Originally Posted by xer1973

I always wonder how the accounting is done when it is said that we spend more for less results in regards to education. Our education tax dollars don't only pay for the education, transportation, and feeding of children; but it also funds certain costs that would be (and is) regarded as healthcare in other countries. Our education tax dollars pay for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy for children between the ages of 3 and 21 whether it is provided at a school or an outside facility. Canada provides the same services for their children, but it is paid for by the healthcare system even when it is recommended by the teacher and provided in the school building (as it often is). These services are necessary and allow children to reach their full educational potential. But it's just a difference of accounting. Since other countries are not including the cost of these services when calculating the cost per pupil of education, and our country is, it is obviously not a fair comparison.

I see this through different lenses.

Class sizes have risen in our district. My husband teaches fourth grade and he now has 31 kids in his class due to budget cuts resulting in loss of faculty. This is despite teaching in one of the best districts in the region, with an active PTA and Foundation. PTA and Foundations can't pay for teachers. There is no teacher's union in Georgia. If JPT thinks that cutting education funding will result in a better education, he is free to do so, but rising class sizes generally result in a poorer education. There are only so many costs that can be passed on to teachers and parents. Just how much cutting can be done without further reductions in faculty?

Regarding special services for certain kids - my fourth grade son receives some of the services mentioned above and more for language impairment. One can make the case that he is getting a "better" education than most kids. He works very, very hard to stay one year behind his peers in language arts. He is pulled out of English class to work in a small class of 4 kids with one teacher for two hours. All of his tests/quizzes are read to him. With these accomodations, he gets A's and B's in all subjects except for reading, writing and spelling. This year, for the first time, I don't have to read his homework to him. It is getting harder and harder to detect his speech problems and this will likely be his last year with a speech therapist. His admittedly expensive public education is working for him. I am aware that the extra teachers could be allocated differently. I suppose I could have been magnanamous and just let him cry and meltdown every day in school and get further and further behind, but I doubt even the staunchest Randian here would have done that either.

The other factor in school assessments is that special ed is sometimes counted in school scores. My son's language impairment was discovered as a fluke in late kindergarten. Because my husband was a teacher there, he was able to arrange for some screening that may have been delayed until after 1st or 2nd grade. Because of his education plan and resulting accomodations, he does faily well on the standardized tests. This may vary system to system. If the US is being compared to other countries with more consistent programs, there may be some scoring issues.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Or, as foreign observers put it, "American schools use 12 years to achieve a thing we cannot in 10 (or 8, depending on the system). Less-than-90% literacy."

That's a hell of an efficient system you've got there.

Note where I put much of the blame -- on easy access to mind-numbing mass low culture. We have low consumer taxes that ensure that electronic entertainments from televisions to video-game consoles and especially video games and recorded video are cheaper than almost anywhere in the world. Kids who watch TV in their bedrooms without adult supervision (a horrible idea!) get exposed to much commercial hectoring that pushes consumerism at an early age. Kids often compromise their high-school education with low-paid work to support cars, nice clothes, fast food, and amusement-park excursions that will do them no good later.

The US is one of the most anti-intellectual societies in the world, which shows in our political vulnerability to demagogues who vilify learning.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Note where I put much of the blame -- on easy access to mind-numbing mass low culture. We have low consumer taxes that ensure that electronic entertainments from televisions to video-game consoles and especially video games and recorded video are cheaper than almost anywhere in the world. Kids who watch TV in their bedrooms without adult supervision (a horrible idea!) get exposed to much commercial hectoring that pushes consumerism at an early age. Kids often compromise their high-school education with low-paid work to support cars, nice clothes, fast food, and amusement-park excursions that will do them no good later.

The US is one of the most anti-intellectual societies in the world, which shows in our political vulnerability to demagogues who vilify learning.

Depends. There is good research on video gaming and education:

http://www.amazon.com/Video-Games-Te.../dp/1403961697


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Paul_Gee

We found our son a good simple MMO game (Minecraft) that is fairly instructional. It is nice because you can set it up to work on your own home network without strangers. It would be somewhat difficult to describe here, but it is teaching him some problem solving skills. It is also a very good "carrot" tool. Finish your homework, read this much in your book, do your chores and you can play your game. He comes home motivated to get things done most days. I bought my husband the book, but he hasn't had time to get it in his curriculum as yet.

TV, I will agree is mostly junk. Phineas and Ferb is pretty good as cartoons go, but he has somewhat outgrown it. TV never worked in carrot fashion. If you want to stay away from commercials, Netflix is the way to go.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Note where I put much of the blame -- on easy access to mind-numbing mass low culture.

What, you think Chinese kids don't watch cartoons? And Russian boys and girls don't get wasted on their off time? And the Finns don't have Reality TeeVee?

You need to get out more, buddy. Like, a lot more.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not sure which is more politically significant, the Democratic Party booing God, or booing Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The latter could be decisive in an important state like Florida. The former had to be disturbing to all of the black and Hispanic voters who ignore the Democrats' hatred for Christians and vote for them anyway.

From both values and political tactics perspectives, one can look at this multiple ways. The Republican base has a larger fundamentalist core. I'm not an expert on how fundamentalists think, but it seems like Jews are more Christian than Muslims, or Jews have less skin pigmentation than Muslims. Thus, it is a cost effective tactic to push Jerusalem as Israel's capitol. It's an easy and obvious way to get money and votes.

The Democratic core is more secular, or perhaps more rational. (Does one imply the other?) There is a larger Muslim element among their base. More importantly, many Democrats are more concerned for peace in the Middle East than religious or ethnic prejudices. The status of Jerusalem is one of the big hot button issues holding up the peace processes. If one is interested in being a good president one might avoid making difficult foreign policy problem worse. If one is just interested in becoming president, you think about acquiring power first. Behaving wisely might come later. Maybe.

Me, I see Israel as the last major example of Europeans pushing a native population off a territory and claiming rule. I don't buy that the Palestine question is a simple matter of arabs wearing black hats and jews white hats, nor the other way around. If I'd been a delegate, I would have added my voice to the no change side of the acclimation vote, not because I'm anti-God or anti Jew, but because I'm pro peace. I'd have yelled even louder in the after vote if I thought the chair had not followed the will of the delegates. I'm pro democracy. The people on the floor should have had their say.

But there you go again, trying to tell liberals how liberals think. Your comment above is a Strawman. It is very instructive about how you see the world, but you've missed the boat if you think you understand progressive politics, that you had any idea of what was going on.

Originally Posted by Aramea

I see this through different lenses.

Class sizes have risen in our district. My husband teaches fourth grade and he now has 31 kids in his class due to budget cuts resulting in loss of faculty... (snip)

Until her recent retirement, my sister taught first grade in Scituate MA, a wealthy sea side town. As she retired, my nephew ran and got elected as a member of the school board. I can second much of what you say. Even in a fairly wealthy suburb of Boston, class sizes are going up. Still, Massachusetts is among the top states in terms of the benchmark scores, and Scituate is way up there in Massachusetts.

Yet they are not without their controversies. A while ago several parents of special needs kids managed to get elected to the board and formed a majority actively pushing the needs of the few over the needs of the many. Finding the exact right balance in the eyes of everyone might be impossible, but recently the need for new blood started becoming a call for somebody's blood.

Anyways, since the economic downturn, a lot of people say they are pro education, but words are cheap while teachers aren't.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Until her recent retirement, my sister taught first grade in Scituate MA, a wealthy sea side town. As she retired, my nephew ran and got elected as a member of the school board. I can second much of what you say. Even in a fairly wealthy suburb of Boston, class sizes are going up. Still, Massachusetts is among the top states in terms of the benchmark scores, and Scituate is way up there in Massachusetts.

Yet they are not without their controversies. A while ago several parents of special needs kids managed to get elected to the board and formed a majority actively pushing the needs of the few over the needs of the many. Finding the exact right balance in the eyes of everyone might be impossible, but recently the need for new blood started becoming a call for somebody's blood.

Anyways, since the economic downturn, a lot of people say they are pro education, but words are cheap while teachers aren't.

Finding that balance would be challenging. If funds for my son's education program were cut, we would have to take our lumps, of course. Fortunately, my husband and I are capable of providing him some help at home and he is making substantial progress. If he can get to the reading level of most textbooks, he would no longer need services, since his IQ is normal.

The benefit to the student (and society) body at large is a child that is much less disruptive. I can remember kids that had problems in school and by junior high were a distraction in class. In high school they were pulled out regularly for corporal punishment at the principal's office. Some were held back to the point that they would likely never graduate high school. On the flipside, as you said, teachers are not cheap and special ed looks vulnerable to further cuts. They are very time consuming to teach. Sad, but true.

CNN: Jobs report brings end to Democrats' convention high

Friday's jobs report indicating only 96,000 jobs were created in August brought a quick end to any lingering Democratic euphoria from this week's party convention, bringing into sharp reality the challenges President Barack Obama will face in the two months until Election Day.The monthly report, one of the few remaining before voters head to the polls November 6, showed the unemployment rate falling to 8.1% as more workers withdrew from the labor market. The 96,000 jobs created were also not enough to keep up with the population entering the workforce.

Compare and contrast:

January 1980-November 1984



January 2008-September 2012




If anyone reading this is even remotely on the fence about how to vote in November, I ask you to look at the graphs above and ask yourself if you should still be paying any attention whatsoever to the left wing loons that populate this forum, and control the Democratic Party. If you give them four more years to ruin the country, you deserve what you get.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Notable to you...and easily forgotten because it is small stuff, except for Republicans desperate to use any material derogatory to Democrats. Most Democrats are religious believers, by the way.

Quite a few of us aren't, and we think it is notable when the party tries to disappear us from the American tradition. We also think it's notable when the party makes an utterly stupid foreign policy statement and links it to religious belief.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not sure which is more politically significant, the Democratic Party booing God, or booing Israel's claim to Jerusalem. The latter could be decisive in an important state like Florida. The former had to be disturbing to all of the black and Hispanic voters who ignore the Democrats' hatred for Christians and vote for them anyway.

Sorry, but black and Hispanic voters understand real persecution rather than the delusional kind, which is why they still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. I wish we lived in a world where criticism of their faith beliefs was the biggest annoyance facing non-whites in America.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

CNN: Jobs report brings end to Democrats' convention high



Compare and contrast:

January 1980-November 1984



January 2008-September 2012




If anyone reading this is even remotely on the fence about how to vote in November, I ask you to look at the graphs above and ask yourself if you should still be paying any attention whatsoever to the left wing loons that populate this forum, and control the Democratic Party. If you give them four more years to ruin the country, you deserve what you get.

Nice job of cherry picking there.
Four year ago, the time period just before what you posted the stock market crashed.
It crashed under the watch of the president that you've called a grey champion many times.
It has not crashed again since your hero left office.
We are in a 4T economic downturn.
The only reocvery possible is a slow recovery.
But you fully endorse going back to the unregulated finacial system that caused the crash.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Your lobbying group tiptoes around it, but they point out that much of our taxmoney does not got to teaching kids. It goes to union bureaucrats, although they can't come out and say it.

Obviously less so than the majority of other developed countries since, as the article points out, our spending is less than theirs.

Also, you'll note the article points out that the US educational dollar goes to things like cafeteria workers and bus drivers. So why not complain about the taxes used to build the roads the school buses go down? How about the taxes paid for local police forces to enforce speed limits in school zones? How about the taxes that pay for the military, they're protecting school kids as well? Why not pile on the entire govt's costs onto education? Wow, then you really could get a high cost of education in the US and get your panties really waded up!

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

That's why hispanics are flleing california for texas.

If there is any "fleeing" (do you have a link to a credible source?), it probable has more to do with young people moving to cheaper areas to live (i.e. its the housing, stupid). Hispanics, as a group in the US, have a considerable lower average age than other groups so as a group they are heavily influenced by trends in youth and vice-versa.

But regardless of reason, I am way, way okay with it; it will just accelerate TX becoming a swing state.

There was a time when OR, NV, AZ, NM and CO were pretty much GOP land. Some now are clearly Blue and the rest Purple or clearly on their way to being so. In large part, that is from emigration from CA and not just Hispanics but more urbanized and therefore Progressive groups.

Two thumbs up if that is just another reason why TX falls to us as well.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Nice job of cherry picking there.
Four year ago, the time period just before what you posted the stock market crashed.

The graphs start in January 2008. The crash happened in the fall of 2008.

We are in a 4T economic downturn.
The only reocvery possible is a slow recovery.

Whatever merit S&H may have, that argument means nothing in the real world outside this forum.

The left constantly screams at us that "Reaganomics" was bad and evil, and they have all the answers. The reality of those graphs is something that no amount of screaming can overcome. "It's the economy, stupid".

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The graphs start in January 2008. The crash happened in the fall of 2008.


Whatever merit S&H may have, that argument means nothing in the real world outside this forum.

The left constantly screams at us that "Reaganomics" was bad and evil, and they have all the answers. The reality of those graphs is something that no amount of screaming can overcome. "It's the economy, stupid".

The Dow peaked in October 2007.

Your financial market knowledge is flawed. By late 2008, the market was well on the way to the March 2009 low. Your definition of "crash" has nothing to do with reality. I would not want you as my broker.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

The Dow peaked in October 2007.

Your financial market knowledge is flawed. By late 2008, the market was well on the way to the March 2009 low. Your definition of "crash" has nothing to do with reality. I would not want you as my broker.

Bear Stearns
Lehman Brothers

Stock market crash

Sorry for the short response, but you're wasting my time.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Bear Stearns
Lehman Brothers

Stock market crash

Sorry for the short response, but you're wasting my time.

You are wasting my time and everyone else's time. ]

If you think for one second that the crash began with Bear or Lehman, then I can't help you. You are simply wrong. Those very basic Wikipedia links don't back your case at all.

Did you not look at the chart I posted? No, of course you didn't as it doesn't fit your uber partisan and incorrect analysis.

The crash began in October 2007.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

You are wasting my time and everyone else's time. ]

"I'm rubber, you're glue" seems to be the standard Democrat response to everything. I don't know why you think defiance is a substitute for facts.

If you think for one second that the crash began with Bear or Lehman, then I can't help you. You are simply wrong. Those very basic Wikipedia links don't back your case at all.

Did you not look at the chart I posted? No, of course you didn't as it doesn't fit your uber partisan and incorrect analysis.

The crash began in October 2007.

A decline in the stock market is not the same thing as a crash. A "correction" is generally defined as a 10% decline over a period of time. A bear market is a protracted decline with ups and downs. A crash occurs abruptly, usually over the course of a few days. If you look at your own graph, you can see that the crash (if you choose to define it as one) occurred in the fall of 2008. If you don't remember it, you must have been living under a rock. John McCain suspended his campaign, which many people think may have cost him the election.

In any case, the argument of when or if the stock market crashed is irrelevant to the point, which is the timing of the recessions in 1980-1982 and 2008-2009. Obama and Reagan took office under very similar conditions. The double-dip recessions of 1980-1982 were arguably worse, and resulted in higher unemployment, than the one we recently experienced. The trajectory of recovery, however, was remarkably different.

I suppose for some people clinging to left wing dogma is more important than having a job. I don't think you can count on most people feeling that way.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

"I'm rubber, you're glue" seems to be the standard Democrat response to everything. I don't know why you think defiance is a substitute for facts.

You made the time wasting comment. And I am not a Democrat.

A decline in the stock market is not the same thing as a crash. A "correction" is generally defined as a 10% decline over a period of time. A bear market is a protracted decline with ups and downs. A crash occurs abruptly, usually over the course of a few days. If you look at your own graph, you can see that the crash (if you choose to define it as one) occurred in the fall of 2008. If you don't remember it, you must have been living under a rock. John McCain suspended his campaign, which many people think may have cost him the election.

In any case, the argument of when or if the stock market crashed is irrelevantl to the point, which is the timing of the recessions in 1980-1982 and 2008-2009. Obama and Reagan took office under very similar conditions. The double-dip recessions of 1980-1982 were arguably worse, and resulted in higher unemployment, than the one we recently experienced. The trajectory of recovery, however, was remarkably different.

I suppose for some people clinging to left wing dogma is more important than having a job. I don't think you can on most people feeling that way.

I am going to let the "left wing dogma" throwaway line pass as you don't know me. I am guessing that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow "left wing" or a "Democrat". I don't even consider those two concepts synonymous. Your mileage may vary.

If you want to argue that "Lehman Day" was the point of recognition, then fine. That doesn't change the fact that the crash began in October 2007, despite your nits and picks. It was well under way by Lehman Day.

I could describe that chart in Elliott Wave terms or other concepts, but your mind is made up. What you are calling the "crash" is the third of a third wave in a crash, or what Wavers would call "the point of recognition". That point is not the same as being a crash. It is only the most recognizable portion of what is already well under way.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

That doesn't change the fact that the crash began in October 2007, despite your nits and picks. It was well under way by Lehman Day.

Tell you what, you can argue with yourself over the definition of a stock market "crash". Suffice it say, yours is not the same as the one most people use.

Like I said, my point was about the recessions. herbal tee is the one who brought up the stock market.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Tell you what, you can argue with yourself over the definition of a stock market "crash". Suffice it say, yours is not the same as the one most people use.

Like I said, my point was about the recessions. herbal tee is the one who brought up the stock market.

You are welcome to your opinion. It is not one that I agree with, however, or the people who I interviewed who were there from October 2007 forward. I guess my time spent, over the past several years reading and writing about, and interviewing people on this and related topics, were a complete waste of my time.

The "most people" fallacy was fun though. Thanks for sharing that one. It brightened my day.

I won't waste your time anymore. Enjoy your dogma, and have a wonderful day.

A bit of advice before I go, for entertainment purposes only of course, avoid the stock market as your information and ideas will...well...not work out very well for you.

Originally Posted by Wayneh56

You are welcome to your opinion. It is not one that I agree with, however, or the people who I interviewed who were there from October 2007 forward. I guess my time spent, over the past several years reading and writing about, and interviewing people on this and related topics, were a complete waste of my time.

The "most people" fallacy was fun though. Thanks for sharing that one. It brightened my day.

I won't waste your time anymore. Enjoy your dogma, and have a wonderful day.

A bit of advice before I go, for entertainment purposes only of course, avoid the stock market as your information and ideas will...well...not work out very well for you.

It's an argument over semantics. It's inherently pointless.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If anyone reading this is even remotely on the fence about how to vote in November, I ask you to look at the graphs above and ask yourself if you should still be paying any attention whatsoever to the left wing loons that populate this forum, and control the Democratic Party. If you give them four more years to ruin the country, you deserve what you get.

What strikes me is how little difference there is. The unemployment rate was almost as high in Reagan's 4th year as in Obama's. The GDP had recovered more quickly, from a worse recession, under Obama than under Reagan, even though it got bigger later under Reagan. But of course, all the benefits of this "growth" under Reagan went to the rich, which are the only folks JPT and his ilk care about.

Yeah, the answer is to give the White House back to the folks who ruined the country. They already have had 2 years to ruin the country by blocking any action to improve it. Now they want full power to ruin it fully and utterly, like they did before Obama took office-- or even worse.

Clinton, more or less, on the Republicans' claim: "we created a big mess. The other guy hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, cause it was so big; so therefore, fire him and bring us back again."

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Notable to you...and easily forgotten...

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Pbrower

What is more important is that the Democrats had a more entertaining and effective convention that more people watched. There's plenty of material for the Democratic campaign, and the Republican material is awful.

Panem(ie:$$$) and Circenses! But, "The Show" must go on. On with "The Show"!

Prince

PS:Please forgive me for my Juvenal behavior; The Satire is simply the X in me.

Originally Posted by herbal tea

We are in a 4T economic downturn.
The only reocvery possible is a slow recovery.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Whatever merit S&H may have, that argument means nothing in the real world outside this forum.

Just because people for the most part "outside this forum" don't understand the nature of turnings, and therefore are likely not going to take that understanding into account, doesn't invalidate the argument itself.

People were fairly patient with the slow recovery in the 30s and the various trial-and-error responses to it (hell they gave FDR four terms--at least two full ones in the Depression), because they seemed to understand that the problems were deeper than normal (or were otherwise not as inclined to demand quick gratification from their leaders--maybe we can thank the Boomers for that changing in the general culture), and some of where they were was uncharted territory (a defining feature of 4Ts btw). No matter who is President (and no president is a magical god-king), some recessions and depressions are more severe than others, take a longer time to recover from than others, and have different sets of underlying causes which means different (and sometimes new, to-be-discovered--such are 4Ts) solutions are required.

I do think most people understand that what began around 2008 was a worse recession (some even used the "d" word) than that of the early 80s, and had different causes. I know a lot of people, regardless of who would be elected, were not expecting a turnaround from this one in a mere four years. I heard many even make the thoughtful observation that getting elected in 2008 would be more of a curse (or thankless job) than a blessing for the one seeking it--whether it be McCain or Obama. I didn't expect miracles either, and still don't--but am concerned more with the candidates' difference in priorities, and how much (or little) their policies will take into account those most vulnerable in these hard times. And in that, I see Obama as having somewhat of an edge, albeit (sadly) not a big one.