreign schools that can compete... but there is a reason why the US is still so dominante in journal publications, and only being caught up with by the Chinese. Really the problem is more length then it is cost, most other countries let you become a doctor long before you can in the US. (Well and forth rate schools who still charge an arm and a leg.) The problem with free college for all is... well everybody will want to go to college, will go to college, then will be depressed as hell when the reality hits them their degree is worthless and they're working back at a wendys.
6) Shrinking is the first way to fixing. In an ideal world... a Libretarian would come in and knock EVERTHIYNG down. Then everything could be rebuilt from the bottom up. It's impossible to reform anything in the US government... because reform would require those who support to programs to admit they're flawed. The only way to get reform is to remove and replace... or have a GIANT disaster that can't be ignored anymore. Like why the VA hosptials got reformed. |
1. So what you're saying is that the housing issue wasn't an issue at all in Australia. Which doesn't challenge what I said, that the GFC outside of America wasn't due to local housing bubbles, but because the rest of the world uses the US dollar as the international currency, and because American banks are so tied to other banks. So when America's financial system melted down, it took the rest of the world with it. But Australia still managed to survive it without going into recession.
2. Not sure what you're trying to say, here, but there's absolutely no doubt that the reason for the change in trend in terms of inequality is that our Labor government (Labor is the Australian equivalent of the Democrats) instituted changes that helped to reduce inequality. The American downturn was due to the GFC. Remember, the GFC didn't drive Australia into a recession, so its impact was muted over here.
3. I meant instability of growth - more likelihood of growth going negative. As I pointed out, Australia didn't go into recession, despite higher taxes for the rich (and lower for the poor). What kept Australia from recession, really, was that the government acted swiftly with a stimulus package designed to simultaneously benefit the country in terms of things that we need and the creation of jobs to provide them. The money was spent on schools, on hospitals, on roads, and on providing subsidies for ceiling insulation and solar hot water systems (thereby reducing energy costs). They also provided financial benefits to low- and middle-income families, to students, and to farmers and farming-based small businesses. The result was lower inequality and the prevention of a recession.
4. I have the same problem with the European Union as I do with the United States. If your country is too large to manage well, maybe you should consider separating into multiple smaller countries. And curriculums shouldn't interfere with making sure that minorities are brought up to speed - you just incorporate things into the curriculum to ensure that it's all covered. Although I must ask why a "racial minority" wouldn't be able to succeed in any particular class. Also note that Australia has more ethnic diversity than America, and our education system doesn't really harm any particular "minority".
5. The reason why the US dominates so much in journals is that you're 15 times the population of Australia. China, of course, is catching up as it modernises, because they've got a massive population base... but until relatively recently, science wasn't big in China. And "free college for all" isn't what I'm referring to. It's "free college to anyone who satisfies entry requirements". Here in Australia, what happens is that the number of available places in a particular course is set, and then those places are filled in order of achievement - that is, how well you did at school (or equivalent, if mature-aged). So the cost doesn't blow out, and the value of the degree doesn't get depressed. We also have what is called a TAFE system ("Technical And Further Education"), in parallel with universities, but focusing on the less intellectual pursuits - so you go to TAFE if you want to, for instance, be a mechanic.
6. Shrinking doesn't fix it, that's the problem. If you want to fix it, you should start by simplifying it - get rid of all of those stupid patches that were put on the system, and instead spend the time closing the loopholes properly. Loopholes, by the way, in both directions - both tax loopholes and spending loopholes. And as I pointed out, the biggest problem is that you have a system that works on a two-party basis, which has produced a duopoly. Here in Australia, while it is true that we have two (technically three, but two are in an official coalition) major parties, we also have rather powerful minor parties and independents, who currently hold the balance of power in both our House of Representatives and our Senate. It forces the major parties to be a lot less self-interested.
Here's a description of a simple blueprint for fixing America's system:
1) Change your electoral system from first-past-the-post to preferential, and eliminate the "electoral college" system. This will enable a thriving ecosystem of parties, rather than just Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps consider making attendance for voting mandatory (actually voting wouldn't be necessary, as long as you show up (or equivalent - postal/early attendance is fine) - people are more likely to get involved and actually vote if they have to attend anyway).
2) With that done, work through the tax system, eliminating as much complexity as possible - that is, for instance, eliminate income tax on the poor, and eliminate the tax breaks that counter that 10% tax, so that the same people pay no tax, but without the extra bureaucracy and complexity. If necessary, simplify to a three-level tax structure, with, say, 0% tax up to $15,000, 20% tax up to $250,000, and 40% tax above that. You can tweak it later.
2b) Close the loopholes in the tax system. Make sure that millionaires are paying more (by percentage) tax than middle-income earners. Make sure that large corporations can't arrange things so that they pay zero tax, and convert to a local-only tax system.
3) Build a set of strict rules regarding lobbying, in order to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the government.
4) Improve your welfare system and your primary/secondary education system. Privatise social security, but with a backup pension system for those who will need it - use the Australian system as a guide. Establish a national curriculum with room for certain forms of local variation in order to ensure maximal results, and provide federal funding for schools, beyond the state funding. Allow even private schools charging less than a certain amount per head to get some government funding (less than what public schools get, though), thereby providing incentive for private schools to cater for lower income levels.
5) Look at Canada's health system, and consider emulating a number of features from it in your public health system. Canada's system blows America's away. This doesn't mean that you can't have a thriving private health system - you just make sure the public system is focused on those things that are good for society - in other words, elective surgeries, for instance, are for the private system.
There are other things I'd do, but they're a lot more focused on my opinion rather than objective observation compared with what I've listed above. For instance, I'd nationalise the sales tax system - it's absurd that each state sets its own sales tax, nowadays (thanks to the internet, etc). I mean, my ultimate belief is that a sales tax shouldn't be necessary to begin with, but at the very least, it should be standardised, in my opinion. But it's not a necessity for fixing the system itself.
killerzX - not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that because she identifies with Cherokee Indians, she is therefore not making a valid argument on taxation? You can think what you want of her regarding that issue, but it has no bearings on the validity of her argument regarding fair taxation and the comment she made.
