My GED Hotline GED Practice Test

This part is from Wikkipedia.

Gingrich favors rigorous math and science instruction in public schools, introducing competition between schools and between teachers, and permitting prayer in public schools.[68]
In 2009 Gingrich teamed with two unlikely allies to promote their shared view of education reform: civil rights activist Al Sharpton, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, Arne Duncan. After the three had visited a number of U.S. schools that were implementing education reforms, on November 15, 2009 they appeared together on NBC’s Sunday morning news and interview program Meet the Press. During their interview Gingrich said that “education is the number one factor in our future prosperity, it's the number one factor in national security and it's the number one factor in [our] young people having a decent future. I agree with Al Sharpton, this is the number one civil right of the 21st century.”[69]

Ginrich's 2010 book To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, the chapter co-authored by Lisa Keegan, Nancy Sinnott Dwight, and Fred Asbell, states, "We must be an intellectually hungry, morally strong, and urgently demanding nation with an education system capable of responding to a voracious American desire to learn." [70
You have read comments from Wikkipedia, but the truth is that Al Sharpton has been speaking about the GED in his meetings. You will not read about the GED in Gingrich's book because he went to the wrong people to help him with that chapter. Those people have let America down because the workforce has to be improved (it had to be improved decades ago and still has to be improved) and people have to be taken off of welfare. Although we may agree with what we read in his book, we must conclude that he has neglected huge sections of the American people because the almost forty million adults who do not have a GED have parents and loved ones and the problem clearly affects about one hundred million people in the United States. This is why I say that people in government who do not understand really are unfit to be in office or if they are fit to be in office they have missed the mark of helping the United States. The fact that they win is due to the ignorance of the voters, the parties themselves, and the turnout on election day.

Let us begin with 2+2=4. There is not enough truth in the things Gingrich is saying to add up. The huge mortgage problem took place due to key lending problems, decisions, and beliefs. I know American communities well because of my community activism. I am certain that many families prayed to GOD while hunting for those homes, going to contract and closings. This is the fabric of America and it is not just about liberals bringing people down. Suddenly the conservatives stop talking about GOD and place the blame on man, the liberal man. A man from Costa Rica told me that he lost two houses because he could not sell the houses that fell in value and then he had to accept the higher interest rates, paying thousands of dollars for his mortgage instead of hundreds. There was no blame for Clinton or anyone else for bringing about his downfall. Let us think of the people too who could have benefitted from higher wages (the minimum wage was kept low for many years) that would have led them to fixed mortgages instead of sub-prime adjustable rate mortgages. Let's do a survey of people who prayed to GOD to help them keep their houses by maintaining their prosperity and then compare those numbers to the falling poll numbers of President Barack Obama. Is the 2+2=4 campaign of Newt Gingrich to be trusted? Just about every hand went up in the room when Gingrich asked the people if they would buy a house if they could not afford it. He did the same thing when talking about cell phone having cameras and picture taking. He knows how to work the crowd. He is prepared, well prepared, but so was Adolf Hitler. Okay, he is no Hitler and thank goodness for that.

Here are things about Gingrich, his talk, and his book. He mentioned the alternate day system of the purchasing of gas decades ago. I sat there calling out in my mind to everyone supporting him that the big government he was complaining about under President Carter was just one example, but how about big government under President Nixon (a Republican president) when he forced on us wage and price controls to control inflation. What happened to the free economy as it took on communist aspects to control inflation? Is the 2+2=4 campaign of Newt Gingrich to be trusted?

I had a chance to speak to Gingrich staff and people attending the book signing (including the congressional candidate John Gomez and I will not comment here on Gomez). If you look at the educational section of Gingrich's book you will learn that he compares us to China and India and he tells us in the book that we have to change to compete. The problem is that Gingrich has been a leader in America for decades and the information should be held against him and it is amazing that he is making money from the sale of his book telling us now what we must do. John Gomez is a newcomer so we cannot fault him for the downhill slide of America. We can fault names like Reagan and Bush as well as Carter. Obama, like Gomez, is new to politics so let us give them a chance.

New York State has produced great students for almost a century and so many of them made New York State a great state. Sure people raised in other states came here and helped New York and so did immigrants. Minorities and the poor always suffer and Republicans and conservatives think they have the answer. Bobby Kennedy failed as much as Jim Buckley (William F. Buckley's brother and one of the great conservatives of our time) failed. There was not a single thing about helping up to 40 million Americans who do not have a GED and it proves that Gingrich and all of his staff members really do not know the real America. Is the 2+2=4 campaign of Newt Gingrich to be trusted?

The 2+2=4 campaign slogan is going to be used over and over, we were told. And it has been used here to explain the truth.

Let us take a look back at 1994 and this is taken from Wikkipedia. Now you know that majority rules in American government up to a certain point. Requiring a three-fifths majority may be good for fiscal conservatives, but it is certainly not what was intended by the founding fathers. I get the point of its intentions and it would have been harder to create a strong opposition to conservatism if tax increases could only be accomplished by a sixty percent vote. Why not make it 70, 80, or 90 percent to vote for a tax increase? Well that is much more arbitrary and capricious in a democracy.

The following is from Wikkipedia related to 1994.
On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:
• require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
• select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• limit the terms of all U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators;
• ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.
[edit] Major policy changes

The Contract with America was called The Contract on America by President Clinton, alluding to gang-like activities.

CONCLUSION: NEWT GINGRICH MUST CHANGE BEFORE HE CHANGES AMERICA. WE WOULD GLADLY WELCOME NEWT GINGRICH INTO THE BELOVED COMMUNITY WHERE PEOPLE THINK MUCH MORE ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES INSTEAD OF STACKING THE DECK AGAINST THE MAJORITY BY MAKING THINGS HARDER FOR PEOPLE.

If we proposed a ten percent annual across the board increase in non-managerial wages in private industry that could not be changed unless there was a two-thirds vote in favor, how would the Gingrich Republicans feel about that and why not make it retroactive to 1994. Now that would really be democratic. That would not make government bigger. Right?

MARTIN N. DANENBERG
7 BLAZER DRIVE
ISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11749
631-348-1341
GEDHOTLINE@AOL.COM
New:
www.mygedhotline.com

www.geocities.com/gedhotline
www.ahorre.com/ged
www.ahorre.com
www.aspira.org