Why We Fail

[BluesLegend]

It's the parents who are failing. Our piss poor schools are only a symptom of that larger disease.

When my local school district lied through their teeth about why they needed another big increase in school funding just 2 years after getting the largest increase in history and I questioned them, their venom spitting hate filled response told me all I need to know about our public school system and their attitude towards taxpayers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's the parents who are failing. Our piss poor schools are only a symptom of that larger disease.

When my local school district lied through their teeth about why they needed another big increase in school funding just 2 years after getting the largest increase in history and I questioned them, their venom spitting hate filled response told me all I need to know about our public school system and their attitude towards taxpayers.

Run for school board.

 

[BluesLegend]

It's the parents who are failing. Our piss poor schools are only a symptom of that larger disease.

When my local school district lied through their teeth about why they needed another big increase in school funding just 2 years after getting the largest increase in history and I questioned them, their venom spitting hate filled response told me all I need to know about our public school system and their attitude towards taxpayers.

Run for school board.

They rigged the elections. They are no longer part of general elections because too many people were voting in the general and voters kept voting No on their ridiculous requests. So now they have surprise school issue only elections at odd times to try to catch people off guard. They did away with the rule that a certain percentage of the district had to vote for the vote to count. Now 20% can gift themselves all the taxpayer money they want. This is how Democrats operate.

 

[francoHFW]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

 

[BluesLegend]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

 

[francoHFW]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[SwimExpert]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Franco go home, you're drunk.

 

[BluesLegend]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Somehow I knew a manifesto would be the response. lol

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Somehow I knew a manifesto would be the response. lol

we fail now because we have liberalism now:
liberals attacked and destroyed the schools, families, religion and govt of America.
Then they attacked business!

Does anybody doubt this?

 

[Cassandro]

Unionized public employees>>>campaign contributions>>>special favors>>>public employees. Even FDR foresaw what a corrupt farce this would be.

 

[francoHFW]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Somehow I knew a manifesto would be the response. lol

Statistics like that don't lie, hater dupe functional idiot.

 

[Boss]

we fail now because we have liberalism now:...
Does anybody doubt this?

I kinda do. Liberalism is what brought forth a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. This was a very liberal concept in that time. The masses couldn't be depended on to govern themselves, it would be chaos... that's what everyone predicted. But the Liberals had devised Federalism. A system by which federal government was given limited powers to handle certain collective interests through representative democracy.

No sooner than the ink had dried on our Constitution, the Democrat party was born and set out to change our Federalist government into a socialist-democratic government. They became famous as "the progressives" and through much of the early 20th century, fundamentally changed aspects of our government in ways we are still grappling with. They have since hijacked the banner of Liberalism and proclaim to be fighting for the people. But they are actually fighting for the same thing they've fought for since the beginning, to change our system into a socialist-democracy.

 

[BluesLegend]

Might have something to do with Reaganist policy wrecking the nonrich and the country for 30 years, and blacks worst of all...see sig pp1.

Uh what?

Idiot.
Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--September 18, 2015
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

Somehow I knew a manifesto would be the response. lol

Statistics like that don't lie, hater dupe functional idiot.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Liberalism is what brought forth a new nation

you mean conservatism is what brough tforth..... Remember, it was a revolution for freedom from big govt. The Bill of Rights was to protect us against what govt would try to do to us not what the Girl Scouts would try to do!!

Do you understand?

 

[Timmy]

If our schools suck so bad why are we still the world leader in innovation ? Why do students from across the world come here for college?

And by the way . Unlike other countries , we educate ALL our kids . Even the difficult and handicapped .

 

[Boss]

. Liberalism is what brought forth a new nation

you mean conservatism is what brough tforth..... Remember, it was a revolution for freedom from big govt. The Bill of Rights was to protect us against what govt would try to do to us not what the Girl Scouts would try to do!!

Do you understand?

No. The "Conservative" idea of the time was to remain colonies under British rule. It was a very radical liberal idea to declare independence. But let's clarify, this is what we commonly know as "Classic Liberalism" and it is the foundation for modern Constitutional Conservatism.

The entity who now incorrectly uses the "Liberal" banner are the Socialist-Democrats or Progressives. Back then, we would have called those people "Anti-Federalists" because they believe in a different type of government.

 

[Boss]

If our schools suck so bad why are we still the world leader in innovation ? Why do students from across the world come here for college?

And by the way . Unlike other countries , we educate ALL our kids . Even the difficult and handicapped .

Well... Innovations have nothing to do with quality of schools. I mean, there are countless factors other than education when it comes to our innovations and technology. Some of the greatest US innovations and technology is done by people who weren't educated here.

People want to come here because we're a free country. We offer everyone the opportunity to aspire and endeavor, regardless of class or wealth status. It doesn't have a thing to do with the quality of our schools.

All anyone has to do is look at our test scores compared to other countries. It's embarrassing. No other word is more appropriate. We get our butts kicked by everyone. We are failing on every level in education and idiots like you are oblivious.

Hey.. I get it... some of you are in on the scam... you're part of the system... you've got your little teaching job with tenure and your state pension and automatic pay increases and life is good... I understand, you don't want to mess up your apple cart. But all across America, our kids are failing because we are failing them. Oh... I know... your favorite guy or gal in politics is owned by the Teacher's Union and so you have to carry the water and tow the party line.... still... our kids are failing, we're failing our kids.

 

[Timmy]

If our schools suck so bad why are we still the world leader in innovation ? Why do students from across the world come here for college?

And by the way . Unlike other countries , we educate ALL our kids . Even the difficult and handicapped .

Well... Innovations have nothing to do with quality of schools. I mean, there are countless factors other than education when it comes to our innovations and technology. Some of the greatest US innovations and technology is done by people who weren't educated here.

People want to come here because we're a free country. We offer everyone the opportunity to aspire and endeavor, regardless of class or wealth status. It doesn't have a thing to do with the quality of our schools.

All anyone has to do is look at our test scores compared to other countries. It's embarrassing. No other word is more appropriate. We get our butts kicked by everyone. We are failing on every level in education and idiots like you are oblivious.

Hey.. I get it... some of you are in on the scam... you're part of the system... you've got your little teaching job with tenure and your state pension and automatic pay increases and life is good... I understand, you don't want to mess up your apple cart. But all across America, our kids are failing because we are failing them. Oh... I know... your favorite guy or gal in politics is owned by the Teacher's Union and so you have to carry the water and tow the party line.... still... our kids are failing, we're failing our kids.

The test scores suck because they include red states where they don't give a **** about education .

My state (Mass.) would rank 8th in the world if graded on its own .

There are a lot of good schools in our country . Don't believe the hype .

 

[Boss]

If our schools suck so bad why are we still the world leader in innovation ? Why do students from across the world come here for college?

And by the way . Unlike other countries , we educate ALL our kids . Even the difficult and handicapped .

Well... Innovations have nothing to do with quality of schools. I mean, there are countless factors other than education when it comes to our innovations and technology. Some of the greatest US innovations and technology is done by people who weren't educated here.

People want to come here because we're a free country. We offer everyone the opportunity to aspire and endeavor, regardless of class or wealth status. It doesn't have a thing to do with the quality of our schools.

All anyone has to do is look at our test scores compared to other countries. It's embarrassing. No other word is more appropriate. We get our butts kicked by everyone. We are failing on every level in education and idiots like you are oblivious.

Hey.. I get it... some of you are in on the scam... you're part of the system... you've got your little teaching job with tenure and your state pension and automatic pay increases and life is good... I understand, you don't want to mess up your apple cart. But all across America, our kids are failing because we are failing them. Oh... I know... your favorite guy or gal in politics is owned by the Teacher's Union and so you have to carry the water and tow the party line.... still... our kids are failing, we're failing our kids.

The test scores suck because they include red states where they don't give a **** about education .

My state (Mass.) would rank 8th in the world if graded on its own .

There are a lot of good schools in our country . Don't believe the hype .

I hate to break this to ya but 8th place is not exactly leading the world. I mean.. if you were picking a heart surgeon, would you want the guy who came in 8th place? What if you're going to risk your life flying a rocket into outer space... would you want a rocket designed by the 8th best guy? Too bad the GOP doesn't nominate their candidate that way or Jeb Bush may have a shot!

Massachusetts isn't a country so it doesn't matter how they would rate against other countries. I'm sure that other countries have isolated enclaves where education is better... they don't get to parse out their above average example and compete against Massachusetts or Massachusetts would probably not finish 8th. So you have a concocted and manipulated perversion of test scores and this is your basis for argument. It's pathetic, but then again, you're the product of American education, what do we expect?

Don't believe the hype? YOU are the one here with the hype. I'm sating the truth, our education system is a hot mess from top to bottom, we fail at everything. You want to keep your head mired deeply in the sand because you're probably part of the system. You got a sweet deal going and you don't want anyone messing that up for you. A lot of people in our country are that way these days... they don't really give two shits about what is best for the country, it's all about what is best for ME... what am I getting out of it?