How Learning Died in America

[daveman]

Tell that to the author of this thread. She's an immigrant and all she does is tell other people what America should be.

If you agree with it, you won't mind telling immigrants who complain about things like co-workers displaying the American flag on their desks.

Or is that different? Somehow?

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. If a Mexican immigrant wants to keep eating Mexican food, despite being in America, that's his business.

Stop playing ignorant, although you do it very well.

I'm talking about things like this:

Texas Woman Told to Remove 'Offensive' American Flag From Office | Fox News

McLucas, a supervisor at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas, had displayed the 3-by-5-foot flag in the office she shares with the hospital’s three other supervisors. McLucas said one of her colleagues, a woman who immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago, complained about the flag to upper management, and the hospital decided to take down the flag.​

The immigrant was wrong. It's okay, you can say it. You won't burst into flames.

 

[jasonnfree]

but, but that goes against the last repub president's belief!!! Parents should be hard at work making less REAL money than was the case before Raygun.

Quote by George W. Bush: You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't ...

"Parents should be hard at work making less REAL money than was the case before Raygun."

I can imagine you making less.....it just means that your employer evaluated your worth.

As for Americans.....

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, you moron....$17 trillion is actually more than $1.7 trillion.

Know why the phrase "seventeen trillion" is so familiar to all?
Obama put us in that much debt.


Wow....do we need a Ronald Reagan today.

I know dummy. I was in the military when he was handing over borrowed taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors in an arms build up. Thats a real good investment to base one's economy on- bombs? How did that work out? I'll tell you- Republicorp is addicted to defense spending to keep their campaign chests topped-off w/ contractor slush $.

here, try to learn something:
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name "supply side economics" is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men.

GHWB called it "voodoo economics" for a reason
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yeah, ronnie reagan made the good times roll during his spending binge using taxpayer money.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Parents should be hard at work making less REAL money than was the case before Raygun."

I can imagine you making less.....it just means that your employer evaluated your worth.

As for Americans.....

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, you moron....$17 trillion is actually more than $1.7 trillion.

Know why the phrase "seventeen trillion" is so familiar to all?
Obama put us in that much debt.


Wow....do we need a Ronald Reagan today.

I know dummy. I was in the military when he was handing over borrowed taxpayer $$$ to defense contractors in an arms build up. Thats a real good investment to base one's economy on- bombs? How did that work out? I'll tell you- Republicorp is addicted to defense spending to keep their campaign chests topped-off w/ contractor slush $.

here, try to learn something:
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name "supply side economics" is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men.

GHWB called it "voodoo economics" for a reason
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yeah, ronnie reagan made the good times roll during his spending binge using taxpayer money.

I can see why you thought that this thread was about you, based on the title, IQFree.....


So, let's give you a math lesson...

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion


Is it the decimal point, or your dearth of cerebral neurons that prevents you from seeing the huge improvement that the Great Ronaldus Maximus provided for all Americans?




To make this more clear to you....imagine if your IQ were multiplied by ten!

You'd be almost normal!

 

[initforme]

At least when Reagan was in office the jobs picked up. I remember walking out on Nov 23rd...right in the middle of the work day. I never said a thing. One of the best days of my life. I found a job 3 days later with more pay. Also felt good to stick it to my employer.

 

[jasonnfree]

At least when Reagan was in office the jobs picked up. I remember walking out on Nov 23rd...right in the middle of the work day. I never said a thing. One of the best days of my life. I found a job 3 days later with more pay. Also felt good to stick it to my employer.

So that should be proof that government money stimulates the economy.

 

[initforme]

No but going to lunch and not returning to work cuz they wouldn't pay me was an awesome feeling.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At least when Reagan was in office the jobs picked up. I remember walking out on Nov 23rd...right in the middle of the work day. I never said a thing. One of the best days of my life. I found a job 3 days later with more pay. Also felt good to stick it to my employer.

So that should be proof that government money stimulates the economy.

"So that should be proof that government money stimulates the economy."
What kind of moron wrote that?

Oh....right...IQFree.....



No better indication of government schooling than the dopes who have learned to raise their hand even though they know nothing about the subject....but get that pat on the head.


You, IQFree, are the poster child for that kind of scholar.


Will you ever....ever.....post on a topic about which you know something?





1. Professor Romer heads the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which analyzes government programs and the economic environment and recommends policy to the president.
She’s considered one of the premiere Great Depression academics.

In 1994, the husband-and-wife team released a study concluding that the economy responds when the Federal Reserve acts, for example, by lowering interest rates. They also noted, however, that fiscal policy -- stimulus packages for example -- had not helped lift the U.S. economy out of past recessions.
Francis, David R. ‘The Fed Stands Alone As Recession Rescuer,’ The Christian Science Monitor, July 15, 1994(4)





2. The Romers released another study in November 2008 that showed a tax increase equal to one percent of gross domestic product reduces output by 3 percent over the next three years. Republicans have used this study to argue against Obama's ambitions to change the tax code.Evans, Kelly, ‘U.S. News: Obama Gets Depression Scholar in Romer,’ The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 26, 2008
Romer has said that fiscal policy, such as government stimulus packages, doesn't help economies recover from recessions.
WhoRunsGov: The best political profiles on the web




3. Along with hubby, David, Romer wrote a fascinating paper on the wonderworking power of tax cuts. Their analysis found that "tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output ... [and] that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects." The key, they found, is to also cut spending so you won't get lured into raising taxes down the road. Bottom line: Cutting taxes good. Raising taxes bad.
Christina Romer: Obama's Secret Tax Cutter? - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)




4. “…multiple studies have shown, government spending has little stimulative value. One of those studies was done by Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Christina Romer of UC Berkeley, who found $3 in increased Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for every $1 in tax cuts. Increased spending generates at best a mere 40 cents of GDP growth on the dollar. Third, that 40 cents actually goes to special interests like labor unions, politically influential contractors in favored industries and state and local political allies of the party in power.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks [PDF], April 2009. American Economic Review, forthcoming.

 

[initforme]

I would hope then that those who get a tax cut don't spend their money. I would love love love to see NOBODY spend a dime on black Friday or wouldn't it be fun to see nobody in the stores Christmas shopping? That would be the ultimate. Why do we encourage even people who can afford it to spend? We should be preaching save. Don't spend. Don't buy gas, don't buy stuff for just one day. Nobody go into the stores. I do see positive outcomes as more people have saved more money. The reason people are in debt is because they spend. Instead of going to a movie, go for a walk. Any studies on how this would help the economy and the people?

 

[regent]

To go back to the topic of how learning died in America, that death implies a life at one time. Can anyone name America's golden age of education? When did America finally hit on the learning period that was America's educational peak? Then what happened, did education die or was it killed off? Once we identify the peak period we can strive to return to those glory days.
So who can name America's golden age of education?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would hope then that those who get a tax cut don't spend their money. I would love love love to see NOBODY spend a dime on black Friday or wouldn't it be fun to see nobody in the stores Christmas shopping? That would be the ultimate. Why do we encourage even people who can afford it to spend? We should be preaching save. Don't spend. Don't buy gas, don't buy stuff for just one day. Nobody go into the stores. I do see positive outcomes as more people have saved more money. The reason people are in debt is because they spend. Instead of going to a movie, go for a walk. Any studies on how this would help the economy and the people?

According to 'America's most prominent Marxist economist,' Richard Wolff

a. In 1929 the average debt for an American family was 25-30% of annual income. In 2007 the average debt for an American family was 125% of annual income.

b. The Federal Reserve keeps this statistic: what percent of your income is used to pay off your debt...in other words, cannot be used to buy anything. Today (2009) is about 17%.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY]Capitalism Hits the Fan - Richard Wolff - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

To go back to the topic of how learning died in America, that death implies a life at one time. Can anyone name America's golden age of education? When did America finally hit on the learning period that was America's educational peak? Then what happened, did education die or was it killed off? Once we identify the peak period we can strive to return to those glory days.
So who can name America's golden age of education?

1. 1912 Eighth grade test here:
1912 Eighth-Grade Exam Stumps 21st-Century Test-Takers


2. I found the following quote while reading a book about the creation of the Oxford English Dictionary......

On Wednesday, June 6, 1928 the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. In "The Meaning of Everything", Simon Winchester discusses the English of the time as follows:

“The English establishment of the day might be rightly derided at this remove as having been class-ridden and imperialist, bombastic and blimpish, racist and insouciant- but it was marked undeniably also by a sweeping erudition and confidence, and it was peopled by men and women who felt they were able to know all, to understand much, and in consequence to radiate the wisdom of deep learning.”


I found that enviable.



Learning has seen better days.
The 'Social Justice' nonsense has replaced it.

 

[initforme]

Thanks PC. 125 percent is way too much. Working people should not expect to have any extra. Any extra they have should not be spent on Christmas presents for their kids. Nor should they have enough to do so called "fun" things. If they are doing "fun" family things, they should stop and save that money. Put it away. Don't go into debt. People should not buy houses. Find a shoddy place to live for cheap and save. That's what middle class should be.

 

[carnac]

Learning in America died on the heels of two editions to the educational scene. First, forced segregation, forced bussing, and the death of neighborhood schools started the death knell. If they would have let the schools integrate naturally the schools would have time to assimilate and to set remedial classes up for some of the 'newcomers'. The government forced bussing of kids to schools miles out of their neighborhoods. Some white schools became half black in one month. Suddenly the ghetto was mixed with the middle-class. Teachers could not teach nor deal with the disruptions, the cries of racism, and not being able to fail anyone. Then the kids in the neighborhood were NOT at the neighborhood school any more and they closed or fell into disrepair. Parents were not tied to schools anymore. They quit caring about the new schools their kids were in therefore 'no parent involvement' became the norm. The "new" school their kids were bussed to was far away and kind of foreign to the parents. Ghetto values mixed with middle-class values and ruined them. The US government feared the schools were not ruined quickly enough so they formed the Dept. Of Educations. Now liberal bureaucrats in Washington D.C. are forcing each state into a 'one fits all' mold and dictating what the states will do about integration and even test scores. Schools were better when they were state run schools, or city schools, or even private schools. They taught character. They taught the morals and the important things each state voted for them to teach. States are each a different 'country' ( in a way) and have their own personalities. This 'personality was apparent' in the schools. When states ran the schools the parents felt more involved. Neighborhood schools were close and the parents could get to the quickly. They could drop in and make sure little billy was doing right. They knew the teachers and did not mind voting for tax increases for the school. They did work at the school. They belonged to it just like their children did. Not any more. Go back to state run education and get rid of the DOE.