In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote
Billy wrote

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the
top 1 percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting
for inflation. The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3
percen and the poorest fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

I have seen this stat talked about but never with a citation
attached. You have any idea where I can confirm these figures.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...3+1.3+inc ome
s
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/bu...4800&en=10a3f3
696a68ec00&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

They don't seem to jive with IRS stats I have seen.

Thanks. That' a lot more accessible.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article o9wqj.3541$eD3.2132@trndny05,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS,
Fed Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills,
ect., creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can
produce a product and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make the
product but it is society that provides the market. So make the
taxes proportional to the benefit received from society

Of course of all this, only roads are part of government
and thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.

Of course it doesn't. It has to do with us being such a good market.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

We have spent money to put ourselves into this position. If anyone
wants to take advantage of it, they should pay.

Take advantage of what? The free market?

Fine. Let them sell their widgets in Bangladesh. Nothin' to stop 'em.

That would be like saying people
take advantage of oxygen by breathing. The government does not own, or even
have a right, to the market. Of course there are other countries where that
concept has been tried.

The more they make
off of us, the more they pay. It used to be called a progressive
income tax.

Please show us the reference for this notion. And while you're at it, please
help us understand how the consumer will avoid paying this tax themselves?
Or doesn't the concept of pricing goods based on the cost of the product
mean anything to you? Hint: The cost of the tax will get wrapped into the
cost to the consumer.

You, of course, are from the "If you want to feed the birds, give the
horses grain" school of economics. Doo-Doo economics. What did George H.
W. Bush call it? Ah, yes, voodoo economics. If you raise taxes on
business, they'll leave the state. You can't increase minimum wage, all
the businesses will leave the state. And it never happens.

How about maintaining crop subsidies on corn when the price is going
through the ceiling? How about a wind fall sales tax on oil that is
seeing record profits, again? How 'bout no bid government contracts? How
about letting industries write their own regulatory rules? I $ee$ lot$
of money.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

But how much you make is not related to the benefit you recieve from
society. Benefit you receive from your hard work, etc. maybe. Using your
scheme those who receive more benefit from society would be those on
welfare.

I guess I'd do something stupid like calculate it on the average cost of
housing, food, medical care, transportation, utilities, clothing and
subtract that sum from net income and have progressive taxes based on
the difference.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article Yoaqj.8562$k%2.7090@trndny09,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize
less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those
who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.

Bug, please pay attention. This is a philosophical discussion. I am
proposing that if you make all your money outside of the country, you
would pay no income tax. If you make your money in our society's market,
whose infrastructure from streets to computers, the tax payers and
consumers pay for, you will pay a progressive income tax.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article T0wqj.4181$lr3.3988@trndny06,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for
inflation. The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and
the poorest fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

And that has to do with what I wrote how? Try to stay with the flow
of the conversation and try to say something even REMOTELY relevant.

But moving on to this next subject, I suppose you think that the
poor always remain static and never move up in the income bracket?
They never go from a job at 7-11 while in college to an entry level
accountant or engineer or teacher? All your statistic quoted was the
relative definition of income increase within a category, it did
nothing to demonstrate that people remain static and stuck within
that category. Here's a clue..... there will always be a category
labeled 'poor'. But people continually move in and out of that
category, just as people move in and out of every other income
category. Can you tell me just how many who were considered 'poor' 5
years ago are still poor.

jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/08.29.07Poverty.pdf

The National Picture
Since 2000, 4.9 million more Americans are living
in poverty. The number of Americans living in poverty
increased in five of the last six years, reaching
36.5 million people in 2006 (Chart 1). Since 2000,
the number of people in poverty has increased by 4.9
million. The official poverty line for a family of four
is now $20,614 per year.

Gee, and how many of that is from illegal and other migrants that have
created new households during that period of time? As I said, and which you
cannot dispute, is that very few people stay within any specific earnings
category.

The poverty rate is a full percentage point higher
than in 2000. The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent,
declining slightly from its level of 12.6 percent
in 2005. Before 2005, the poverty rate had increased
for four straight years. While the poverty rate decreased
slightly in 2006, it remains a full percentage
point higher than it was in 2000 (Chart 1). The Census
Bureau defines the poverty rate as the percent of
the population with incomes below the poverty line.

More than one in six children lives in poverty. The
poverty rate for all children under 18 years of age was
17.4 percent in 2006, declining slightly from its level
in 2005. Between 2000 and 2006, the number of children
living in poverty increased by 1.2 million, or 11
percent, to 12.8 million children. The poverty rate for
children rose from 16.2 to 17.4 over the same period.

Is that what you were looking for?

There was no question. Just trying to help you out. Apparently, you still
don't get it.

-------

In the period from 2003 to 2005, on average, incomes for the top 1
percent of households rose 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation.
The incomes of the middle fifth increased 4.3 percen and the poorest
fifth rose by 1.3 percent.

Between 1979 and 2005, the mean after-tax income for the top 1%
increased by 176%, compared to an increased of 69% for the top
quintile overall, 20% for the fourth quintile, 21% for the middle
quintile, 17% for the second quintile and 6% for the bottom quintile.

In 1965, corporate taxes amounted to 4% of the GNP. By 2000, it was
2.5 %.

-The Globalization Gap: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left
Further Behind by Robert A. Isaak

You can cherry pick and regurgitate all you want, the fact remains that
there is very little stagnation in the flux and flow of wage earners.


We used to have a progressive income tax which is very much like what
I'm proposing.

No, what you described was taxation of the marketplace. Please re-read what
you wrote for context.

Why is the middle class disappearing?

Uhm, it's not.

Democracy is impossible without
a middle class.

We have a Republic, not a democracy. But never-the-less, please explain why
you believe their is a disappearing middle class, and how that affects the
nation.

So what is your jingoistic response this time?

You really don't have a handle on the meaning of the words you use do you?

Please add references
so that I know your not just jacking-off, in which case I'm otta here.

You're done anyway. You just keep regurgitating what you've been told
without so much as an inkling of understanding the basic concepts of which
you speak.

Air America? Is that a tennis shoe?

Since the balls in your court, you'd better go back and listen for the radio
for your next argument.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , CJT
wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money utilize
less of the social services and other benefits awarded by society. So those
who utilize the benefits given by society should pay the most.


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

For way to long, the mantra has been to socialize the cost and privatize
the profits. This habit needs to be turned on it's head.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article vdrqj.8178$bs4.2469@trndny01,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Hardly. Police protection is driven by criminals, roads and airports service
all sectors. However, those at the highest income levels provide employment,
are far more philanthropic, and contribut more income to the tax-base than
any other single income group. Those at the lowest level utilize the highest
levels of discretionary expenditures through criminal justice, welfare, and
every other social welfare program, while providing extremely limited or no
benifit to society at large.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt in this context. That all comes under the
heading of 'Business Philosophy 101'.

As seen in the recent fires in southern California, the rich have their
own fire departments (insurance companies), their own security, private
schools, and transportation, among other things. The rich don't need
public utilities. They got their own. All I'm saying is that a business
receives a benefit from having a thriving market to sell in and that
market is created by both the government and the consumers. I won't see
your ad if I haven't made an expenditure for a TV or a computer. I have
facilitated your marketing. Whoever wishes to avail themselves of this
market that we have created should be assessed for that right.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article o9wqj.3541$eD3.2132@trndny05,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:


Societal infrastructure, telephone system, roads, television, UPS,
Fed Ex, citizens with disposable income, citizens with job skills,
ect., creates conditions where MicroSoft or Ford, et al. can
produce a product and make a profit. The entrepreneur may make
the product but it is society that provides the market. So make
the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society

Of course of all this, only roads are part of government
and thus having to do with taxes. The rest have nothing to do with
government.

Of course it doesn't. It has to do with us being such a good market.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

We have spent money to put ourselves into this position. If anyone
wants to take advantage of it, they should pay.

Take advantage of what? The free market?

Fine. Let them sell their widgets in Bangladesh. Nothin' to stop 'em.

That makes no sense. I thought you were talking about the American
marketplace. Pleas, keep track of the conversation.


That would be like saying people
take advantage of oxygen by breathing. The government does not own,
or even have a right, to the market. Of course there are other
countries where that concept has been tried.

The more they make
off of us, the more they pay. It used to be called a progressive
income tax.

Please show us the reference for this notion. And while you're at
it, please help us understand how the consumer will avoid paying
this tax themselves? Or doesn't the concept of pricing goods based
on the cost of the product mean anything to you? Hint: The cost of
the tax will get wrapped into the cost to the consumer.

You, of course, are from the "If you want to feed the birds, give the
horses grain" school of economics. Doo-Doo economics. What did George
H. W. Bush call it? Ah, yes, voodoo economics. If you raise taxes on
business, they'll leave the state. You can't increase minimum wage,
all the businesses will leave the state. And it never happens.

Right, they just move overseas. You really are naive about how business
works, aren't you?

Again, you seem to have a hard time sticking to the topic. Please feel free
to demonstrate how my comment on the government not owning the market has
anything to do with minimum wage.

BTW, businesses talk about leaving a state when the overall tax burden
becomes unfavorable, not just when minimum wages increase. In my state,
Boeing did just that -- moved its corporate structure out of here to another
state after warning that it would do so for five years.

How about maintaining crop subsidies on corn when the price is going
through the ceiling?

I think all farm subsidies should be completely discontinued, period. They
never should have been started in the first place. It has done more harm
than good to the economy as a whole, and is one of the largest subsidies in
the budget. And if corn is being raised for fuel, then it is not farming in
the traditional sense; it is more akin to mining or drilling for fuel than
raising food.

How about a wind fall sales tax on oil that is
seeing record profits, again?

What about it? Just how many 401Ks and futures-heavy investment portfolios
by the little guys retirement funds are profiting from energy investments?
And please tell me waht the percentage of profit comes from the overseas
markets versus the domestic market?

How 'bout no bid government contracts?

You mean the exceptions that are granted for emergency needs, like Katrina?

How about letting industries write their own regulatory rules?

And how does this fit with my previous reply, other than trying to throw so
much unrelated crap that you think you can win an argument by obfuscation?

I $ee$
lot$ of money.

I see lots of whining.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Oh no. Regarding police protection, Rosie O'Donnell has full-time private
guards and doesn't rely on police protection at all. Heck, there are way
more private security guards than there are cops and the private guards sure
aren't being paid by the folk.

Look at the other big expenditures of government: Schools: The rich kids go
private, the not-rich use government schools. Medicare/Medicade have
means-tests - the rich don't get. Welfa No rich there. And so on.

No, in sum, the rich get few benefits from tax funds. What they DO get is
regulation, rules, bureacracy, meddling, oversight, criticism, harrassment,
and, in general, just bothered to death via tax-supported factotums.

Remember Cheney's "Energy Summit"? The energy companies wrote their own
regulations. Go to any department of government and you will find a
person from the industry being regulated in charge of that department.
but that isn't what I was talking about.

It appears that this topic has taken on a life of it's own, so I'll just
bow out.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article Yoaqj.8562$k%2.7090@trndny09,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.

Bug, please pay attention.

Bil, you're the one lost, not I.

This is a philosophical discussion. I am
proposing that if you make all your money outside of the country, you
would pay no income tax.

If you make all your money in a foreign country, you generally don't pay
taxes to the U.S., unless you're in the military.

If you make your money in our society's
market, whose infrastructure from streets to computers, the tax
payers and consumers pay for, you will pay a progressive income tax.

Yeah, I got that, which you would have gotten if you had been paying
attention. The market doesn't belong to the government, and a businessman
pays taxes and fees. As an example, as a restaurant owner, I pay a rate for
garbage, sewage and water that is 15 times the rate schedule for a
residential household. There are many other fees and taxes that I pay which
someone who doesn't own a business is clueless about. And all of those taxes
and fees are figured into the cost of providing my product and goes onto the
customer's bill.
--
Dave

Billy wrote:
In article , CJT
wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.


That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

For way to long, the mantra has been to socialize the cost

Uh, government functions are a form of socializing costs.

and
privatize the profits. This habit needs to be turned on it's head.

So you think the government owns all the money. We all know what that's
called.


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Billy wrote:
In article vdrqj.8178$bs4.2469@trndny01,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Hardly. Police protection is driven by criminals, roads and airports
service all sectors. However, those at the highest income levels
provide employment, are far more philanthropic, and contribut more
income to the tax-base than any other single income group. Those at
the lowest level utilize the highest levels of discretionary
expenditures through criminal justice, welfare, and every other
social welfare program, while providing extremely limited or no
benifit to society at large.

Plus, there is utility theory to deal with.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt in this context. That all comes under
the heading of 'Business Philosophy 101'.

As seen in the recent fires in southern California, the rich have
their own fire departments (insurance companies),

Insurance companies equal fire departments.... bwahahahaha.

their own security, private schools, and transportation, among other
things.


They also have their own houses, gardens, puppy dogs and a bunch of other
things they have the right to purchase.

The rich don't need public utilities.

Sure they do.

They got their own.

No they don't. The power transmission lines, sewer pipes, water mains, and
treatment plants are not owned by individuals.

All I'm saying is that a business receives a benefit from having a
thriving market to sell in

A market that was created by the provison of a product that is in demand and
consumers free to purchase that which is in demand.

and that market is created by both the government

What market is created by the government? There is not a single product that
the government provides that makes money.

and the consumers. I won't see your ad if I haven't made an expenditure
for a
TV or a computer. I have facilitated your marketing. Whoever wishes
to avail themselves of this market that we have created should be
assessed for that right.

So, you believe that government owns the marketplace? As I've said before,
you are in good company with other marxist theorists.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the 19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates ".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Come on Rod. Pull it together. You're losing it.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:

Billy wrote:


Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society.
The more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.


That would mean just the opposite. Those who make the most money
utilize less of the social services and other benefits awarded by
society. So those who utilize the benefits given by society should
pay the most.
That is absolutely false. Those who make the most place the most
demands on things like police protection, roads, airports, etc.

Oh no. Regarding police protection, Rosie O'Donnell has full-time
private guards and doesn't rely on police protection at all. Heck,
there are way more private security guards than there are cops and
the private guards sure aren't being paid by the folk.

Look at the other big expenditures of government: Schools: The rich
kids go private, the not-rich use government schools.
Medicare/Medicade have means-tests - the rich don't get. Welfa No
rich there. And so on.

No, in sum, the rich get few benefits from tax funds. What they DO
get is regulation, rules, bureacracy, meddling, oversight,
criticism, harrassment, and, in general, just bothered to death via
tax-supported factotums.

Remember Cheney's "Energy Summit"? The energy companies wrote their
own regulations.

And which regulations are those? Please provide the list.

Go to any department of government and you will find
a person from the industry being regulated in charge of that
department.

You mean like the Veterans Administration?

but that isn't what I was talking about.

That seems to happen to you a lot.

It appears that this topic has taken on a life of it's own, so I'll
just bow out.

OK.

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the
19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates
".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education
institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more.

We're not a totally ag. society anymore, but we never were unless you go
back prior to the industrial revolution. However, there a huge regions of
the country like the midwest, and regions within many states like the San
Joaquin valley in CA. that are huge agricultural societies.

Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately?

Yeah, right after an 8 hour PCR.

Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Only if you want to be part of the incestuous fellowship of university
professionals. Otherwise, you can still get by with a masters.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the 19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Yep, your line about a third world country is pure fantasy.

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any more.

Yep, lots of automation of all sorts of things that means that the level
of education that the state system produces is perfectly adequate.

No need for the federal govt to spend any more on top
of whats raised and spent at the state and local level.

Dont even need basic maths now that everyone has cash registers
etc so even the stupidest ape can manage without fancy maths now.

Things changed after WWI.

Not on any need for the federal govt to spend on
education at the school level being discussed it didnt.

Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals.

You dont need the federal govt to spend a cent to get people able to read, stupid.

Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth grade,
which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences.

And they could read too. WW2 worked fine without the federal govt
spending anything on education at the school level being discussed.

Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis lately?

That aint done by the K-12 education being discussed.

Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives.

WW2 worked fine without the federal govt spending
anything on education at the school level being discussed.

These days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Pigs arse you do, and that aint the K-12 being discussed anyway.

Come on Rod. Pull it together. You're losing it.

You've never ever had a ****ing clue. So stupid that you havent even
noticed that you dont get a PhD from the K-12 being discusssed.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...3+1.3+inc ome
s

Thanks. Included the cite but also why they don't jibe with the IRS
stats. As mentioned, much of the difference is related to the quick rise
in the stock market, which is also fairly standard. It was also
mentioned that some of the difference is involved with where you decide
to start.

In article
,
Billy wrote:



You, of course, are from the "If you want to feed the birds, give the
horses grain" school of economics. Doo-Doo economics. What did George H.
W. Bush call it? Ah, yes, voodoo economics. If you raise taxes on
business, they'll leave the state. You can't increase minimum wage, all
the businesses will leave the state. And it never happens.
Look at California and then take a look at Nevada. Note how many
offices have moved from one to the other. Nevada is one of the faster
growing states largely because of the west coast offices that picked up
and left California. Some stick around, many don't. Usually the bigger
ones who have an option.



How about maintaining crop subsidies on corn when the price is going
through the ceiling? How about a wind fall sales tax on oil that is
seeing record profits, again? How 'bout no bid government contracts? How
about letting industries write their own regulatory rules? I $ee$ lot$
of money.

There is no "windfall" sales on oil. Last time I looked admittedly
about 6 months ago, the oil companies were still at roughly the same
profit margins as they have been for years. Thus the increase in profits
entirely reflects the increase in the price of oil. For something to be
windfall, they would have to be doing something differently that
(artificially) increases their profit margin. So, if you are going to
suggest a "windfall profits" tax, I am assuming that you are going to
also suggest a credit for when the price goes down and they don't make
as much money. Otherwise this boils down to they are offending your
sensibilities and therefore must be punished.
I'd agree with the crop subsidies, have for years. No bid government
contracts are also something that has been a favorite ploy at all levels
of government, although I am not at convinced that procurement isn't
overdone, too.

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the problems
(and it's not just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).

The former president of Boston College was asked what single thing could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His answer: "Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is legally
permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on,
but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Billy wrote:

Remember Cheney's "Energy Summit"? The energy companies wrote their
own regulations. Go to any department of government and you will find
a person from the industry being regulated in charge of that
department. but that isn't what I was talking about.


Neither the Vice President nor his staff is not an expert on the benefits
and consequences of increasing the railroad tariff on rendered yak-fat or
shipping regulations for liquified natural gas towed behind tugs in
international waters.

The experts, "lobbyists," put forth proposed laws, regulations, rules.
Competing experts make their cases known and the regulators or legislators
decide which should be law. The alternative is to ban the experts and throw
darts at the wall.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the problems
(and it's not just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).

The former president of Boston College was asked what single thing could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His answer: "Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is legally
permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on,
but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out the
Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to Americans.
Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be cutting edge,
make sure to attend American universities. We aren't worse. We are
different. Primary and secondary have problems but not the Universities,
except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the 19th
century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Yep, your line about a third world country is pure fantasy.

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more.

Yep, lots of automation of all sorts of things that means that the level
of education that the state system produces is perfectly adequate.

No need for the federal govt to spend any more on top
of whats raised and spent at the state and local level.

Dont even need basic maths now that everyone has cash registers
etc so even the stupidest ape can manage without fancy maths now.

Things changed after WWI.

Not on any need for the federal govt to spend on
education at the school level being discussed it didnt.

Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals.

You dont need the federal govt to spend a cent to get people able to read,
stupid.

Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth grade,
which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences.

And they could read too. WW2 worked fine without the federal govt
spending anything on education at the school level being discussed.

Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis lately?

That aint done by the K-12 education being discussed.

Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges were rich folks
prerogatives.

WW2 worked fine without the federal govt spending
anything on education at the school level being discussed.

These days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day
shift.

Pigs arse you do, and that aint the K-12 being discussed anyway.

Come on Rod. Pull it together. You're losing it.

You've never ever had a ****ing clue. So stupid that you havent even
noticed that you dont get a PhD from the K-12 being discusssed.

Right, and we'll build the foundations of a successful college education
by cutting education? Your about as sharp as a bowling ball, boy. You
certainly are a vacuous, foul mouthed little bubble head aren't you? The
first thing to learn about "tar babies" is that's they makes no sense,
no sense at all. The second thing is thats the more you mess wid 'em,
the worse it gets.

Enjoy you cranial rectal inversion Rod. There are too many other places
I'd rather waste my time, than waste it with you.

Hey, anybody lookin' for a tar baby to waste their time, step right over
here, no waiting necessary.

Oh, and no sense tracking me down. Your not my type.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article kpyqj.3549$eD3.1768@trndny05,
"Dave Bugg" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the
19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates
".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education
institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more.

We're not a totally ag. society anymore, but we never were unless you go
back prior to the industrial revolution. However, there a huge regions of
the country like the midwest, and regions within many states like the San
Joaquin valley in CA. that are huge agricultural societies.

Uh-huh. I don't quit see how we could be totally non-ag. The drift of my
meaning is that we are no longer principally an agricultural society.
Few of us work on farms (which have generally become huge) or have
anything to do with food production (Left to ADM and Monsanto, that
trend will become even more marked).

Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately?

Yeah, right after an 8 hour PCR.
We don't all do medical research.

Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Only if you want to be part of the incestuous fellowship of university
professionals. Otherwise, you can still get by with a masters.
Masters are boobie prizes for not getting a doctorate.
In industry, employers are looking for A.A.s to do the work and Ph.D.s
to manage.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Remember Cheney's "Energy Summit"? The energy companies wrote their
own regulations. Go to any department of government and you will find
a person from the industry being regulated in charge of that
department. but that isn't what I was talking about.


Neither the Vice President nor his staff is not an expert on the benefits
and consequences of increasing the railroad tariff on rendered yak-fat or
shipping regulations for liquified natural gas towed behind tugs in
international waters.

The experts, "lobbyists," put forth proposed laws, regulations, rules.
Competing experts make their cases known and the regulators or legislators
decide which should be law. The alternative is to ban the experts and throw
darts at the wall.

How Republican of you to say so.

I agree that if you want to know how to make the job go smoother, ask
the person who does it. Now if the guy on the line says that the job
would go smoother with more salary, more workers and, better machines,
he should be prepared for a reality check from management, whose prime
devotion is to the board of directors and the stockholders. Similarly,
this allegiance to quarterly profits, may lead the board to dump their
industrial waste into a neighboring drainage ditch and the next thing
you know, you have rocket fuel (perchlorates) in the lettuce. So let's
not go one dimensional. Cheney's task force was one dimensional, they
only asked what business wanted. There need to be people at the table
who represent the public interest as well.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any
more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields,
tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and
Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also got
two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the problems
(and it's not just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).

The former president of Boston College was asked what single thing could
be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His answer:
"Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is legally
permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and probably
yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer
Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on,
but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out the
Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to Americans.
Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be cutting edge,
make sure to attend American universities. We aren't worse. We are
different. Primary and secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial math and
reading skills to their freshman because of the primary and secondary
problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall, ultimately increasing
the difficulty of students paying for their education. This will continue to
be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.

......people pretend the problems in the government schools all have to do
with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about creation
science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is barely touched on in
any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning them into
Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the children aren't
properly prepared, there's not much that can be done with them.

JG

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote

I'd cut federal direct expenditures on K-12 education pretty
much completely, save for Special Education and Title 1.

and you'd be wrong. Every dollar spent on education
generates $5 to $10 for our country. Cutting education
is the quickest way to turn us into a third would country.

Fantasy. The US did fine with the level of education seen in the 19th century.

Go to Google and type in "very dollar spent on education generates".

Pity that all that produces is the line run by the education institutions.

Wota surprise.

Fantasy?

Yep, your line about a third world country is pure fantasy.

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society any more.

Yep, lots of automation of all sorts of things that means that the level
of education that the state system produces is perfectly adequate.

No need for the federal govt to spend any more on top
of whats raised and spent at the state and local level.

Dont even need basic maths now that everyone has cash registers
etc so even the stupidest ape can manage without fancy maths now.

Things changed after WWI.

Not on any need for the federal govt to spend on
education at the school level being discussed it didnt.

Weapons were mechanical and we needed
soldiers who could read the damn manuals.

You dont need the federal govt to spend a cent to get people able to read, stupid.

Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth grade,
which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences.

And they could read too. WW2 worked fine without the federal govt
spending anything on education at the school level being discussed.

Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis lately?

That aint done by the K-12 education being discussed.

Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives.

WW2 worked fine without the federal govt spending
anything on education at the school level being discussed.

These days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Pigs arse you do, and that aint the K-12 being discussed anyway.

Come on Rod. Pull it together. You're losing it.

You've never ever had a ****ing clue. So stupid that you havent even
noticed that you dont get a PhD from the K-12 being discusssed.

Right, and we'll build the foundations of a successful college education by cutting education?

What was being discussed was JUST cutting SOME of the FEDERAL funding of K-12 education.

Thats nothing like it, fool.

reams of your utterly mindless **** any 2 year old could leave for dead, flushed where it belongs

John Galt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society
any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we
needed soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most
people were lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for
plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA
analysis with electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century
high schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days
you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also
got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the
problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods,
pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was asked what single thing
could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His answer:
"Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on
and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to
Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be
cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't
worse. We are different. Primary and secondary have problems but not
the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary and
secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall,
ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their
education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all have
to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about
creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is
barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the
children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can be done
with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will benefit from a university education.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural society
any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were mechanical and we
needed soldiers who could read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most
people were lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for
plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA
analysis with electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century
high schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These days
you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also
got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the
problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods,
pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was asked
what single thing
could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His answer:
"Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on
and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to
Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be
cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't
worse. We are different. Primary and secondary have problems but not
the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary and
secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall,
ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their
education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all have
to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about
creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is
barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the
children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can be done
with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will benefit
from a university education.

Interesting theory, although anything that starts out with "bull****" is
usually referring to everything that follows, not precedes.

I'd prefer not to bet the entire future of the nation on your "theory."
YMMV.

JG

John Galt wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth
grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and
building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to
assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've
also got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the
problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods,
pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was
asked what single thing
could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His
answer: "Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on
and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to
Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be
cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't
worse. We are different. Primary and secondary have problems but
not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall,
ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their
education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all have
to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about
creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is
barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the
children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can be done
with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Taint a theory, its a trivially provable fact.

although anything that starts out with "bull****" is usually referring to everything that follows, not precedes.

Just another pathetic excuse for an academic that cant even bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

I'd prefer not to bet the entire future of the nation on your "theory."

Taint a theory, its a trivially provable fact.

YMMV.

YHTR

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:27:23 -0800, Billy
wrote:

I agree that if you want to know how to make the job go smoother, ask
the person who does it. Now if the guy on the line says that the job
would go smoother with more salary, more workers and, better machines,
he should be prepared for a reality check from management, whose prime
devotion is to the board of directors and the stockholders. Similarly,
this allegiance to quarterly profits, may lead the board to dump their
industrial waste into a neighboring drainage ditch and the next thing
you know, you have rocket fuel (perchlorates) in the lettuce. So let's
not go one dimensional. Cheney's task force was one dimensional, they
only asked what business wanted. There need to be people at the table
who represent the public interest as well.

Billy, if you could condense this into a 4-line statement, I'd use it
as my .sig file. Well said!!!!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth
grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and
building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to
assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've
also got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the
problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods,
pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was
asked what single thing
could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His
answer: "Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on
and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to
Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be
cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't
worse. We are different. Primary and secondary have problems but
not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall,
ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their
education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all have
to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about
creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is
barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the
children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can be done
with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

JG

snip

John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm
hard-pressed to solve some of the problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and
mules). The former president of Boston College was asked what single thing could be done to improve the quality
of education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is legally permitted to teach in the public schools
of my state (and probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth
Century
awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists
who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't worse. We are different.
Primary and
secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition
overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying
for their education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing"
about creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class outside
of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If
the children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can
be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also
got two degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some
of the problems (and it's not just because the problems involve
rods, pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was
asked what single thing could be done to improve the quality of
education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges of
education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so
either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is permitted to teach
middle-school English. I could go on and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century
awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists
who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend American
universities. We aren't worse. We are different. Primary and
secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition
overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying
for their education. This will continue to be a problem as long
as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing"
about creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution
is barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If
the children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can
be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps. And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

(It would be better if we got what we thought we were paying for at the
secondary level.)

Just out of curiosity -- why are you defending the failure of the secondary
schools?

JG (SO! looking forward to the answer to THAT question......?)

John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high
schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These
days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the
day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905.
I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed
to solve some of the problems (and it's not just because the
problems involve rods, pecks, and mules). The former
president of Boston College was asked what single thing could
be done to improve the quality of education in this coutry?
His answer: "Close the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state
(and probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer, nurse,
physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is permitted
to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on, but you
get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check
out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century
awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists
who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend American
universities. We aren't worse. We are different. Primary and
secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to
remedial math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary and secondary problems. This increases
the cost of
tuition overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of
students paying for their education. This will continue to be a
problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a
"thing" about creation science (completely ignoring the fact
that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class outside of
AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and
turning them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly
prepared." If the children aren't properly prepared, there's
not much that can be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, obviously that is possible.

And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

None. In fact you can make a case that it makes more
sense for universitys to be teaching the stuff they decide
that they need to teach those who attend universitys than
having the secondary schools teach it to everyone, including
those who arent going to attend a university.

(It would be better if we got what we thought we were paying for at the secondary level.)

Not necessarily, see above.

Just out of curiosity -- why are you defending the failure of the secondary schools?

I'm not. Just rubbing your nose in the fact that your claim that "If the children aren't
properly prepared, there's not much that can be done with them" is just plain wrong.

JG (SO! looking forward to the answer to THAT question......?)

Your problem.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with
electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high
schools and Colleges were rich folks prerogatives. These
days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the
day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905.
I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed
to solve some of the problems (and it's not just because the
problems involve rods, pecks, and mules). The former
president of Boston College was asked what single thing could
be done to improve the quality of education in this coutry?
His answer: "Close the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state
(and probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer, nurse,
physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is permitted
to teach middle-school English. I could go on and on, but you
get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check
out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century
awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists
who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend American
universities. We aren't worse. We are different. Primary and
secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to
remedial math and reading skills to their freshman because of the
primary and secondary problems. This increases
the cost of
tuition overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of
students paying for their education. This will continue to be a
problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a
"thing" about creation science (completely ignoring the fact
that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class outside of
AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and
turning them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly
prepared." If the children aren't properly prepared, there's
not much that can be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, obviously that is possible.

And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

None.

Huge, and you can see it on the financial statements of the universities,
who have been not shy about raising the issue.

If you're not willing to see that, you're obviously not an educator nor well
versed on the matter, and not qualified to speak on the subject,

JG



In fact you can make a case that it makes more
sense for universitys to be teaching the stuff they decide
that they need to teach those who attend universitys than
having the secondary schools teach it to everyone, including
those who arent going to attend a university.

(It would be better if we got what we thought we were paying for at the
secondary level.)

Not necessarily, see above.

Just out of curiosity -- why are you defending the failure of the
secondary schools?

I'm not. Just rubbing your nose in the fact that your claim that "If the
children aren't
properly prepared, there's not much that can be done with them" is just
plain wrong.

JG (SO! looking forward to the answer to THAT question......?)

Your problem.

John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences. Done any DNA analysis
with electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges were rich folks
prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905.
I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm
hard-pressed to solve some of the problems (and it's not
just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).
The former president of Boston College was asked what
single thing could be done to improve the quality of
education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges
of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate
is legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my
state (and probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer,
nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is
permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and
on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system?
Check out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth
Century awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why
scientists who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend
American universities. We aren't worse. We are different.
Primary and secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to
remedial math and reading skills to their freshman because of
the primary and secondary problems. This increases the cost of
tuition overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their education. This will
continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about creation science (completely ignoring
the fact that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and
turning them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly
prepared." If the children aren't properly prepared, there's
not much that can be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, obviously that is possible.

And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

None.

Huge,

Nope.

and you can see it on the financial statements of the universities,

No you cant.

who have been not shy about raising the issue.

Academics have been doing that for more than
half a century now and presumably before that too.

If you're not willing to see that, you're obviously not an educator

Guess who just got egg all over his face, very comprehensively indeed ?

nor well versed on the matter,

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

and not qualified to speak on the subject,

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

In fact you can make a case that it makes more sense for universitys to be teaching the stuff they decide that they
need to teach those who attend universitys than
having the secondary schools teach it to everyone, including those who arent going to attend a university.

You cant ignore that, it aint gunna go away.

(It would be better if we got what we thought we were paying for at the secondary level.)

Not necessarily, see above.

Just out of curiosity -- why are you defending the failure of the secondary schools?

I'm not. Just rubbing your nose in the fact that your claim that "If the children aren't
properly prepared, there's not much that can be done with them" is just plain wrong.

JG (SO! looking forward to the answer to THAT question......?)

Your problem.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis
with electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high
schools and Colleges were rich folks
prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to assure your
self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905.
I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm
hard-pressed to solve some of the problems (and it's not
just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).
The former president of Boston College was asked what
single thing could be done to improve the quality of
education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges
of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate
is legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my
state (and probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer,
nurse, physician do so either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is
permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on and
on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system?
Check out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth
Century awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why
scientists who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend
American universities. We aren't worse. We are different.
Primary and secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to
remedial math and reading skills to their freshman because of
the primary and secondary problems. This increases the cost of
tuition overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of students
paying for their education. This will
continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing"
about creation science (completely ignoring
the fact that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class
outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and
turning them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly
prepared." If the children aren't properly prepared, there's
not much that can be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, obviously that is possible.

And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

None.

Huge,

Nope.

Well, that's certainly conclusive evidence. :-)

JG

John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an
agricultural society any more. Things changed after WWI.
Weapons were mechanical and we needed soldiers who could
read the damn manuals. Before WWI, most people were
lucky to finish the eighth grade, which was fine for
plowing fields, tossin' hay, and building fences. Done
any DNA analysis with electrophoresis lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century
high schools and Colleges were rich folks
prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to assure
your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905.
I've also got two degrees in mathematics and I'm
hard-pressed to solve some of the problems (and it's not
just because the problems involve rods, pecks, and mules).
The former president of Boston College was asked what
single thing could be done to improve the quality of
education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges
of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel
Laureate is legally permitted to teach in the public
schools of my state (and probably yours); Nor can a
retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize winner is permitted to teach middle-school
English. I could go on and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system?
Check out the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth
Century awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why
scientists who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend
American universities. We aren't worse. We are different.
Primary and secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to
remedial math and reading skills to their freshman because
of the primary and secondary problems. This increases the
cost of tuition overall, ultimately increasing the
difficulty of students paying for their education. This will
continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools
all have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has
a "thing" about creation science (completely ignoring
the fact that evolution is barely touched on in any HS class
outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and
turning them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly
prepared." If the children aren't properly prepared, there's
not much that can be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that
will benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Taint a theory, its a trivially provable fact.

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, obviously that is possible.

And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

None.

Huge,

Nope.

Well, that's certainly conclusive evidence. :-)

Your Huge claim in spades.

YOU made that claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence to support that particular claim.

THATS how it works.

AND the cost for society is lower if the education that the universitys
decide that their students need is provided by them than if that particular
education is provided to everyone in secondary school instead, even
those who wont be going to university.

In article ,
"John Galt" wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the eighth
grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay, and
building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just to
assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've
also got two
degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some of the
problems (and it's not just because the problems involve rods,
pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was
asked what single thing
could be
done to improve the quality of education in this coutry? His
answer: "Close
the colleges of education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours);
Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so either. No
Pulitzer Prize
winner is permitted to teach middle-school English. I could go on
and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century awarded to
Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists who want to be
cutting edge, make sure to attend American universities. We aren't
worse. We are different. Primary and secondary have problems but
not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition overall,
ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying for their
education. This will continue to be a problem as long as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger
anti-zionists and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all have
to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing" about
creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution is
barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If the
children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can be done
with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

JG

snip

OK. Take an aquarium and pour some white sand into it. Let it settle.
Then take some black sand and pour it into the aquarium and let it
settle. Can you think of anyway that the black sand will end up on the
bottom? Bim-batta-boom, you got evolution. Go to the Grand Canyon and
you can read back 6,000,000 years. Remember. the layer below came first
and then the one above it. You may wish to look up carbon-14 dating as
well but that will only take you back 40,000 years. Evolution is called
a "theory" because you can't do it in a lab but it is the only
explanation this side of booga-booga that explains what we see in the
world.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"John Galt" wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Rod Speed wrote
John Galt wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

Fantasy?

Hellooo, what 'chew smokin' boy? We're not an agricultural
society any more. Things changed after WWI. Weapons were
mechanical and we needed soldiers who could read the damn
manuals. Before WWI, most people were lucky to finish the
eighth grade, which was fine for plowing fields, tossin' hay,
and building fences. Done any DNA analysis with electrophoresis
lately? Uh-huh. In the 19th century high schools and Colleges
were rich folks prerogatives. These days you need a PhD. just
to assure your self a slot on the day shift.

Heh! I have a 5th grade math textbook, published in 1905. I've also
got two degrees in mathematics and I'm hard-pressed to solve some
of the problems (and it's not just because the problems involve
rods, pecks, and mules). The former president of Boston College was
asked what single thing could be done to improve the quality of
education in this coutry? His answer: "Close the colleges of
education."

It's almost criminal that no single, living, Nobel Laureate is
legally permitted to teach in the public schools of my state (and
probably yours); Nor can a retired engineer, nurse, physician do so
either. No Pulitzer Prize winner is permitted to teach
middle-school English. I could go on and on, but you get the idea:

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Wanna feel better about the 'Merican educational system? Check out
the Nobel prizes in science for the Twentieth Century
awarded to Americans. Not too shabby. Explains why scientists
who want to be cutting edge, make sure to attend American
universities. We aren't worse. We are different. Primary and
secondary have problems but not the Universities,

Universities are having to allot more and more budget to remedial
math and reading skills to their freshman because of the primary
and secondary problems. This increases the cost of tuition
overall, ultimately increasing the difficulty of students paying
for their education. This will continue to be a problem as long
as......

except turf wars over budgets, idiots trying to finger anti-zionists
and, creation science.

.....people pretend the problems in the government schools all
have to do with the fact that .1% of the population has a "thing"
about creation science (completely ignoring the fact that evolution
is barely touched on in any HS class outside of AP Biology.

We're quite good at taking properly prepared students and turning
them into Nobel Prize Winners. Underline "properly prepared." If
the children aren't properly prepared, there's not much that can
be done with them.

Bull****, the deficiencys can be fixed with any brats that will
benefit from a university education.

Interesting theory,

Then feel free to do so.

If those individuals can be taught that stuff in secondary
school, they can obviously be taught it in a university instead.

Perhaps. And if if that granted, at what cost to the rest of society?

(It would be better if we got what we thought we were paying for at the
secondary level.)

Just out of curiosity -- why are you defending the failure of the secondary
schools?

JG (SO! looking forward to the answer to THAT question......?)

Well if you want to induce the kind of stress in kids that leads to
Japanese school children committing suicide, then you're probably on the
right track. But many educators don't think that kids are just miniature
adults and they would like to see them mature before stressing them.
European universities on the other hand are a bit of a cake walk in that
the student has already been chosen to fill a slot, so they just need to
make a decent effort to hang in. In Europe, American colleges and
universities are highly respected. So ****ing and moaning about they do
it that way and we do it this way is like comparing the apples and
oranges.

In Europe, if you don't do well on your exams when you are 12 years old,
the university door closes and the trade school door opens up.

In 'Merica, you CAN screw up. If you change your mind about school, you
can always go back to a community college. If you do well in the
community college, you may find your self in a four year college. If you
do well there, you may find yourself doing post graduate work at a
prestigious university. This can't happen in Europe. Only in America.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush