It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The appropriate definition of capital for Federal budgeting, including: use of capital for the Federal Government itself or the economy at large; ownership by the Federal Government or some other entity; defense and nondefense capital; physical capital and intangible or human capital; distinc- tions among investments in and for current, future, and retired workers; distinctions between capital to increase productivity and capital to enhance the quality of life; and existing definitions of capital for budgeting;
During the Welfare Reform debates when the subject of children had been raised Congresswoman Pat Schroeder commented, "Our children should not even be part of this conversation. Our children are our greatest natural resource - not oil or coal - our children. Our investment in them today will pay off over and over again in the future. They are the taxpayers of tomorrow." The use of the word 'investment' should not be taken lightly. In Pennsylvania, the Act was titled Workforce Investment Act. This connotes the expected return on the 'investment' made by the STATE. Return on investment. Think about it. Please, think about it.
Is Your Child Human Capital?
Yes, According to the Architects of the New Global Economy
By Cindy Weatherly
THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING PROCESS
In March of 1984 I had the privilege of giving testimony supporting stringent regulations for the Pupil Privacy Act (the Hatch Amendment) which amended the General Education Provisions Act to offer protection from intrusive questioning, programs, and the record-keeping for parents and students.
Again, preparation for that testimony caused me to review the National Center for Educational Statistics' handbook series known as the "State Educational Records and Reports Series". Specifically, Handbook IIR - the Financial Accounting Handbook - alluded to a "unified accounting system" based on the process known as Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) which was to be used by all school systems. PPBS involves mandated goals and constant adjustment of resources to ensure that goals are met... the system that is still in use today. In testifying, I drew a projected conclusion:
If our financial resource reporting is going to be unified by such a system, then are we not but a step away from unified goals for our educational outcomes? This is assuredly a step toward mandated national curriculum and interstate and interregional tax and financial management revisions... will we not soon be sharing tax resources from region to region as needed to `equalize' educational opportunities and programs deemed `exemplary` or in the`national interest to produce global- minded citizens?'
The longer I thought of "assessment" being the "value determined for tax purposes" and the possibility of cross-regional/state sharing of tax resources, the more concerned I became over the idea that the record-keeping and information-compiling might become so tied to the individual student that "assessment" might have a more malignant potential. We were talking about our children here.
At that point in time there was a growing emphasis on choice and vouchers/tuition tax credits in education. Since with the money flows the control, could this be part of the "assessment" picture? That would tie an individual student moving about in the "choice market" directly to a federal accounting process both financially and educationally due to national standards being proposed. No one seemed to be too worried about it in the 1980's, but it still bothered me.
Over a period of time I shared my concern with close associates -- if "assess" was to "assign a value for tax purposes", then why were we "assessing" children? A theory began to take root and grow in my mind: somehow we were going to allow children's potential worth to society to be measured, and their future life roles would somehow be measured, and their future life roles would be somehow projected, and they would be limited by that assigned worth. What a thought! Could this be possible in the United States [of America]?
Weren't we supposed to be concerned about the education of school children? This sounded a lot like literature which proposed "full employment" policies -- much like the billboards and signs plastered on public transportation and public buildings in Grenada -- "Work for everyone; everyone working!" -- before the U.S. invasion to overthrow their communist government.
Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, introduced Toffler as his longtime friend and then sat quietly by to hear Toffler say that national sovereignty was a thing of the past and that he was an avowed secularist. These are the stripes of our new "conservative" future?
The World Bank has just announced (Associated Press, "The Des Moines Register", 9/15/95) its new formula for estimating a nation's worth. Ismael Serageldin, World Bank vice president for environmentally sustainable development, stated in 'Monitoring Environmental Progress: A Report on Work in Progress' that the system "for the first time folds a country's people and its natural resources into its overall balance sheet."
While the World Bank projects that its new system of measuring wealth which "attempts to go beyond traditional gauges" and lists "Human Resources: value represented by people's productive capacity" (e.g. education, nutrition) will take years to perfect, I submit that our process of 'assessment' is a giant step in that direction.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by mnemeth1
As long as you dont forget that the richest of the "capitalists" are the ones the government is acting at the behest of.
Nothing at all wrong with a free market, and I hope someday we actually have one. I dont see anything wrong with capitalism, until democracies start coming with price tags.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by links234
What do you think the government is supposed to think of you as?
What do you think a potential employer is supposed to think of you as?
An asset, they have the right to. They pay you money and you give them labor in return. Better to be your own boss actually.
What do you think a potential spouse is supposed to think of you as?
Lover, protector, friend, confidante, provider, partner....................
How does the government of the United States have the right to use us as commodities? Is that not the definition of slavery. So they use us as collateral when it comes to making loans from the IMF. Tell me, if they cannot pay the loan back, are they allowed to sell us also as assets, or does the IMF or say China get to collect?
I saw a video awhile back that showed that the most valuable resource of a nation is it's people. Tell me, who owns the people and their labor? The government or the Country or bank they sold them into slavery to?