Where is the US economy headed?

This from the guy who supported GW Bush who took more vacation days than any president. LOL

You need a much bigger hole than that!

Yeah, that's the biggest I could find (I didn't look all that hard ). I was thinking more of a bottomless pit.

The Mariana Trench is about the deepest place we have on this planet at about six miles deep, but I don't think that's deep enough for our current fiscal/financial problems.

You are correct, Okie. Obama has not presented evidence. He has proposed a pile of pork. He is a populist and says things that make people "feel good" but are mainly a waste of money. I consider myself to be somewhat of an expert in public education and when I read what Obama said about public education, I had to laugh out loud.

Here are his words:

On education: " I think that we've got to rebuild our schools to make sure that they're state of the art. We also have to make sure that we are training new teachers and retraining some of the existing teachers so that they've got the best possible skills.

"We also are going to have to reform how we do business in some of the schools. I think it's very important for us to have high standards. I think we've got to do a better job, though, of assessing performance in schools. No Child Left Behind needs to be reworked in a more effective way.

"But the last thing that we need in schools do with schools has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with parents. Because we can put as much money as we want into schools if parents don't have an attitude that says, 'I'm going to make sure my child does my homework; that I'm meeting with the teacher to find out what's going on


Let's take his ideas one at a time:

he said:
' I THINK WE HAVE TO REBUILD OUR SCHOOLS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE STATE OF THE ART"

Sounds good-doesn't it? But it is an idiotic waste of money.
Why do we have to rebuild our schools? How many schools will we rebuild? Are they in bad shape? Will they all be in the inner cities?

There is no need to tear down any schools. Most of them are in good shape except some in theinner cities where the ghetto kids tear out the plumbing, ransack the schools, break the windows and steal some of the contents.

The solution for that is to put those people in jail.

Most of the newer schools in the USA are in the inner cities where the population is black and Hispanic. These schools have gotten millions and millions of dollars since the Great Society started--That's forty years ago and each year millions of the taxpayers money rolled in to the schools to REBUILD BUT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES OF BLACK AND HISPANIC CHILDREN ARE NOT IMPROVING MATERIALLY. MOST OF THEM ARE STILL BELOW THE MEDIAN SCORE IN THE COUNTRY.

Let's continue, Okie, with an examination of what Obama said----He wants to rebuild our schools. He hasn't told us why and he hasn't told us how many schools need to be rebuilt.

Cui bono? --Who profits? Why, the same builders in each city and town that built other schools. They get the contracts. Why should we pay millions of dollars for schools when the school buildings, by and large, are more than sufficient. Does anyone think, even Cyclops, that the builders will not contribute MillionsFROM THE MONEY THAT COMES OUT OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to the politicians in the area of the "rebuilt" schools? If you think that most of these "rebuilt" schools are NOT going to be in areas where the right politicians rule( Mayor Daley, et. al. You know nothing.

I COMPLETELY RESENT THE FACT THAT PART OF MY TAX DOLLARS WILL END UP IN THE POCKETS OF LEFT WING POLITICIANS.

You are wrong on about everything. First, there are no earmarks. All was out in the open from the word go. Second, there is essentially no pork. Third, he did say why schools need repairs, etc. He mentioned one school in use built in the 19th century, in which part of the building is unusable.

Lert's continue. Okie, with more of Obama's nonsense and populist meaningless bull...about schools. He says we have to train more teachers and re-train other teachers.

Why? Have the teachers failed in their jobs? What about firing incompetent teachers?

You will never hear Obama say that because the Teachers Union has him in their pockets. Anyone who knows anything about public education, especially education in the inner cities, knows that YOU NEED AN ACT OF CONGRESS TO FIRE AN INCOMPETANT TEACHER.

There are many schools, especially in our suburbs where the teachers do not need MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS to be spent in re-training them.

There is a great deal of documentation which shows that especially in the chaotic cities where most of the students are minorities, HALF of the teachers leave their jobs by the time they have worked five years.

Why? The major reason is discipline. If some students are disciplined or expelled, the cry is always RACISM. In many inner city schools( where there is little or no learning and there has been little or no learning for thirty years) the cry of RACISM only stops when the staffs of those schools become totally black or Hispanic. The problem is that these people are sometimes as basically illiterate as the students. There is a great deal of documentation on this point also. Re-training does little for a person who can just barely read at the freshman high school level,

Realy, Advocate- Well I challenge you to show where I am wrong. Put up or shut up. You say he mentioned ONE SCHOOL in use built in the nineteenth century. I guess that rebuilding one school or ten schools or twenty schools might not be a bad idea. That would take no more than 60 Million tops. You areapparently completely ignorant about the school building that has taken place in the last thirty years due to the great society funds--especially in the inner cities. MOST OF THE SCHOOLS IN THE INNER CITIES ARE NO MORE THAN FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS OLD AND ARE STILL IN GOOD SHAPE.

Let's continue, Okie, with further analysis of Obama's bull....about schools.

Obama says he is in favor of "high standards" for the schools. Whoopie. I have never read any political statement by anyone who said he was in favor of low standards or mediocre standards.

The problem,Okie, is that Obama either does not know what the problems of education really are, or he does not want to admit what they are.

All of the following can be fully documented:

l. Given that( by definition) half the students in the country are above the media and half are below the median, we must find out exactly why most of the African-American and Hispanic students are below the median.
Anyone who knows the basics about American Schools knows that most African-American students are inNEWER schools in the cities, most have African-American or Hispanic teachers and most get a very good slice of state monies as WELL AS THE FEDERAL ESEA MONEY THAT HAS BEEN COMING TO THE SCHOOLS WITH LARGE WELFARE POPULATIONS FOR FORTY YEARS( See the Great Society)

2. The AFL has Obama in its pocket. The teachers union will not allow teachers to be fired for cause. It takes an act of congress to get teacher fired because he or she cannot teach.

3. It is fine to say we are for high standards. How do you get the students to reach the high standards? There has been report after report which shows that US students do not compare well with students from other countries, especially in Science and Math. U students spend an unconsciable amount of time learning about black history, Hispanic History, gaining "self-esteem", learning "politically correct" history, studying watered down English and Math, especially in the inner cities.

HIGH STANDARDS? Fine. Will Reading and Math scores, SAT scores, ACT scores go up after Obama's drive for high standards? Of course not.

But certainly, taking tax money from hard working citizens to raise standards, as Obama wants us to do will make a difference, won't it? It is only because the poor oppressed students in the inner cities don't get as much money as the rich suburbs that there is any difference in achievement, is that not true?

Yes. Not True.

Note:



Money And School Performance:
Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment
by Paul Ciotti

Paul Ciotti lives in Los Angeles and writes about education.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.

*******************************************************************

Now, Okie, left wingers like Cyclops can use as many names as they wish but they cannot wash away the kind of failed experiment that occured in Kansas City. A clear cut case( I can give chapter and verse on this one) that PROVED THAT MORE MONEY,TONS OF IT, TONS OF IT, DO NOT RAISE ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT CULTURALLY READY TO GAIN FROM EDUCATION!

Then, Okie, Obama wants better assessment. That means, of course, more testing. Of course, testing is a vital part of planning educational objectives and then, after teaching,finding out what has been learned.

But there are many many studies which show that teachers all over the country think that No Student Left Behind failed because all that it did was to take vital class teaching time away because test were given almost incessantly.

Obama's assessment will do nothing to raise scores,unless, of course,the assessment is phony. But phony scores do not last long. Even an elementary school which produces good scores which have been "fixed" is shown up when those students take the ACT or the SAT.

There are high schools in many of our inner cities where the average score on the ACT is 9--nine. Those who know the ACT are aware that a well motivated chimp can get a score of 9. Why do those poor children get such low scores?
There are cultural reasons. There are breakdowns in the teaching applied to these students. New buildings will do nothing for these students except to give them new plumbing to vandalize.

Okie-- Obama's bull.... about Education is just hot air. I know public education. Many others may be able to take other parts of the stimulus package to show its weaknesses.

I predict that if there is not material improvement in the economy by the beginning of 2010 when the candidates start thieir campaigns for the Nov. 2010 elections, Obama will lose a good slice of support because many Democrats will lose seats.

If all of Obama's proposals are as empty and as useless as his Education Proposals( which are only good as long as they improve student achievement-WHICH THEY WILL NOT DO) then he will go down inflames in 2010!

Take a look at the loghouse that Abe Lincoln learned a few things in.

Earmarks may in fact be more efficient than one giant bag of money thrown out there to the sharks. You might as well scatter confetti in New York as vote for the porkulus package. Pass it or a "catastrophe" according to Obama. Go ahead, I'm ready for the catastrophe, scaring people is your last resort, Mr. President, and it isn't working on all of us. Last I saw, only 30 some percent supports you stupid pork package.

The Modern Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?" "Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did.

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen. "Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen. "That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see. They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself." "Excess profits!" cried the cow. "Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck. "I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. And the pig grunted. And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen. "Exactly," said the agent. "That is the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle." And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.

Then a politician from the city came out to the farm and said something needs to be done to shape up this farm, to change it, so that once again nobody goes hungry ever again. And so he promised that if they would vote for him as their new farmer, the government would pay the little red hen to bake more bread, but all the bread had to be given back to the government for equal distribution, in the interest of social justice. So the cow, duck, pig, and goose all voted for the city politician, and all were happy for a while, with their all new farmer in charge. Things were looking bright indeed.

Meanwhile, the little red hen was very discouraged, and she even quit laying eggs, so that there was little hope of there being any little red hens after she died and went to farm heaven. In process of time, she did die, and all of her belongings, and even her henhouse, were taken from her through an inheritance tax devised by the new farmer in charge, to be given to the cow, duck, pig, and goose. Unfortunately, since none of these other inhabitants of the farm knew anything about her belongings, and never learned how to find wheat, plant it, harvest it, or bake bread, there began to be a very big famine on the farm.

End of story, for now.

By unknown author and edited by okie.

What a threadbare story. Good thing the author is unknown.

Is this some sort of hick folk knowledge? It's a crappy story with little parallels to our modern problems.

B/c people just don't act the way you describe them in real life.

And it makes me wonder, what is the farmer doing this whole time?

Not a good analogy for our situation

Cycloptichorn

Making a fortune auctioning off chicken-backed securities, of course!

Good one, Thomas. LOL!!!! (Not a sarcastic LOL.)