CDZ redistribution of wealth

[rdean]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

 

[there4eyeM]

Who has asked anyone to turn over all their money to anyone else? Gross exaggeration of misinterpreted points does not serve debate.

Why did America 'socialize' education in the first place (it used to be private enterprise)?

 

[rdean]

Who has asked anyone to turn over all their money to anyone else? Gross exaggeration of misinterpreted points does not serve debate.

Why did America 'socialize' education in the first place (it used to be private enterprise)?

America "socialized" education when the country moved into the technological age and out of the corn field. It's that "socialized" education that makes us world leaders and it's that ignorant home schooling and dropping out that makes Republicans the joke of the western world.

 

[there4eyeM]

An educated populace is in the national interest and necessary to a functioning democracy (such as a republic). It is interesting, if perplexing, that given we have so much education we have so little thought.

 

[rdean]

An educated populace is in the national interest and necessary to a functioning democracy (such as a republic). It is interesting, if perplexing, that given we have so much education we have so little thought.

I suspect the educated think. A lot. Check out Nobel Prize winners, NASA and why the US Education system is still considered the best in the world.

 

[Andylusion]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

If I earn money, and you decide to not steal it from me, no one would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Third, there is nothing that a millionaire can do with money, that magically doesn't go back into the economy. If he spends the money, the is creating economic activity. If he invests the money, he creates economic activity. Even if he saves the money, he is either saving to spend, or invest, more money in the future... and in the mean time, the bank can only do those same three things, spend, save, and invest.

So regardless of what specific option he chooses, all of them will benefit the economy, with only ONE exception.

If the wealthy choose to invest the money outside of the country, that STILL benefits our country, because the money used, must come back somehow. However, the investment itself, will primarily benefit the country the investment is in.

Here's the problem with that specific issue.... what is the number one primary reason wealthy people invest outside the country? Because you are taxing away all their profits here. Major corporations have said openly, the reason they are not bringing those profits back to the US, is because of the tax hit they would incur.

So you are actually promoting the exact policies that do the most harm to our economy.

 

[Andylusion]

Civilized, meaning we tax poor people, to pay rich people in government, and then complain about poor getting poorer, and rich getting richer.

That's socialism for you.

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

 

[Andylusion]

I believe we merely need an "oil pump" for our capital economy to ensure liquidity.

Yeah, we've seen how well that works. I believe you are wrong.

No, you haven't seen how that works; simply because the right cannot muster that much moral of "goodwill toward men", as if by willful Appeal to Ignorance as a form of class warfare.

You have the right to be wrong and ignorant. Please continue.

 

[danielpalos]

That is only mediocre socialism, not the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who enjoined us to only use sufficient Socialism, to pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe we merely need an "oil pump" for our capital economy to ensure liquidity.

Yeah, we've seen how well that works. I believe you are wrong.

No, you haven't seen how that works; simply because the right cannot muster that much moral of "goodwill toward men", as if by willful Appeal to Ignorance as a form of class warfare.

You have the right to be wrong and ignorant. Please continue.

ok; i also don't mind resorting to the fewest fallacies, for just such a contingency.

 

[rdean]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

If I earn money, and you decide to not steal it from me, no one would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Third, there is nothing that a millionaire can do with money, that magically doesn't go back into the economy. If he spends the money, the is creating economic activity. If he invests the money, he creates economic activity. Even if he saves the money, he is either saving to spend, or invest, more money in the future... and in the mean time, the bank can only do those same three things, spend, save, and invest.

So regardless of what specific option he chooses, all of them will benefit the economy, with only ONE exception.

If the wealthy choose to invest the money outside of the country, that STILL benefits our country, because the money used, must come back somehow. However, the investment itself, will primarily benefit the country the investment is in.

Here's the problem with that specific issue.... what is the number one primary reason wealthy people invest outside the country? Because you are taxing away all their profits here. Major corporations have said openly, the reason they are not bringing those profits back to the US, is because of the tax hit they would incur.

So you are actually promoting the exact policies that do the most harm to our economy.

Tell me what you are on so I can get some. I feel like a good delusion right about now. I won't read all your post because for lack of a better word, it's fucking stupid. So I will deal with the beginning It's painful because it's stupid, but here goes:

You: First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

Oh, it most certainly does. Taxes pay for everything from public transportation to education to healthcare. Those three things alone do help level the playing field. Who could not know something so fucking obvious. Do you even think when you write? Those millionaires made that money here in this country using roads that everyone paid for. Sewers that everyone paid for. Services that everyone paid for. With educated workers whose education everyone paid for. FUCKING DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn. Why does that have to be explained?????

Then, you said: Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Where the fuck did that even come from? When someone else got 10 times what you made in the entire year in one check from the government that makes you a millionaire? No. Even saying something so ridiculous possibly makes you a fool.

I hope you are around 15 or 16. Because if those are the things you think and you're past 30, you will have a very, very difficult life.

Read over what you wrote. Perhaps read it out loud to someone else. Maybe they can explain it to you. You may think I'm harsh, but clearly, you are harsh on reason.

If the wealthy send their money outside the country it helps the country??????????? Huh??????????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF??????????????

 

[Andylusion]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

If I earn money, and you decide to not steal it from me, no one would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Third, there is nothing that a millionaire can do with money, that magically doesn't go back into the economy. If he spends the money, the is creating economic activity. If he invests the money, he creates economic activity. Even if he saves the money, he is either saving to spend, or invest, more money in the future... and in the mean time, the bank can only do those same three things, spend, save, and invest.

So regardless of what specific option he chooses, all of them will benefit the economy, with only ONE exception.

If the wealthy choose to invest the money outside of the country, that STILL benefits our country, because the money used, must come back somehow. However, the investment itself, will primarily benefit the country the investment is in.

Here's the problem with that specific issue.... what is the number one primary reason wealthy people invest outside the country? Because you are taxing away all their profits here. Major corporations have said openly, the reason they are not bringing those profits back to the US, is because of the tax hit they would incur.

So you are actually promoting the exact policies that do the most harm to our economy.

Tell me what you are on so I can get some. I feel like a good delusion right about now. I won't read all your post because for lack of a better word, it's fucking stupid. So I will deal with the beginning It's painful because it's stupid, but here goes:

You: First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

Oh, it most certainly does. Taxes pay for everything from public transportation to education to healthcare. Those three things alone do help level the playing field. Who could not know something so fucking obvious. Do you even think when you write? Those millionaires made that money here in this country using roads that everyone paid for. Sewers that everyone paid for. Services that everyone paid for. With educated workers whose education everyone paid for. FUCKING DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn. Why does that have to be explained?????

Then, you said: Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Where the fuck did that even come from? When someone else got 10 times what you made in the entire year in one check from the government that makes you a millionaire? No. Even saying something so ridiculous possibly makes you a fool.

I hope you are around 15 or 16. Because if those are the things you think and you're past 30, you will have a very, very difficult life.

Read over what you wrote. Perhaps read it out loud to someone else. Maybe they can explain it to you. You may think I'm harsh, but clearly, you are harsh on reason.

If the wealthy send their money outside the country it helps the country??????????? Huh??????????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF??????????????

Again.... you not taking my money, doesn't mean you have redistributed wealth to me. This is just basic middle school level concepts. If you can't grasp that... then nothing else have to say will matter to anyone except those who are also unable to grasp middle school level logic.

If I earn $50,000. And you DO NOT TAKE MY MONEY..... that is not you redistributing wealth to me. Do you under this, or should I just ignore your posts because they are too stupid to bother with?

 

[Andylusion]

the common defense and general welfare have NOTHING TO DO WITH redistributing income... duh! Socialism to pay the debts? HUH? Are you smoking something

Yes, it does, the general welfare includes the lieutenant general welfare, even the more dogmatic sergeant major general welfare, and all of the rest of the welfare "cohort". It is why it is called the general welfare and not the private welfare.

You are once again, ignorant and wrong. General welfare only refers to the powers specifically delegated to the government in the constitution.

Yes, providing for the general welfare is a general power not a specific power.

No, it is *NOT* a general power. It is limited to the specific powers given.

The General Welfare clause means you can't make a policy that benefits one group of citizens at the expense of all others. Medicaid, unemployment comp, welfare, and so on, are all in violation of the General Welfare Clause.

Yes, the general welfare clause is a general power; it is as general as providing for the common defense and paying the debts.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" - Thomas Jefferson.

There is nothing 'general' about it. It is specific, and defined.

 

[rdean]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

If I earn money, and you decide to not steal it from me, no one would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Third, there is nothing that a millionaire can do with money, that magically doesn't go back into the economy. If he spends the money, the is creating economic activity. If he invests the money, he creates economic activity. Even if he saves the money, he is either saving to spend, or invest, more money in the future... and in the mean time, the bank can only do those same three things, spend, save, and invest.

So regardless of what specific option he chooses, all of them will benefit the economy, with only ONE exception.

If the wealthy choose to invest the money outside of the country, that STILL benefits our country, because the money used, must come back somehow. However, the investment itself, will primarily benefit the country the investment is in.

Here's the problem with that specific issue.... what is the number one primary reason wealthy people invest outside the country? Because you are taxing away all their profits here. Major corporations have said openly, the reason they are not bringing those profits back to the US, is because of the tax hit they would incur.

So you are actually promoting the exact policies that do the most harm to our economy.

Tell me what you are on so I can get some. I feel like a good delusion right about now. I won't read all your post because for lack of a better word, it's fucking stupid. So I will deal with the beginning It's painful because it's stupid, but here goes:

You: First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

Oh, it most certainly does. Taxes pay for everything from public transportation to education to healthcare. Those three things alone do help level the playing field. Who could not know something so fucking obvious. Do you even think when you write? Those millionaires made that money here in this country using roads that everyone paid for. Sewers that everyone paid for. Services that everyone paid for. With educated workers whose education everyone paid for. FUCKING DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn. Why does that have to be explained?????

Then, you said: Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Where the fuck did that even come from? When someone else got 10 times what you made in the entire year in one check from the government that makes you a millionaire? No. Even saying something so ridiculous possibly makes you a fool.

I hope you are around 15 or 16. Because if those are the things you think and you're past 30, you will have a very, very difficult life.

Read over what you wrote. Perhaps read it out loud to someone else. Maybe they can explain it to you. You may think I'm harsh, but clearly, you are harsh on reason.

If the wealthy send their money outside the country it helps the country??????????? Huh??????????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF??????????????

Again.... you not taking my money, doesn't mean you have redistributed wealth to me. This is just basic middle school level concepts. If you can't grasp that... then nothing else have to say will matter to anyone except those who are also unable to grasp middle school level logic.

If I earn $50,000. And you DO NOT TAKE MY MONEY..... that is not you redistributing wealth to me. Do you under this, or should I just ignore your posts because they are too stupid to bother with?

And if the government didn't take some of everyone's money, there would be no streets, no sewers, no electrical grid, no power plants, no schools and so on.

Even cavemen helped each other. And you call me stupid? Fool. Another idiot wingnut who thinks roads must grow themselves.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno...............I lived in a place where I had to pay rent.

The rent was held by the landlord, and when necessary, it was given out to those who could fix whatever was wrong with the property, be it plumbing (an issue that came up on occasion), or property, or whatever.

The wealth was "re-distributed" by the owner when things went wrong.

We currently have a problem with infrastructure, yet we've paid taxes for quite a while, and the GOP is trying to cut tax rates for the rich.

Sorry, but the rich use the same roads, and they face the same risks, yet pay a substantial less percentage than those of us who are middle to lower income class.

If a road swallowed up, or a bridge collapsed, or the road had potholes and caused a crash of a significant American (such as a Congressman or Senator), how quick do you think that the roads would get fixed?

 

[ralfy]

You seem to be missing the point about the concept of employment at will, and a form of minimum wage that simply reserves labor at the rock bottom cost of a minimum wage. It would remove that requirement from the private sector, and lower that "hidden tax" through less regulatory burden.

The value of labor does not increase, simply because you allow people to sit at home doing nothing, collecting 8/hr off the government.

I'm not going to pay someone more money to do a job I think is only worth $5/hr, just because they can sit at home for $8/hr.

No one is.

The result would be that millions of people would sit at home collecting the 'minimum wage' of 8/hr off the government.

We've already seen that happen.

Yes, it does, simply by public fiat; why shouldn't command economics be employed instead of laissez-fair capitalism which is too lazy to have a Cause without a profit motive.

Again... because it won't work. Doesn't matter what your high minded sentiment is. It does not work.

Command economics always works, and may even require a work ethic. What doesn't work is your appeals to ignorance and other diversions.

Yeah, command economics has worked perfectly. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Always works. Every single time.

Don't forget China, Vietnam, and various "tiger" economies, not to mention BRICS and emerging markets, several of which have significant levels of centralization.

 

[ralfy]

Who has asked anyone to turn over all their money to anyone else? Gross exaggeration of misinterpreted points does not serve debate.

Why did America 'socialize' education in the first place (it used to be private enterprise)?

According to some, a formal, standardized educational system was brought about by industrialists. It was believed that what applied to businesses also applies to education. Hence, we see standardization, hierarchies, promotions based on quantification, specialization, etc.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Education should never be standardized.

If we were all held to the same (lower or higher) standard then one of two things would happen...............

Either we'd never be able to hit the standard, and be shamed, or we would only hit the standard (even though we were capable of far exceeding it) and would be shamed because we didn't live up to our potential.

Standards are fine for business, but for people (who shouldn't be limited or boxed in to a finite way of living), they shouldn't exist.

Live up to your potential, whatever that may be, and be proud of what you are able to accomplish.

 

[Andylusion]

The Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy were the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Republicans mindlessly say it's all about percentages, but if a millionaire gets $150,000.00 back and it's not going into the economy and a regular guy gets a grand back and is denied government services, clearly, the wealth of the nation is being transferred to the top.
Then the fact two wars were unpaid for and the deficit exploded and you see REAL Republican economic policy. To the GOP, deficits don't matter. Unless a Democrat is in office.
Those are the facts. Immutable and recent history.

Unemployment benefits not until Bush tax cuts pass Senate GOP says - CSMonitor.com

First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

If I earn money, and you decide to not steal it from me, no one would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Third, there is nothing that a millionaire can do with money, that magically doesn't go back into the economy. If he spends the money, the is creating economic activity. If he invests the money, he creates economic activity. Even if he saves the money, he is either saving to spend, or invest, more money in the future... and in the mean time, the bank can only do those same three things, spend, save, and invest.

So regardless of what specific option he chooses, all of them will benefit the economy, with only ONE exception.

If the wealthy choose to invest the money outside of the country, that STILL benefits our country, because the money used, must come back somehow. However, the investment itself, will primarily benefit the country the investment is in.

Here's the problem with that specific issue.... what is the number one primary reason wealthy people invest outside the country? Because you are taxing away all their profits here. Major corporations have said openly, the reason they are not bringing those profits back to the US, is because of the tax hit they would incur.

So you are actually promoting the exact policies that do the most harm to our economy.

Tell me what you are on so I can get some. I feel like a good delusion right about now. I won't read all your post because for lack of a better word, it's fucking stupid. So I will deal with the beginning It's painful because it's stupid, but here goes:

You: First, cutting taxes does not redistribute wealth.

Oh, it most certainly does. Taxes pay for everything from public transportation to education to healthcare. Those three things alone do help level the playing field. Who could not know something so fucking obvious. Do you even think when you write? Those millionaires made that money here in this country using roads that everyone paid for. Sewers that everyone paid for. Services that everyone paid for. With educated workers whose education everyone paid for. FUCKING DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn. Why does that have to be explained?????

Then, you said: Second, *I* personally got a tax cut under Bush. At that time, I made less than $20,000 a year. So by your own statements, I must be the wealthy.

Where the fuck did that even come from? When someone else got 10 times what you made in the entire year in one check from the government that makes you a millionaire? No. Even saying something so ridiculous possibly makes you a fool.

I hope you are around 15 or 16. Because if those are the things you think and you're past 30, you will have a very, very difficult life.

Read over what you wrote. Perhaps read it out loud to someone else. Maybe they can explain it to you. You may think I'm harsh, but clearly, you are harsh on reason.

If the wealthy send their money outside the country it helps the country??????????? Huh??????????
OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF??????????????

Again.... you not taking my money, doesn't mean you have redistributed wealth to me. This is just basic middle school level concepts. If you can't grasp that... then nothing else have to say will matter to anyone except those who are also unable to grasp middle school level logic.

If I earn $50,000. And you DO NOT TAKE MY MONEY..... that is not you redistributing wealth to me. Do you under this, or should I just ignore your posts because they are too stupid to bother with?

And if the government didn't take some of everyone's money, there would be no streets, no sewers, no electrical grid, no power plants, no schools and so on.

Even cavemen helped each other. And you call me stupid? Fool. Another idiot wingnut who thinks roads must grow themselves.

Last chance to prove you are not so intellectually bankrupt, that you can grasp the simplest of concepts.

NOT STEALING SOMEONE'S MONEY...... is *NOT*..... Redistributing wealth. If you and me are in middle school, and you are stealing my lunch money... and one day you decide to NOT take my lunch money.... no one... as in NO PERSON ON THE FREAKING PLANET..... would conclude that you were engaged in redistributing wealth to me.

Now I put a bunch of pauses (...) to give you time to mentally digest these apparently super difficult concepts.

Are you, or are you not, mentally able to grasp this? Because unless you can grasp this.... there's no point in my discussing any other topic with you. If you can't grasp this, then you certainly won't be able to grasp any more difficult concept.

Yes or no.... do you get that *not* taxing people, is NOT redistributing wealth? Yes or no. Let everyone on this thread know, so we can ignore you if needed.

 

[Andylusion]

Education should never be standardized.

If we were all held to the same (lower or higher) standard then one of two things would happen...............

Either we'd never be able to hit the standard, and be shamed, or we would only hit the standard (even though we were capable of far exceeding it) and would be shamed because we didn't live up to our potential.

Standards are fine for business, but for people (who shouldn't be limited or boxed in to a finite way of living), they shouldn't exist.

Live up to your potential, whatever that may be, and be proud of what you are able to accomplish.

And what is more likely is that, those capable of exceeding the standard given, and had the means, would move out of those schools. The result would be the difference in education between the rich and poor, would be far greater than it is right now.