PDA

View Full Version : Another Question For Our Resident Libs



NJCardFan
11-11-2011, 03:44 PM
I'm putting it in the OWS forum because it is related to what these idiots want. So here is the question:

OK, some of the demands from these dopes are that they want free healthcare, free education, free housing etc. My question is a simple one; if you agree with these demands do you honestly believe that these things would be a) really free and b) if you're at least smart enough to know that nothing is free, how do you intend to pay for it? Reality is, you can seize every bit of wealth from the so called 1% and you still won't have enough to fund every piece of idiocy these people want. Not even for a year let alone forever. So, how do you intend on funding these programs?

SarasotaRepub
11-11-2011, 05:23 PM
Pixie Dust & Al Franken Farts...***Poof***

:D

Nubs
11-11-2011, 05:52 PM
They have already made an #OWS Food Pyramid

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRMNGMKaH8u72UBypt4n-vSVB5rfQkgFRZ_oWE2vQxKqENiNOEC

Lanie
11-11-2011, 06:29 PM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.












Kidding.

Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.

Bailey
11-11-2011, 07:06 PM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.












Kidding.

Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.


WE DONT WANT TO GIVE YOU SCUM ANYTHING, cause if we give an inch now next year it'll be a little more and a little more etc till you have what you want.

NJCardFan
11-11-2011, 07:44 PM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.












Kidding.

Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.
Once again Lanie, you, not surprisingly, don't get it. NOTHING IS FREE!!!! Public education is not free. In fact, a majority of my overblown property tax)NJ has the highest property tax rate in the country) goes for education. An education system that I have zero state in meaning I don't have a child in the public school system and yet 70% of my tax bill goes toward the school system. In fact, even if I send my child to private or Catholic school or home school, I still have a chunk of my tax bill that does for the public school system on top of whatever tuition I pay for private or parochial school. But the point is, somewhere along the line, these things cost money and since your ilk don't want to pay a cent, that leaves people like me footing the bill.

Elspeth
11-11-2011, 08:37 PM
Nothing is free.

But some things are investments:

1. Infrastructure
2. Education
3. Health

Now, how these things should be handled is something else. I do believe there is a role for government in setting up infrastructure that serves all and education that serves all. I have a big problem with the government in health care and a big problem with the existence of insurance. I would like to see insurance for catastrophic illnesses (cancer, etc.) only, and have routine medical care on a cash-only basis on a sliding scale. I can also see public funding of more clinics, especially in poorly served areas. I can see medical schools offering free education to future doctors who would work in such clinics and poor areas. What I don't want is the beast with two backs that is Obamacare.

What I think is completely WORTHLESS is the continuous subsidization of illegal aliens, corporations, and the able-bodied citizen. California is dying because of the illegal alien millstone around our necks. The nation is dying because huge corporations like GE actually get billions in tax REFUNDS while the rest of us pay through the nose. To me, GE and illegal aliens are in the same smelly boat and they both need to be unloaded.

Tipsycatlover
11-11-2011, 08:49 PM
Here is how corporate subsidizing works.

A couple of years ago, Los Angeles decided to put a city surtax on all new cars sold in the city. It was supposed to reduce the deficit and put 1,000 cops on the street. It was a tax on those rich enough to afford to buy a new car.

The car dealers left. Los Angeles Lexus became Lexus of Beverly Hills. Ford moved to Culver City and GM hiked down to the South Bay.

The loss in revenue was estimated to be 95 million dollars a year. Antonio Villagairosa announce a complete repeal of that tax to entice car dealerships back into the city.

Tired of corporate welfare, Los Angeles county stopped incentives for film companies to film in the county. No more expedited permits at reduced rates. No more corporate welfare, so the companies pretty much moved to Canada. How much money do you think the county lost? How high do you think the unemployment rate is?

Apache
11-11-2011, 08:52 PM
Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful?What is your definition of free?!? Leftist hacks that want a paycheck for teaching nothing? OWS should show you that nothing but ideaology is destructive.
You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far. THe Tea Party is hardly "extreme", unless you consider the values of this country EXTREME....


Do you even have any idea as to how much "our" government has intruded into our daily lives?


(and NO I'm not blaming everything on Zero..... It goes way farther back, on BOTH sides)

MrsSmith
11-11-2011, 09:58 PM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.












Kidding.

Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.
I can see that you don't own much property yet if you're still thinking public education is free. And unfortunately, for many public education is also not a path to success...largely due to the government interfering too much. Just as government interference, taxes and regulations have had a lot to do with the ever-increasing cost of things like healthcare and energy. If the country would listen to conservatives and reduce government back to the point of being constitutional, you would soon find that many issues would rapidly fix themselves. This country has never been perfect, but it used to be in far better shape before so many demanded that the government should protect them from every possible problem.

Elspeth
11-12-2011, 12:06 AM
Here is how corporate subsidizing works.

A couple of years ago, Los Angeles decided to put a city surtax on all new cars sold in the city. It was supposed to reduce the deficit and put 1,000 cops on the street. It was a tax on those rich enough to afford to buy a new car.

The car dealers left. Los Angeles Lexus became Lexus of Beverly Hills. Ford moved to Culver City and GM hiked down to the South Bay.

The loss in revenue was estimated to be 95 million dollars a year. Antonio Villagairosa announce a complete repeal of that tax to entice car dealerships back into the city.

Tired of corporate welfare, Los Angeles county stopped incentives for film companies to film in the county. No more expedited permits at reduced rates. No more corporate welfare, so the companies pretty much moved to Canada. How much money do you think the county lost? How high do you think the unemployment rate is?


Villarogosa--or as us locals call him, Tony Villar (Ragosa was his ex-wife's name)---is a piece of work. No one likes him here. He's an absentee mayor who once claimed to have filled a million potholes in LA! A million. Even a lib like Bill Maher took a jab, complaining that he can't get his car through all the potholes.

To your larger point, a new city surtax was a stupid idea, especially when there were lots of localities close by without the tax. Eventually, explicit taxes like that drive small businesses (and that's what these dealerships are) out of the cities and into the suburbs. Ask Philadelphia what happened when their various and sundry taxes became so high; the answer is "King of Prussia", a suburban area of corporate centers.

Small businesses need to be helped and given tax breaks. But these businesses that run on their own energy and the hard work of their owners and workers, are very different from huge multinational corporations which have a ton of representation in Washington and get tax breaks that small businesses could never dream of. Washington is giant whorehouse and it's pay to play. But paying a little gets you millions, or in the case of GE, billions. Legal "kickbacks" that come from padding defense expenditures, legal tax loopholes that insure that my 5-figure ass pays more in taxes that GE, and legal maneuvres on Wall Street that allow someone like Mitt Romney to buy good companies, strip them for parts, and fire their thousands of workers. (And Mitt still calls himself a businessman. He's a butcher, not a businessman, and my guess is that he couldn't grow a business with a million dollars and a team of pros helping him.)

The rules are different for small and big business. Villaragosa can't tap into big business, so he goes after the small businesses that make the city economically vibrant. The Fed does the same thing, taxing small businesses to the hilt while dumping taxpayer money into the coffers of the big multinationals and their international shareholders. I would never start a business in LA where Villaragosa could tax it. However, if I were a huge multinational, the boys upstairs would have Villaragosa waive every little tax for me and even provide me with taxes from Angelinos.

Tipsycatlover
11-12-2011, 10:51 AM
The major employers left long ago. I remember Farmer Johns, Filtrol Chemicals, dozens of major employers now gone.

Apocalypse
11-12-2011, 11:36 AM
Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful?
This is all I'll talk about here. As Public schools are the sacred cow of the left.

For the left, its more money and don't dare try and reform it.

For the right, we've thrown money at it, and its only gotten worse, lets try some thing else.

In other industrialized nations, they continue to out preform us in math and science, yet they spend far less on education. Why is that?

One hated piece of the left and often attacked is the Private school system. As being "Elitist". Yet when it comes to educating their children, the Clintons, Gores, Kennedys, Emanuel, and the Obama's all have decided that a private school is better for their children, while insisting that a voucher system that would allow children from failing schools a chance at attending a similar school is completely unacceptable.

And look at there spending.

In Wisconsin alone after the reforms.

Wisconsin before saw a 3.3 Billion shortfall in revenue before Walker was even elected. Now the budget is balanced, and schools are finding them selves flush with cash. And keep in mind, Walker's budget reform actually reduced state contributions to schools. The district of Milwaukee alone is witnessing a 25 million dollar shift in their budget in their favor. None have had to lose a single teacher, almost half are hiring more teachers, and almost all have witnessed a surplus in funds, where before they were in the red.

How did this happen, by changing how the money could be spent, not by throwing more at the problem.

More teachers, smaller class sizes, and less money spent on education then before. Odd how changing how the money is spent has that big of an effect.

Then you have Charter Schools. The evil bane of the Public education system according to the left. Why, they don't allow tenure, so a under preforming teacher can be fired at any time. They are exempt collective bargaining laws. And are accussed of taking money away from Public schools.

But look at New Orleans. It is now almost a full Charter school system. Thanks to Katrina.

Before the storm that ravaged the city, New Orleans had only a 40 percent literacy rate and 50 percent of black students did not graduate under a public school system. Now with an almost full charter school system, scores have risen almost 30% in the few years, and drop out rate has fallen by almost 50%.

Yet the left will not support charter schools.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2011, 12:28 PM
I'm putting it in the OWS forum because it is related to what these idiots want. So here is the question:

OK, some of the demands from these dopes are that they want free healthcare, free education, free housing etc. My question is a simple one; if you agree with these demands do you honestly believe that these things would be a) really free

No not free, but subsidized so people don't have to pay out of pocket or take on personal debt in order to have access to them.


and b) if you're at least smart enough to know that nothing is free, how do you intend to pay for it?

Changing tax revenue, changing how spending is appropriated, and having some self-sustaining systems. The post office is able to support itself based on the revenue it brings in, and it has looming problems, but the mail still always arrives on time, rain or shine.


Reality is, you can seize every bit of wealth from the so called 1% and you still won't have enough to fund every piece of idiocy these people want. Not even for a year let alone forever. So, how do you intend on funding these programs?

Not even for a year?

If you got all the wealth from the top 25%, you'd have over $47 Trillion. If you only got all the wealth from the top 5%, you'd have over $33 Trillion. Build in self-sustaining provisions into programs like with the post office, and you can easily fund these programs long into the future.

Of course, we aren't talking about seizing all wealth, but you can always raise taxes, bring less right now, let the rich still stay rich, and just bring in regular tax revenue over time.

It isn't that complicated, these programs exist in most industrialized countries, they outscore us in education, they have better and universal access to healthcare, and so on. The systems are not perfect, but for the regular person, being able to see a doctor or send their kids to university is worth an imperfect system.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2011, 12:40 PM
This is all I'll talk about here. As Public schools are the sacred cow of the left.

For the left, its more money and don't dare try and reform it.

For the right, we've thrown money at it, and its only gotten worse, lets try some thing else.

I'm not opposed to reforming the system, and I think there how money is spent is more important than how much, but that doesn't mean education doesn't need more money.




In other industrialized nations, they continue to out preform us in math and science, yet they spend far less on education. Why is that?

This is a golden question right here.

The nations that outperform us have certain characteristics in common:

1. They generally offer subsidized or partially subsidized access to universities or trade schools, so it is expected that every child is going to pursue higher education, so they are all prepared at that level.

2. They have more progressive tax structures to fund education properly.

and most importantly:

3. They have incredibly low levels (compared to us) of inequality, high amounts of workers programs, and strong social safety nets, plus universal healthcare. The result of this is clear as day, the gap between the rich and the poor shrinks, and even for the economically disadvantaged in their countries, they are still able to get access to education and health care and unemployment benefits as much as anyone else.

This has an enormous impact on education. The data is widely available online: http://www.greatschools.org/

you can look up any school in the nation, and find information regarding their standardized test scores, parent ratings, student ethnic demographics, the number of students who are English Language Learners, the amount of money spent per pupil, the number of students with classified disabilities, and the number of students from economically disadvantaged households.

Compare the scores, the grades, the ratings, all of the measures of success to the percent of students who are economically disadvantaged. You will find the strongest correlation of any two data points.

The problems in education are a direct reflection and intimately tied with the economic social problems.

A bright kid with loads of potential, but with parents who work 2 jobs, who have to take care of their younger siblings because they cannot afford babysitters, who lacks an educationally rich home environment, or with other economically related setbacks, 9 times out of 10 will not do as well as a student with the same potential but with a middle class home, parents who are home after school, parents who are educated enough to help their kids with homework, the ability to buy books and go to museums, ect. ect.

In the neediest of classrooms, you will hear every day the problems that kids are dealing with at home that can be directly traced back to economic issues.


Every nation that is doing better at us in terms of education is also doing better than us in terms of income equality, social mobility, and access to social programs.

Bailey
11-12-2011, 12:43 PM
I'm not opposed to reforming the system, and I think there how money is spent is more important than how much, but that doesn't mean education doesn't need more money.





This is a golden question right here.

The nations that outperform us have certain characteristics in common:

1. They generally offer subsidized or partially subsidized access to universities or trade schools, so it is expected that every child is going to pursue higher education, so they are all prepared at that level.

2. They have more progressive tax structures to fund education properly.

and most importantly:

3. They have incredibly low levels (compared to us) of inequality, high amounts of workers programs, and strong social safety nets, plus universal healthcare. The result of this is clear as day, the gap between the rich and the poor shrinks, and even for the economically disadvantaged in their countries, they are still able to get access to education and health care and unemployment benefits as much as anyone else.

This has an enormous impact on education. The data is widely available online: http://www.greatschools.org/

you can look up any school in the nation, and find information regarding their standardized test scores, parent ratings, student ethnic demographics, the number of students who are English Language Learners, the amount of money spent per pupil, the number of students with classified disabilities, and the number of students from economically disadvantaged households.

Compare the scores, the grades, the ratings, all of the measures of success to the percent of students who are economically disadvantaged. You will find the strongest correlation of any two data points.

The problems in education are a direct reflection and intimately tied with the economic social problems.

A bright kid with loads of potential, but with parents who work 2 jobs, who have to take care of their younger siblings because they cannot afford babysitters, who lacks an educationally rich home environment, or with other economically related setbacks, 9 times out of 10 will not do as well as a student with the same potential but with a middle class home, parents who are home after school, parents who are educated enough to help their kids with homework, the ability to buy books and go to museums, ect. ect.

In the neediest of classrooms, you will hear every day the problems that kids are dealing with at home that can be directly traced back to economic issues.


Every nation that is doing better at us in terms of education is also doing better than us in terms of income equality, social mobility, and access to social programs.

Of course more taxes will solve the problem!!!

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2011, 12:55 PM
Of course more taxes will solve the problem!!!

More taxes won't solve the problem, the problem is bigger than that, but that doesn't mean they won't help.

Example:
If you are trying to create a new invention, more funding isn't going to produce a prototype, but a lack of funding will certainty prevent it.

NJCardFan
11-12-2011, 01:13 PM
Then some of you libs need to explain why billions are thrown at the public school system every year and yet, kids are getting stupider. If there was ever a true definition of a boondoggle look no further than the education system.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2011, 01:59 PM
I already explained that the biggest problem with education isn't the amount of funding (but funding is important), but economic issues. Poverty is tied to educational success.

Kids cannot do well in school if they don't have a secure home to sleep, if they cannot get nutritious meals to eat, if they have adult responsibilities to tend to because their parents work late hours or multiple jobs, ect. ect.

Education doesn't occur in a vacuum, and children don't leave their personal baggage at the door when they enter a classroom. If a child is having problems related to economics in their home, they bring those issues into the classroom and they affect their ability to do well.

I could give dozens of specific examples if you want them, but the point is that academic success is very strongly correlated to one's economic situation.

Trying to address education without addressing economic issues is doomed to fail. We ask what other countries are doing right, well compare income equality or social programs or health care access in the top educated nations to ours.

NJCardFan
11-12-2011, 02:01 PM
Oh bullshit wee and you know it. Unbelievable. Money does not have a stake in how to read you idiot.

Wei Wu Wei
11-12-2011, 02:13 PM
I've already posted a site that you can go to for school statistics. Look at high and low performing schools and see what percentage of their students are classified as economically disadvantaged. The connection is undeniable.

A 12 year old who doesn't have a secure place to sleep or a dinner to eat isn't concerned with showing their work on a math problem.

A 13 year old who has to take care of their younger siblings every night of the week isn't going to get their homework done and isn't going to get enough sleep to perform well in class.

Any young student who doesn't spend time with their parents because those parents work multiple jobs are going to manifest a range of academic and emotional issues.

A student who gets evicted from their home and is forced to move a few times a year is never going to be able to do well in school when they change schools so frequently.

The social and emotional issues that arise from living in economically challenging situations stay with these children. They are not adults, they are not able to compartmentalize their issues. As adults, if we are having a problem at home, we can still go to work and focus on the task at hand. Children are not able to do this.

If you deny the connection between poverty and education, you are deliberately ignoring reality to make some stupid political point, and that directly hurts children.

Apocalypse
11-12-2011, 02:43 PM
Wei your pulling crap out of your ass.


I'm not opposed to reforming the system, and I think there how money is spent is more important than how much, but that doesn't mean education doesn't need more money. Throw more money at it is not the solution. You even agree we out spend every nation, but are calling for even more money.





This is a golden question right here.


The nations that outperform us have certain characteristics in common:

1. They generally offer subsidized or partially subsidized access to universities or trade schools, so it is expected that every child is going to pursue higher education, so they are all prepared at that level.We already do that here in a way. Through government grants, subsidized tuition and so forth, yet it doesn't help with the k-12 has it.


2. They have more progressive tax structures to fund education properly. They are not spending any where near what we do on education, so how is a more progressive tax structure going to fix our problem. Unless all your talking about is more taxes to throw more money at a problem that more money hasn't solved.


and most importantly:

3. They have incredibly low levels (compared to us) of inequality, high amounts of workers programs, and strong social safety nets, plus universal healthcare. The result of this is clear as day, the gap between the rich and the poor shrinks, and even for the economically disadvantaged in their countries, they are still able to get access to education and health care and unemployment benefits as much as anyone else. Oh BS on that.

Singapore is ranked #1 in education in the world. It also has the greatest inequality in the world when it comes to the rich-poor gap among countries! Its larger then ours.

In fact the top 10 nations, are within 4% or less of the inequality gap when it comes to the US with the exception of 2. Singapore which is greater then us, and Taiwan. Ranked #1 in education.

Singapore - Amid a flurry of calls by Members of Parliament (MPs) for the Government to do more to help a variety of groups - from the elderly to the disabled, Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing said yesterday that his ministry was prepared to "exercise greater flexibility ... and extend more support where needed".
Yep, great social safety net there.

Ranked #2 in education.

To make matters worse, they can expect little in the way of unemployment or welfare benefits. In Japan, a country with little experience of widespread unemployment until recently, there is an inadequate safety net.
Yep, great social safety net there.

Ranked #4 in education.

However, behind Hong Kong’s glitz and glamour lies one of the most grotesquely unequal societies in Asia and the world.


And it goes on and on. So that part of how they are all more equality and better social makeup is BS.

Hansel
11-12-2011, 08:18 PM
Wei your pulling crap out of your ass.

Throw more money at it is not the solution. You even agree we out spend every nation, but are calling for even more money.





This is a golden question right here.

We already do that here in a way. Through government grants, subsidized tuition and so forth, yet it doesn't help with the k-12 has it.

They are not spending any where near what we do on education, so how is a more progressive tax structure going to fix our problem. Unless all your talking about is more taxes to throw more money at a problem that more money hasn't solved.

Oh BS on that.

Singapore is ranked #1 in education in the world. It also has the greatest inequality in the world when it comes to the rich-poor gap among countries! Its larger then ours.

In fact the top 10 nations, are within 4% or less of the inequality gap when it comes to the US with the exception of 2. Singapore which is greater then us, and Taiwan. Ranked #1 in education.

Yep, great social safety net there.

Ranked #2 in education.

Yep, great social safety net there.

Ranked #4 in education.



And it goes on and on. So that part of how they are all more equality and better social makeup is BS.

I think that education policy should be made at state and local level and that public schools should be funded at state and local level. Additionally, if the parents cannot or will not help their kids with their school work thenm Nanny is a poor substitute.

A lot of kids are not college material and should learn a trade and then go to work. Sometimes a person gets a better education when he or she matures and has a genuine need of schooling. It may take longer but it can be done a little bit at a time. That is how I got my schooling.

AmPat
11-13-2011, 10:50 AM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.
Kidding.
Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.

Nothing "free" is cherished. Our "free" education is a laughing stock because of liberal policies and failed, corrupt values forced into our children's minds. Kids are forced to attend who are merely disruptive and in many cases criminal in their behavior. Good kids who want to learn don't stand a chance in the "free" school circus that exists today.

If school administrators were made to justify their salaries to STATE and LOCAL officials and not worry about Federal funding guidelines, it would begin to fix some of the decades of liberal induced problems.
Then perhaps the schools could return to teaching instead of the PC, touchy-feely, revisionist history, and focus on non essential material crap that now pervades our schools.

Nubs
11-13-2011, 12:49 PM
I want the rich to pay for everything and anything, right down to my new shoes.
Free education should be a given (at least on up to high school graduation and maybe some tech training). How else will people become successful? You know, I could honestly meet conservatives *in the middle* if the most vocal and active ones would make an effort. But no, you want *everything.*. I'd be willing to compromise on healthcare and other issues if your side didn't want a winner takes all situation so badly. And no, that doesn't make OWS justified, although I do tend to think the ideology of both OWS and Tea Party are both extreme. They just both go too far.

Education is essentialy free including highschool if you go to public schools. If I send my kids to private school, I pay for my kids tuition and for other kids in public school.

Why should I pay a dime for someone to get tech training??

Why don't you get a loan for 15k, get your welding certificate, then make 80k-100k per year??

If your "degree" can return 5-6 times the total investment in 1 year, I do not need to give you a dime for your education.

If your "degree" can return 1/2 the total investment in 1 year, find a better "degree."

Elspeth
11-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Then some of you libs need to explain why billions are thrown at the public school system every year and yet, kids are getting stupider. If there was ever a true definition of a boondoggle look no further than the education system.

You need to read this:

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

You can download the e-book for free.

Contents:


A WHISTLEBLOWER'S ACCOUNT

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the `80s on government activities withheld from the public. Her inside knowledge will help you protect your children from controversial methods and programs. In this book you will discover:

-how good teachers across America have been forced to use controversial, non-academic me
-how "school choice" is being used to further dangerous reform goals, and how home schooling and private education are especially vulnerable.
-how workforce training (school-to-work) is an essential part of an overall plan for a global economy, and how this plan will shortcircuit your child's future career plans and opportunities.
-how the international, national, regional, state and local agendas for education reform are all interconnected and have been for decades.

A CHRONOLOGICAL PAPER TRAIL

the deliberate dumbing down of america is a chronological history of the past 100+ years of education reform. Each chapter takes a period of history and recounts the significant events, including important geopolitical and societal contextual information. Citations from government plans, policy documents, and key writings by leading reformers record the rise of the modern education reform movement. Americans of all ages will welcome this riveting expose of what really happened to what was once the finest education system in the world.

Readers will appreciate the user-friendliness of this chronological history designed for the average reader not just the academician. This book will be used by citizens at public hearings, board meetings, or for easy presentation to elected officials.

Publication of the deliberate dumbing down of america is certain to add fuel to the fire in this nation's phonics wars. Iserbyt provides documentation that Direct Instruction, the latest education reform fad in the classroom, is being institutionalized under the guise of "traditional" phonics thanks to the passage of the unconstitutional Reading Excellence Act of 1998.

Kay
11-13-2011, 05:23 PM
Nothing "free" is cherished.


That is so very true.

noonwitch
11-14-2011, 10:35 AM
I don't believe in a free pass for people.


I wish that things like health care and college educations were affordable for the middle class again, like they were when I was younger. My parents weren't rich, but college was affordable to the middle class. Even people who had less than us could afford it with loans. Paying back the loans wasn't so much of a problem, then, because the overall tuition costs were low.


Health care is affordable for the healthy, the wealthy, and those who are lucky enough to have good jobs that provide insurance. Even then, a chronic condition can lead to thousands in medical bills that no one but the wealthy can afford to pay. It didn't use to be like that.