Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Neoliberalism involves the dogma of privatizing everything, including education. That isn't what our founders believed in at all.
"there should not be a district of one Mile square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselv they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen"
-- John Adams; from letter to John Jebb (Sept. 10, 1785)
"The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV
"It is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity."
-- James Madison; from letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)
Based on your post....you must actually be imagining that the wholly owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc., the government school system....
....is doing the job it did when it was less biased, less under the thumb of Leftists like John Dewey and Paulo Freire and Barack Obama.
Or....do you see our current system as.....exemplary?
We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"....a better funded school system."
And in your post one finds the very heart of why Liberals, Progressives, socialists, fascists, Nazis and Communists all get it wrong.
Materialism.
Money will not fix the schools, the welfare system, or....mark the path to a better society.
….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but believe that it is a change of values needed to cure poverty, education, and every other ill that besets society.
Neoliberalism involves the dogma of privatizing everything, including education. That isn't what our founders believed in at all.
"there should not be a district of one Mile square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expence of the People themselv they must be taught to reverence themselvs instead of adoreing their servants their Generals Admirals Bishops and Statesmen"
-- John Adams; from letter to John Jebb (Sept. 10, 1785)
"The first stage of this education being the schools of the hundreds, wherein the great mass of the people will receive their instruction, the principal foundations of future order will be laid here. Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 'Notes on Virginia' Query XIV
"It is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity."
-- James Madison; from letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)
Based on your post....you must actually be imagining that the wholly owned subsidiary of Liberalism, Inc., the government school system....
....is doing the job it did when it was less biased, less under the thumb of Leftists like John Dewey and Paulo Freire and Barack Obama.
Or....do you see our current system as.....exemplary?
We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"....a better funded school system."
And in your post one finds the very heart of why Liberals, Progressives, socialists, fascists, Nazis and Communists all get it wrong.
Materialism.
Money will not fix the schools, the welfare system, or....mark the path to a better society.
….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but believe that it is a change of values needed to cure poverty, education, and every other ill that besets society.
Only the most superstitious of them believe that.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
-- Adolf Hitler, from speech in Berlin (October 24, 1933
The poverty rate in America, when you include the help given to the poor that raises their measured income,
is about 4%. Why someone like the OP would want to raise that number is anyone's guess.
No one is raising the number, that's what it is BEFORE the handouts paid for by taxpayers.
The author of the opinion piece to which you refer, Tim Worstall, is known to have some...far out ideas. The political party to which he belongs has 46,000 members. Oh, and that's in Great Britain.
Our Greatest President, Abraham Lincoln had a perfect analogy for Mr. Worstall saying that if you call money from the taxpayers, given to those in poverty, fewer people are REALLY in poverty. Quite a joke.
"How many legs does a dog have, if you call his tail a leg? The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln
If we take all help away from the poor,
how long will it take before America is a better place, with fewer poor people and a smaller gap between rich and poor?
You tell us, genius.
We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
We should clearly have a better funded school system. After all, to render the people safe to govern, "their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
As you know, the best funded, highest cost per student districts are among the worst performing schools in the nation. Private schools outperform government schools as well as charter schools and children home schooled.
Money is not the problem, teachers unions are part of the problem with the failed Jimmy Carter administration's Department of Education another part.
As you know, the best funded, highest cost per student districts are among the worst performing schools in the nation. Private schools outperform government schools as well as charter schools and children home schooled.
Money is not the problem, teachers unions are part of the problem with the failed Jimmy Carter administration's Department of Education another part.
OK. Again you prove that you have perused the conservative talking point site. But what do people who actually study the subject find? I suspect you would rather be told what to believe, but if you wanted, you could get a quick overview of what the brighter minds have learned by actually studying the subject:
"If you're at the top, and you think that widening the wealth gap doesn't affect you, let me put this gently: you are completely and totally wrong."
This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies
A good deal of study on the subject has been done over the ears. Scholarly stuff. And it shows, in summary, over and over, that advanced economic nations collapse when income and wealth inequality gets great enough. And, we now have the highest inequality since the beginning of the great depression.
As you know, the best funded, highest cost per student districts are among the worst performing schools in the nation. Private schools outperform government schools as well as charter schools and children home schooled.
Money is not the problem, teachers unions are part of the problem with the failed Jimmy Carter administration's Department of Education another part.
OK. Again you prove that you have perused the conservative talking point site. But what do people who actually study the subject find? I suspect you would rather be told what to believe, but if you wanted, you could get a quick overview of what the brighter minds have learned by actually studying the subject:
"If you're at the top, and you think that widening the wealth gap doesn't affect you, let me put this gently: you are completely and totally wrong."
This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies
A good deal of study on the subject has been done over the ears. Scholarly stuff. And it shows, in summary, over and over, that advanced economic nations collapse when income and wealth inequality gets great enough. And, we now have the highest inequality since the beginning of the great depression.
"Scholarly stuff"! You mean folks like Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama who lives in his academic world but no common sense, whatsoever.
PLEASE show us a list of all the great "advanced economic nations collapse when income and wealth inequality gets great enough." PLEASE what nations collapsed because they had too much money?
Since you love all that "scholarly stuff" I'm sure you approve, wholeheartedly, in the studies done which show the Progressive measures initiated by FDR extended the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS. The very programs you believe should be put in place today or, if they are still in place, greatly expanded.
As you know, the author of the study you quote here, Richard Wilkinson, is an outspoken Socialist. Stunning that he would agree with your beloved Bernie Sanders.
Really, me boy, let me try to help you out of the nonsense you just posted. Now, pay attention.
Last time I knew, no president has the time to head studies and write books about them. Never happened, me boy, except perhaps in your mind.
Calling a president your favorite personal names shows a complete lack of class. While i have disagreed with a lot of presidents over the past 50 years, I never sunk to the level of disrespect you seem proud of. Makes you immaterial.
No nation colapses because they had too much money. NORE
Cute try!
As you know, the best funded, highest cost per student districts are among the worst performing schools in the nation. Private schools outperform government schools as well as charter schools and children home schooled.
Money is not the problem, teachers unions are part of the problem with the failed Jimmy Carter administration's Department of Education another part.
OK. Again you prove that you have perused the conservative talking point site. But what do people who actually study the subject find? I suspect you would rather be told what to believe, but if you wanted, you could get a quick overview of what the brighter minds have learned by actually studying the subject:
"If you're at the top, and you think that widening the wealth gap doesn't affect you, let me put this gently: you are completely and totally wrong."
This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies
A good deal of study on the subject has been done over the ears. Scholarly stuff. And it shows, in summary, over and over, that advanced economic nations collapse when income and wealth inequality gets great enough. And, we now have the highest inequality since the beginning of the great depression.
"Scholarly stuff"! I know you hate scholarly. You, being a con tool, much prefer to be spoon fed your beliefs from the Con Talking Points. You mean folks like Lame Duck President Barack Hussein Obama who lives in his academic world but no common sense, whatsoever. Really, me boy, your opinion only. Except in my past 50 years, I have never sunk to the lack of class necessary to insult a sitting president of my country. Of either party. Thanks for showing your total lack of class.
And, I have never suggested any president is doing studies, or heading studies, on income inequality. That is your lie. I understand how studies are done. Sorry you do not.
PLEASE show us a list of all the great "advanced economic nations collapse when income and wealth inequality gets great enough." I provided you a source. The list is fairly short, as you would understand if you had any idea of economic history. You see, me boy, a country may lead the world as the leading economic country for decades and in the past centuries.. But you could include China, India, and the UK.
PLEASE what nations collapsed because they had too much money? I did not say any nation collapsed due to having too much money. You seem to be suggesting I did. That would be an outright lie. There is arguably no such thing as too much money. The subject is income distribution.
Since you love all that "scholarly stuff" I'm sure you approve, wholeheartedly, in the studies done which show the Progressive measures initiated by FDR extended the Great Depression by SEVEN YEARS. The very programs you believe should be put in place today or, if they are still in place, greatly expanded.
Wow. Did you think that measures put in place by FDR were still in place??? Hate to tell you, but you are proving your stupidity.
I can provide you a list of economists that believe your quote about expanding the recession by seven years is nonsense. But the ue rate did raise by over 20% Which is a greater raise in the ue rate than at any other time in US history. And it only started down as a result of those measures taken by FDR.
As you know, the author of the study you quote here, Richard Wilkinson, is an outspoken Socialist.
Link?? And did you know that most students of income inequality are not socialists. They are social scientists. Now, I know this is foreign to you, but they believe in looking at issues and studying them. And studies have rules. Which cons do not believe in. Because, like you, they prefer to believe what they want to believe. Because, me boy, like you, cons are dumb.
Stunning that he would agree with your beloved Bernie Sanders
No politician is beloved by me, me boy. More of your opinion.
What is interesting, me boy, is that you are a typical con tool who hates scholarly anything, and who sees no problem with income and wealth inequality. But has never, ever studied the subject because you do not believe in it based on .......What you want to believe. And so you stay stupid.
5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid
Your welcome.
!
