Liberalism and Limitless Welfare: An Explanation.

[NYcarbineer]

The One Cent Solution Penny Plan balances the federal budget by 2019.

The Three Keys
1. A Plan that Works
The One Cent Solution is beautifully simple: If the government cuts one cent out of every dollar of its total spending (excluding interest payments) each year for five years, and then caps overall federal spending at 18 percent of national income from then on, we can:

• Reduce federal spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years.
• Balance the budget by 2019.

Moreover, instead of using inflated budget “baselines” to claim nonexistent spending “cuts” a common practice in Washington, the One Cent Solution calls for real cuts. Under the One Cent plan, the sum of all discretionary and entitlement spending will have to go down from one year to the next, by one percent or more.

2. Legislative Strategy
The One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011 embodies the principles of the One Cent Solution. Also known as the “Penny Plan” on Capitol Hill, this legislation was introduced by Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and is currently supported by 71 Members of the House and 13 Members of the Senate. Visit our current legislation page to view the list.

The “Penny Plan” legislation would cap overall spending to fit within the One Cent Solution targets. The legislation then calls on Congress to evaluate all areas of the federal government to make certain that future spending fits under the caps.

Under the One Cent Solution or “Penny Plan”, not all programs must be cut by one percent. Congress may determine that some programs are too critical to cut, but that would require that other programs be reduced more so that the total amount cut is equal to one cent for every dollar each year for six years.

For example, let’s say the federal budget only had three programs, each with an annual budget of $1.00. How might Congress meet the One Cent mandate?

1. Congress cuts Program A by one cent every year for six years. That means the annual budget for Program A is $0.99 in year one and then $0.98, $0.97, $0.96, $0.95 and finally $0.94.
2. Program B is found to be essential and efficient — Congress chooses not to cut Program B.
3. Program C is outdated and needs to be restructured — Congress cuts two cents each year for six years from Program C.

In this example, Congress is able to make program-by-program decisions to bring spending within the One Cent Solution caps. If Congress fails to make those tough decisions, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would be imposed to make sure the caps were enforced. The One Cent Solution is a “belt and suspenders” approach to making certain spending is brought under control and the budget is balanced.

3. Public Support

That's a fascinating pipe dream. How will it solve poverty and create good paying jobs?

 

[eagle1462010]

The One Cent Solution Penny Plan balances the federal budget by 2019.

The Three Keys
1. A Plan that Works
The One Cent Solution is beautifully simple: If the government cuts one cent out of every dollar of its total spending (excluding interest payments) each year for five years, and then caps overall federal spending at 18 percent of national income from then on, we can:

• Reduce federal spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years.
• Balance the budget by 2019.

Moreover, instead of using inflated budget “baselines” to claim nonexistent spending “cuts” a common practice in Washington, the One Cent Solution calls for real cuts. Under the One Cent plan, the sum of all discretionary and entitlement spending will have to go down from one year to the next, by one percent or more.

2. Legislative Strategy
The One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011 embodies the principles of the One Cent Solution. Also known as the “Penny Plan” on Capitol Hill, this legislation was introduced by Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and is currently supported by 71 Members of the House and 13 Members of the Senate. Visit our current legislation page to view the list.

The “Penny Plan” legislation would cap overall spending to fit within the One Cent Solution targets. The legislation then calls on Congress to evaluate all areas of the federal government to make certain that future spending fits under the caps.

Under the One Cent Solution or “Penny Plan”, not all programs must be cut by one percent. Congress may determine that some programs are too critical to cut, but that would require that other programs be reduced more so that the total amount cut is equal to one cent for every dollar each year for six years.

For example, let’s say the federal budget only had three programs, each with an annual budget of $1.00. How might Congress meet the One Cent mandate?

1. Congress cuts Program A by one cent every year for six years. That means the annual budget for Program A is $0.99 in year one and then $0.98, $0.97, $0.96, $0.95 and finally $0.94.
2. Program B is found to be essential and efficient — Congress chooses not to cut Program B.
3. Program C is outdated and needs to be restructured — Congress cuts two cents each year for six years from Program C.

In this example, Congress is able to make program-by-program decisions to bring spending within the One Cent Solution caps. If Congress fails to make those tough decisions, then automatic, across-the-board cuts would be imposed to make sure the caps were enforced. The One Cent Solution is a “belt and suspenders” approach to making certain spending is brought under control and the budget is balanced.

3. Public Support

That's a fascinating pipe dream. How will it solve poverty and create good paying jobs?

It is all interconnected with the entire problem, buy your rhetoric will not allow you to see that will it.......................

It is about our economy as a whole...............and the endless cycle of debt that leads to the devaluation of our currency............Now you can go and do as others and show our currency increasing in value versus other currencies in the current currency Wars.............All across the world these manipulators of FIAT PAPER are rigging the system NOT ON REAL THINGS...........BUT PAPER...............

Part of our economic problem is that our currency losing it's value as it has been since the 70's..............Our buying power and the cost of buying everyday items is part of the Standard of Living for our country.................

The ultimate FIX is NOT FROM GOV'T...............as people like you keep saying.........Like WE NEED A JOBS BILL..........WE NEED MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES.............those are not the ultimate fix.............The Ultimate fix is PRIVATE and NOT MORE BORROWING AND MORE FEDERAL DEBT.............

Which means we need to encourage INVESTMENT by simplifying tax codes and STOP REGULATING INDUSTRY TO DEATH................See the 10 thousand commandments...............

At the same time we need to end Free Trade...............and place tariffs on unfair trade agreements............

All is interconnected.............

PIPE DREAM..........only if you are a FOOL.........anyone that says we can't CUT 1 CENT ON THE DOLLAR off the Federal Budget a year for a period of 6 years is a FOOL............and shouldn't hold ANY OFFICE.............

I've shown the waste on this very thread again...........Tell me who has cut THESE ABSOLUTE FRAUD SPENDING on the American Taxpayers........................see Wastebook..........

I have posted these very areas many many times on many of threads and a hell of a lot more.

You chose to ignore it...........as always............as does the Status Quo of both parties....................BECAUSE YOU WANT MORE GOV'T.......................

and that is the problem.

 

[eagle1462010]

December 31, 2008 Total Public Debt Outstanding 10,699,804,864,612.13
Debt to the Penny Daily History Search Application

November 6, 2014 Total Public Debt Outstanding 17,938,161,633,953.07
Debt to the Penny Daily History Search Application

Obama's legacy of debt...........Over 7 TRILLION

Intterest on the debt..............Historical
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

2014	$430,812,121,372.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2013	$415,688,781,248.40

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2012	$359,796,008,919.49

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2011	$454,393,280,417.03

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2010	$413,954,825,362.17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

2009	$383,071,060,815.42

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[PoliticalChic]

TARP was part (most) of it, genius. I gave you the approximate final tally.

1968's min. wage would be almost $11. Way overdue, brainwashed Pub dupe. Average benificiary of rise to 10.10 would be age 35.

All you have to do is answer this question honestly,and your entire worldview crumbles:

If FDR had minded the Constitution....which gave him no right to invade the private market in housing....by creating the GSE's Fannie and Freddie.....

...would there have been a mortgage meltdown?


Yes...or...No?

 

[PoliticalChic]

William Voegeli spoke at Hillsdale College in October, analyzing why, with inordinate growth and very little in results of solving poverty, "liberals do not seem all that concerned about whether the machine they’ve built, and want to keep expanding, is running well.

For inflation-adjusted, per capita federal welfare state spending to increase by 254 percent from 1977 to 2013, without a correspondingly dramatic reduction in poverty, and for liberals to react to this phenomenon by taking the position that our welfare state’s only real defect is that it is insufficiently generous,..."


No...not insanity, although one could make that argument.
Voegeli explains it as a different twist of their psyche.




1. "....while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough..... the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

2. [We are left with] two of the journalist’s standard questions:
What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? ....
Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?




3. [From a policy perspective,] Progressives of a century ago, followed by New Deal and Great Society liberals, worked to transform a republic where the government had limited duties and powers into a nation where there were no grievances the government could or should refrain from addressing, and where no means of responding to those grievances lie outside the scope of the government’s legitimate authority.




4. If we make ...an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” ....the question of liberal compassion,....

a. Empathetic kindness is “what binds us together, and . . . how we’ve always moved forward, based on the idea that we have a stake in each other’s success.” [These are the] Arguments and rhetoric that work—that impress voters and intimidate opponents—are used again and again.




5. [But] disciplining government according to “measured provable performance and effective spending” ought to be a “completely philosophically neutral objective.” Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but ... liberals’ motivations should be even stronger.

a. ‘You [Liberals] ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’"
Current Issue

I think the average liberal voter would be disappointed with the effectiveness of the current welfare programs if they were more informed just like conservative voters are sad to find out that their leaders grow the size of government, add to regulatory burden of business and facilitate cronie capitalism.

And therein lies the distinction between Republican and conservative.

 

[zeke]

Ronald Reagan was the first republican I supported, Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter was the last demonrat I supported.

So you went from supporting a business owner, Naval Academy graduate and nuclear submarine commander to supporting a 2nd tier movie actor whose wife "directed" him to the governor of CA position.

And you think YOU are "smart". LMAO.

 

[eagle1462010]

Again, 18% of the GDP is the issue I addressed.............The TOTAL AVERAGE REVENUE for the United States since WWII is 18.1% of the GDP on Revenue for the Federal Gov't...........Using Cuba as an example is a joke................

Do you understand now.............That would take ALL FEDERAL REVENUE IF YOU APPLIED THAT LOGIC...............We spend a hell of a lot of money here and over the decades have continually increase that amount...............and the results for increasing that money hasn't hit the mark on increasing the knowledge level of our younger generation...............

Using common sense to that means that the MONEY ISN'T THE CORE PROBLEM.........and it Sure as hell isn't COMMON CORE............by Lowering our standards instead of Increasing the levels of learning.............That is the car in reverse, which is why Common core is BS.

No, the joke is you seemingly trying to turn this into some kind of topic about Cuba. It's not about Cuba. However the statistics are what they are. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the USA. Yes, a country which spends a lot more of its GDP on education.

Latin lessons What can we learn from the world rsquo s most ambitious literacy campaign - Americas - World - The Independent

"The statistics alone are enough to make the parent of the average British schoolchild green with envy: there is a strict maximum of 25 children per primary-school class, many of which have as few as 20. Secondary schools are striving towards only 15 pupils per class – less than half the UK norm."

"The vast majority of Cuba's 150,000 teachers have studied for a minimum of five years, half to master's level. And despite financial woes which prompted the government to recently announce one million public-sector job cuts, it has promised to keep investing in free education at all levels."

"Cuba spends 10 per cent of its central budget on education, compared with 4 per cent in the UK and just 2 per cent in the US, according to Unesco. The result is that three out of five Cubans over the age of 16 are in some type of formal, higher education. Wherever you travel in Cuba, just about everyone can read and write, and many have one or more academic qualifications."

"In a mere half-century, Cuba has developed one of the world's most successful free education systems, admired everywhere, from the UK to Canada to New Zealand. Yet, even though Cuba's 11 million citizens are enormously proud of the educational system that has nourished them for five decades, there is increasing concern that the country's classrooms are not preparing Cubans for life beyond education."

And the last sentence is one of the most important. However I'd say the same about the US too. However this isn't about the Cuban education system. I simply put number on top of the list and then put where the US is, I made the assumption that you'd have the ability to actually look at the list.

The point being, that money doesn't always make improvements. You need to have systems in place for improvements to take place. This seems to be a big problem in the US where politicians are unable and unwilling to improve things.

Also, I said in the last post, and I'm saying it here (are you reading what I'm writing?) that money isn't necessarily the problem as you have stated. The problem starts at the top with the President and Congress, with the Republicans and Democrats who are destroying the US for their own gains, and the people can go to hell.

Education is a political issue in almost every country where people get to vote. Even in China it's an issue and they can't vote. But in the US it seems that it's not really much of an issue in comparison with other countries for the politicians.

But it's just another symptom of the disease that's spreading and that people are ignoring.

 

[eagle1462010]

Norway.....Switzerland, and Luxembourg......................Countries that spend more per pupil than the United States.....older data but good enough to debunk the CUBA BS.............

We have and continue to spend more on education than most of the world..........

Throwing more money at it, which is STANDARD GOV'T doesn't fix the Real Problem.....................

We've been throwing mountains of money at it for decades FRIGIDAIRE.................

 

[eagle1462010]

U.S. education spending tops global list study shows - CBS News

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.



That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.



As a share of its economy, the United States spent more than the average country in the survey. In 2010, the United States spent 7.3 percent of its gross domestic product on education, compared with the 6.3 percent average of other OECD countries. Denmark topped the list on that measure with 8 percent of its gross domestic product going toward education.

 

[eagle1462010]

Pardon me Frigidaire......................But we spend more than most of the world on education and they still beat us.............

but but but the RHETORIC OUTWEIGHS THE FACTS.............

Frigidaire and others going WE NEED TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON EDUCATION.....................

The BATTLE CRY OF FOOLS............

We are already spending more than the rest of the world you DUMB ASSES........Fitting members of the ASS PARTY.

Facts need not apply,..............

What was that shit about how great Cuba is compared to us again..........................

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan was the first republican I supported, Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter was the last demonrat I supported.

So you went from supporting a business owner, Naval Academy graduate and nuclear submarine commander to supporting a 2nd tier movie actor whose wife "directed" him to the governor of CA position.

And you think YOU are "smart". LMAO.

Sorry, Zekey...but you've been snookered.

Carter was an incompetent fraud and phony...much like the community organizer.

Let's set the record straight:

1. "Invariably Carter introduced himself as a “nuclear physicist and a peanut farmer.” He was neither: he held only a bachelor’s degree, and he owned a peanut warehouse."
Carter 8217 s Lies Commentary Magazine


2. "Until I read Rod Adams today I carried around the belief that Pres. Jimmy Carter was a Navy-trained nuclear engineer and a former nuclear officer. He was neither. What is dangerous about this sort of resume-buffing and credentials-inflation is that Carter was able to destroy the entire US nuclear industry – in part because people thought he “must know about that nuclear stuff”.

According to the Naval Historical Center, LT Carter was honorably discharged from the US Navy on October 8, 1953 so that he could return home to care for the family farm. He had only started his nuclear power training on March 1, 1953.
The PBS documentary is quite misleading with regard to Carter’s service, since it states that he served as the engineer of the USS Seawolf, the second US nuclear submarine. That statement is made with a backdrop of the USS Seawolf in operation. Unfortunately, that would have been impossible. The keel laying for the Seawolf took place in September 1953. That means that the construction process started just one month before Carter left the Navy to return to Plains. His service record indicates that he was assigned to the crew that would eventually man the USS Seawolf, but that is certainly not the same as serving as the engineering officer of an operating submarine in terms of the opportunity to absorb nuclear technical knowledge.
Resume inflation- how a peanut farmer became a nuclear engineer SeekerBlog



3. Most importantly is the fact that Carter has always been the mouthpiece for the Saudis and the terrorists.

a. "....it seems that AIPAC’s real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi’s purchases of the former president’s loyalty. “There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia,” the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.

Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter’s global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty."

At a time when Yasser Arafat was regarded as a diplomatic pariah by the U.S. government, former President Jimmy Carter secretly coached the Palestinian leader to improve his image, drafted passages for Arafat's public speeches and counseled other leaders of the Palestinian uprising in Israeli-occupied territories, according to a forthcoming book.

"There was no world leader Jimmy Carter was more eager to know than Yasser Arafat," the historian Douglas Brinkley wrote in "The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House" to be published in May by Viking. "Carter felt certain affinities with the Palestinian: a tendency toward hyperactivity and a workaholic disposition. Both men were like modern Bedouins with airplanes instead of camels," always moving.The book portrays the former Georgia governor as a messianic character, infused with righteousness, working Arab back channels to change Middle East equations.
[url="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/620789/Carter-secretly-coached-Arafat.html?pg=all"]Carter secretly coached Arafat Deseret News[/url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rd Israel. He wrote speeches for Arafat. "[/I

 

[frigidweirdo]

Norway.....Switzerland, and Luxembourg......................Countries that spend more per pupil than the United States.....older data but good enough to debunk the CUBA BS.............

We have and continue to spend more on education than most of the world..........

Throwing more money at it, which is STANDARD GOV'T doesn't fix the Real Problem.....................

We've been throwing mountains of money at it for decades FRIGIDAIRE.................

We could ban around facts and figures all day.

Simple points are this.

1) The US has a high GDP and should be spending a lot on education.
2) Spending money doesn't necessarily equate to teaching properly, training teachers properly, having the right things in place.

So the issue here is why does the US manage to throw money at education and still not get very far?

Here we're in a statistical black hole. Mainly because most countries fail to have and then achieve good aims within education.

BBC News - UK education sixth in global ranking

For example, this from the BBC. What they look at are, for example, number of University Graduates. But I happen to know that the UK increased the number of graduates, and decreased the level required to get a degree. However I also know that in UK schools professional development is high, that teachers are aiming to be better (if they can be bothered) and that compared to the US they're less likely to be able to teach badly or apathetically and keep their job.
I know of education in places like Spain, no professional development in normal schools, universities are a disaster zone. German and Austrian schools are quite good, though university can be a bit hit and miss, depending on what you're studying.

Austria impressed me because they don't (possibly didn't) have a national test at the end of their schooling at 18. However they manage to achieve real life aims better than most other countries. They have technical schools where you can study, say, engineering, building, Information Technology and even things like interior design from the age of 13. So by the time these kids are leaving school at the age of 18 they're as qualified as people in the same field at the age of 21-25. Kids can speak English by the time they 13-14 quite well, by 18 they often speak extremely well, especially those from the Gymnasiums but also those from technical schools. There are flaws to their system, of course, but compared to other countries, including many others I have seen, it is much better.

South Korea, for example, is second on this list, but knowing other countries in this region, and knowing teachers who have taught in Korea, I know it's more about studying a lot than studying what's useful.

So the problem is to spend money wisely.

Which comes to the last point.

Why is the US govt (both parties are guilty) incapable of having an education policy that makes sense. Why is education not such an important issue for national politics (aside from the fact it's quite a big state issue rather than federal), but the impetus for improving educational standards, in general through programs that can be taken up by state govts if they choose, based on govt research and so on, would make a massive difference.

Instead, brick wall, head, bang bang.

 

[frigidweirdo]

U.S. education spending tops global list study shows - CBS News

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.



That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.



As a share of its economy, the United States spent more than the average country in the survey. In 2010, the United States spent 7.3 percent of its gross domestic product on education, compared with the 6.3 percent average of other OECD countries. Denmark topped the list on that measure with 8 percent of its gross domestic product going toward education.

And yet the US education system isn't succeeding, especially for poorer kids. Why not? Why can other countries spend less and achieve better results?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Pardon me Frigidaire......................But we spend more than most of the world on education and they still beat us.............

but but but the RHETORIC OUTWEIGHS THE FACTS.............

Frigidaire and others going WE NEED TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON EDUCATION.....................

The BATTLE CRY OF FOOLS............

We are already spending more than the rest of the world you DUMB ASSES........Fitting members of the ASS PARTY.

Facts need not apply,..............

What was that shit about how great Cuba is compared to us again..........................

I've not said the US needs to spend more money on education. If you actually read what I've written.

I did say that the US spends 18% on defence, and 1/3 this on education. This I find ridiculous, but that's because the US spends more than the next 9 countries on the list of defence spending combined. So it can take down leaders the govt doesn't like.

 

[PoliticalChic]

U.S. education spending tops global list study shows - CBS News

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.



That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.



As a share of its economy, the United States spent more than the average country in the survey. In 2010, the United States spent 7.3 percent of its gross domestic product on education, compared with the 6.3 percent average of other OECD countries. Denmark topped the list on that measure with 8 percent of its gross domestic product going toward education.

And yet the US education system isn't succeeding, especially for poorer kids. Why not? Why can other countries spend less and achieve better results?

Because the education industry is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc.

Rather than education, their main interests are along these lines:

"The California Federation of Teachers (CFT)passed a resolution at its most recent convention claiming that “the continued unjust incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal represents a threat to the civil rights of all people.” Thirty years ago, Abu-Jamal took away Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner’s foremost civil right: his life. How obtuse of the CFT to disregard “the threat to the civil rights of all people” represented by someone capable of gunning down a man tasked with protecting the public.

The pantheon of leftist saints includes the Haymarket Square bombers, responsible for the deaths of eight Chicago cops, Joe Hill, murderer of former police officer John Morrison in Salt Lake City, Huey Newton, murderer of Oakland policeman John Frey, and Leonard Peltier, murderer of FBI agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams. Notice a pattern?"
Teachers' Mumia Abu-Jamal Resolution Out of Sync Morally and Historically | Human Events

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ronald Reagan was the first republican I supported, Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter was the last demonrat I supported.

So you went from supporting a business owner, Naval Academy graduate and nuclear submarine commander to supporting a 2nd tier movie actor whose wife "directed" him to the governor of CA position.

And you think YOU are "smart". LMAO.

Or, you supported one puppet, then you changed to a puppet of a different party, and the whole time you've voted for puppets.

And you think YOU are "smart".

That would have been my response.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because the education industry is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc.

Rather than education, their main interests are along these lines:

"The California Federation of Teachers (CFT)passed a resolution at its most recent convention claiming that “the continued unjust incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal represents a threat to the civil rights of all people.” Thirty years ago, Abu-Jamal took away Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner’s foremost civil right: his life. How obtuse of the CFT to disregard “the threat to the civil rights of all people” represented by someone capable of gunning down a man tasked with protecting the public.

The pantheon of leftist saints includes the Haymarket Square bombers, responsible for the deaths of eight Chicago cops, Joe Hill, murderer of former police officer John Morrison in Salt Lake City, Huey Newton, murderer of Oakland policeman John Frey, and Leonard Peltier, murderer of FBI agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams. Notice a pattern?"
Teachers' Mumia Abu-Jamal Resolution Out of Sync Morally and Historically | Human Events

I'm failing to see what this has to do with anything.

So the passed some resolution based on something that has nothing to do with anything. So what?

Questions that need to be asked are. If liberals who are more interested in politics than education run things, then why haven't the right ever done anything to change things?
Why has this situation allowed to exist and stay, even when Republicans run a lot of states and half the time run the USA?
And many more questions on such a line.

 

[eagle1462010]

Pardon me Frigidaire......................But we spend more than most of the world on education and they still beat us.............

but but but the RHETORIC OUTWEIGHS THE FACTS.............

Frigidaire and others going WE NEED TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON EDUCATION.....................

The BATTLE CRY OF FOOLS............

We are already spending more than the rest of the world you DUMB ASSES........Fitting members of the ASS PARTY.

Facts need not apply,..............

What was that shit about how great Cuba is compared to us again..........................

I've not said the US needs to spend more money on education. If you actually read what I've written.

I did say that the US spends 18% on defence, and 1/3 this on education. This I find ridiculous, but that's because the US spends more than the next 9 countries on the list of defence spending combined. So it can take down leaders the govt doesn't like.

No, the joke is you seemingly trying to turn this into some kind of topic about Cuba. It's not about Cuba. However the statistics are what they are. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the USA. Yes, a country which spends a lot more of its GDP on education.

Latin lessons What can we learn from the world rsquo s most ambitious literacy campaign - Americas - World - The Independent

"The statistics alone are enough to make the parent of the average British schoolchild green with envy: there is a strict maximum of 25 children per primary-school class, many of which have as few as 20. Secondary schools are striving towards only 15 pupils per class – less than half the UK norm."

"The vast majority of Cuba's 150,000 teachers have studied for a minimum of five years, half to master's level. And despite financial woes which prompted the government to recently announce one million public-sector job cuts, it has promised to keep investing in free education at all levels."

"Cuba spends 10 per cent of its central budget on education, compared with 4 per cent in the UK and just 2 per cent in the US, according to Unesco. The result is that three out of five Cubans over the age of 16 are in some type of formal, higher education. Wherever you travel in Cuba, just about everyone can read and write, and many have one or more academic qualifications."

"In a mere half-century, Cuba has developed one of the world's most successful free education systems, admired everywhere, from the UK to Canada to New Zealand. Yet, even though Cuba's 11 million citizens are enormously proud of the educational system that has nourished them for five decades, there is increasing concern that the country's classrooms are not preparing Cubans for life beyond education."

And the last sentence is one of the most important. However I'd say the same about the US too. However this isn't about the Cuban education system. I simply put number on top of the list and then put where the US is, I made the assumption that you'd have the ability to actually look at the list.

The point being, that money doesn't always make improvements. You need to have systems in place for improvements to take place. This seems to be a big problem in the US where politicians are unable and unwilling to improve things.

Also, I said in the last post, and I'm saying it here (are you reading what I'm writing?) that money isn't necessarily the problem as you have stated. The problem starts at the top with the President and Congress, with the Republicans and Democrats who are destroying the US for their own gains, and the people can go to hell.

Education is a political issue in almost every country where people get to vote. Even in China it's an issue and they can't vote. But in the US it seems that it's not really much of an issue in comparison with other countries for the politicians.

But it's just another symptom of the disease that's spreading and that people are ignoring.

 

[eagle1462010]

In one post you cite how much per the GDP of Cuba spends compared to the United States...............

Then you state later in the same post that I stated that money is the problem.........

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

 

[eagle1462010]

Norway.....Switzerland, and Luxembourg......................Countries that spend more per pupil than the United States.....older data but good enough to debunk the CUBA BS.............

We have and continue to spend more on education than most of the world..........

Throwing more money at it, which is STANDARD GOV'T doesn't fix the Real Problem.....................

We've been throwing mountains of money at it for decades FRIGIDAIRE.................

We could ban around facts and figures all day.

Simple points are this.

1) The US has a high GDP and should be spending a lot on education.
2) Spending money doesn't necessarily equate to teaching properly, training teachers properly, having the right things in place.

So the issue here is why does the US manage to throw money at education and still not get very far?

Here we're in a statistical black hole. Mainly because most countries fail to have and then achieve good aims within education.

BBC News - UK education sixth in global ranking

For example, this from the BBC. What they look at are, for example, number of University Graduates. But I happen to know that the UK increased the number of graduates, and decreased the level required to get a degree. However I also know that in UK schools professional development is high, that teachers are aiming to be better (if they can be bothered) and that compared to the US they're less likely to be able to teach badly or apathetically and keep their job.
I know of education in places like Spain, no professional development in normal schools, universities are a disaster zone. German and Austrian schools are quite good, though university can be a bit hit and miss, depending on what you're studying.

Austria impressed me because they don't (possibly didn't) have a national test at the end of their schooling at 18. However they manage to achieve real life aims better than most other countries. They have technical schools where you can study, say, engineering, building, Information Technology and even things like interior design from the age of 13. So by the time these kids are leaving school at the age of 18 they're as qualified as people in the same field at the age of 21-25. Kids can speak English by the time they 13-14 quite well, by 18 they often speak extremely well, especially those from the Gymnasiums but also those from technical schools. There are flaws to their system, of course, but compared to other countries, including many others I have seen, it is much better.

South Korea, for example, is second on this list, but knowing other countries in this region, and knowing teachers who have taught in Korea, I know it's more about studying a lot than studying what's useful.

So the problem is to spend money wisely.

Which comes to the last point.

Why is the US govt (both parties are guilty) incapable of having an education policy that makes sense. Why is education not such an important issue for national politics (aside from the fact it's quite a big state issue rather than federal), but the impetus for improving educational standards, in general through programs that can be taken up by state govts if they choose, based on govt research and so on, would make a massive difference.

Instead, brick wall, head, bang bang.

1. Issues like Common core.............both parents working.............kids more worried about texting, IPODS, and their Play Station...................
IT IS A CULTURE PROBLEM..............

2. Common core..........teaching standardized test........instead of allowing the Teachers to push the issue where they see areas needing improvement from their
classes..................

Again, you brought this topic up........I didn't.................You purposely mentioned the money spent and quoted Cuba...........I didn't..............

then in the same post you praise the data from Cuba and contradict yourself in the same post by saying it's not about the money...............

What are the solutions since you have now admitted it isn't the money.....................

Do you agree with common core............................

How do we force kids to learn when they'd rather play on the play station.....................

.........................................