Politics

[Scott CWO]

Yes it's true that catholic schools do quite well by their students. But there is another factor you have not considered, and i think you may have your correlation and causation switched. Catholic schools require their students family to pay for it themselves. Ask yourself this question; what family has the money to send 3 kids to Catholic school in the first place?...Not ones at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The students come from wealthier families to begin with when compared to the average public school student. 3 kids x $7000/yr is $21K per year. Most families don't have that much money lying around.

Those students come from families with greater means and resources, and that is a factor in their continued success. Also, those homeschooling studies are largely misleading as several of them that show great success with homeschooled students are not random samples, and use self-selected results. Resulting in a disproportionately larger amount of wealthy, highly educated homeschooling families, and do not represent the median student.

Thanks for making the argument for school vouchers and school of choice!

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

I wondered if his ouster is seen as a good or bad thing - are the other options better?

There was a lot of mud slinging in this race, which was sad to see Republicans fighting amongst themselves. I'm not sure there is a dimes difference between all of them. Except Cassidy stood up to Trump and I don't think Fleming or Letlow will do that.

 

[Scott CWO]

The same could be said in the US…

Who voted talib, omar, AOC, and the rest of the idiots in our house into office?

Immigrants, that’s who. Minnesota and Michigan have imported thousands. The former Mayor of St. Paul was a wacko.

 

[mdwest]

Immigrants, that’s who. Minnesota and Michigan have imported thousands. The former Mayor of St. Paul was a wacko.

Same as the MPs from Manchester, Birmingham, and London..

Thst was sort of my point…

We are really no different… we let untold numbers of people into our country that dont share our same values, ethics, or morals… we let them run roughshod over the majority, demanding that the majority accepts them exactly as they are, while they reject the values, ethics, and morals of the majority… and even go so far as to elect them into public office, all in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity…

I mean, who in their right mind really believes Jasmine Crockett is a decent human being or someone that is going to make decisions in the best interest of the US?

Then we sit around and wonder why Capitol Hill is a hive of shit bags and morally corrupt assclowns…

 

[Killingtime]

You absolutely can. We have done it several times throughout American history. The first personal income tax was to pay for Civil War debt. And more recently WWI and WWII debt. That was the whole point of modern Income Taxation...to pay off your debts. Look at our debt levels after WWII, more than 100% public debt to GDP ratio. It took several decades to pay that down but we still did it. Sorry rich people, I guess you'll just have to pay more.

Most recently the Clinton admin did it to a lesser extent. They reversed the significant Republican deficits and were paying off debt when Bush took over, and I quote.."The federal gov having a surplus is evidence that we are taking too much of our hard working Americans money, and thats why we need a tax cut" - GWB, 2001.

Except then he got us into not one but two wars that he never paid for, followed by two more rounds of tax cuts mostly for the rich. The situation deteriorated significantly from there.

Sir a few points the first income tax went away after the war was payed off… then we learned that the government is very irresponsible with any money that they are given and will find a way to take those who works money and us it piss poorly. Worst thing this country ever did was make the federal reserve and elect Woodrow Wilson as a president.

The second thing is they didn’t pay for wwii debt which was 106% of gdp by income tax they did it through a combination of inflation and economic growth. The country ran much smaller deficits after the war and many years saw a surplus from the growth expansion which was caused by lower traditional rates.
The us had high tax marginal tax rates but no one payed them because of deductions and loopholes. We never payed are debt off our gdp just grew to a level mixed with inflation that the debt to gdp level was reduced to a quarter by the 70’s. But it wasn’t payed off like people assume.

 

[Scott CWO]

Same as the MPs from Manchester, Birmingham, and London..

Thst was sort of my point…

We are really no different… we let untold numbers of people into our country that dont share our same values, ethics, or morals… we let them run roughshod over the majority, demanding that the majority accepts them exactly as they are, while they reject the values, ethics, and morals of the majority… and even go so far as to elect them into public office, all in the name of diversity, inclusion, and equity…

I mean, who in their right mind really believes Jasmine Crockett is a decent human being or someone that is going to make decisions in the best interest of the US?

Then we sit around and wonder why Capitol Hill is a hive of shit bags and morally corrupt assclowns…

Common denominator is the need for controlled immigration. There are many places in this country that don’t resemble the country we grew up in.

 

[Big_Easy]

I

I agree that a big reason private school kids outperform public school kids is because their parents are involved and encourage learning. Same goes for most homeschooled kids. What I think is utter nonsense is the notion that more money (also called “investing in our kids) will make a damned bit of difference. It’s literally the only solution offered by politicians, teachers unions and the media. Pouring more tax money into schools won’t help students who come to class exhausted because they run the streets all night….haven’t cracked a book because there’s no one at home to force them to….and have no one in their lives who value education. Our local, county public school is outstanding. Mainly because the parents are involved. Other districts in the county are not so fortunate. St. Louis City public schools are abysmal. Money is not the reason.

"haven’t cracked a book because there’s no one at home to force them to….and have no one in their lives who value education." Perhaps if their parents weren't working 2-3 jobs, 60+ hours a week they would have someone at home to guide them more often?

 

[Big_Easy]

I

I agree that a big reason private school kids outperform public school kids is because their parents are involved and encourage learning. Same goes for most homeschooled kids. What I think is utter nonsense is the notion that more money (also called “investing in our kids) will make a damned bit of difference. It’s literally the only solution offered by politicians, teachers unions and the media. Pouring more tax money into schools won’t help students who come to class exhausted because they run the streets all night….haven’t cracked a book because there’s no one at home to force them to….and have no one in their lives who value education. Our local, county public school is outstanding. Mainly because the parents are involved. Other districts in the county are not so fortunate. St. Louis City public schools are abysmal. Money is not the reason.

Concentrating poverty in a school is also a terrible idea.

 

[Big_Easy]

Sir a few points the first income tax went away after the war was payed off… then we learned that the government is very irresponsible with any money that they are given and will find a way to take those who works money and us it piss poorly. Worst thing this country ever did was make the federal reserve and elect Woodrow Wilson as a president.

The second thing is they didn’t pay for wwii debt which was 106% of gdp by income tax they did it through a combination of inflation and economic growth. The country ran much smaller deficits after the war and many years saw a surplus from the growth expansion which was caused by lower traditional rates.
The us had high tax marginal tax rates but no one payed them because of deductions and loopholes. We never payed are debt off our gdp just grew to a level mixed with inflation that the debt to gdp level was reduced to a quarter by the 70’s. But it wasn’t payed off like people assume.

Sure economic growth was a part of it. But even inflation and economic growth are only possible (partial) solutions if you're not constantly running massive deficits every year. Which we were not after the war. The rates weren't lowered until 20 years after the war ended. There are various sources, but most place the net effective tax rate between 40% and 50% for those at the top. Hardly the 90% marginal rate that existed. But that still proves my point, as my suggestion was to return to a top tax rate of ~40% for top incomes.

Getting your annual budgets under control and then increasing taxes on the wealthy over time (say 30 years like after WW2) would see our debt to GDP ratio shrink to a reasonable level as the economy continues to grow. You just have to make sure that your debt rises slower than economic growth. $39 Trillion in debt doesn't mean nearly as much if the economy as a whole is $50 Trillion. Which is entirely doable today if they wanted to. Remind me again, didn't Trump say he could pay off our entire national debt in 8 years when he was running the first time? Whatever happened to that? I suppose he'll do that right after they repeal and replace the ACA. And end the war in the Ukraine. And pass that Infrastructure bill....etc.

 

[spike.t]

'This may be the last time you hear my voice': Political executions surge in Iran

Since the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February, the UN says it’s verified the execution of at least 32 political prisoners.

www.bbc.com

 

[Tanks]

Speaking of a country with high taxation, UK this past year spent more on welfare than it took in taxes. It spent more money on those that don’t work than it took from those that do.

As Thatcher put it, eventually you run out of other people’s money.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Ah Yes, Welfare. Another Democrat program which ruined the Black Nuclear family. Which incentivized women to have more children without a father in the home.
Which is the primary indicator and driver of poverty and poor performance in school.

Instead of addressing the issue of fatherless young black males. Democrats blame the firearm for black on black crime driving most of the “Gun Violence” numbers held up by those same Democrats.

Instead of addressing the issue of fatherless young black males. Democrats want more money to pump into the inner city failed school system.

The root cause of all the social issues Democrats bemoan were caused by Democrats.

 

[LivingTheDream]

economic growth are only possible (partial) solutions if you're not constantly running massive deficits every year.

Every modern economy right now has proven you can have economic growth while running massive deficits. Doesn't mean a day of reckoning isnt coming but liquidity fuels economy growth.

 

[Killingtime]

Sure economic growth was a part of it. But even inflation and economic growth are only possible (partial) solutions if you're not constantly running massive deficits every year. Which we were not after the war. The rates weren't lowered until 20 years after the war ended. There are various sources, but most place the net effective tax rate between 40% and 50% for those at the top. Hardly the 90% marginal rate that existed. But that still proves my point, as my suggestion was to return to a top tax rate of ~40% for top incomes.

Getting your annual budgets under control and then increasing taxes on the wealthy over time (say 30 years like after WW2) would see our debt to GDP ratio shrink to a reasonable level as the economy continues to grow. You just have to make sure that your debt rises slower than economic growth. $39 Trillion in debt doesn't mean nearly as much if the economy as a whole is $50 Trillion. Which is entirely doable today if they wanted to. Remind me again, didn't Trump say he could pay off our entire national debt in 8 years when he was running the first time? Whatever happened to that? I suppose he'll do that right after they repeal and replace the ACA. And end the war in the Ukraine. And pass that Infrastructure bill....etc.

I’m not understanding your response that they didn’t lower rates until 20years are the war?
The Federal reserve pretty much capped rates starting in 1942 and kept them low and didn’t start raising them until the 1950’s .
Short term t bills averaged 0.375
And long treasury bonds averaged 2.5%

I’m not arguing over the your claim of effective rates of 40-50 percent.. that did not pay off the debt nor does it change or make my statement false that people did not pay the high up to 92 % top marginal rate applied after the war.

The us will never get there spending under control because contrary to belief they didn’t really get it under control after wwii. We did cut war spending in half for a few years but by the 50’s we went right back to it with Korea and then the cold war kept it high and climbing, LBJ and his great society bullshit and medicad,Medicare, and vietnam all by 1970 which is when our gdp technically hit the roughly 35% mark.

we are not in the same environment as wwii so it’s high unlikely that we could repeat those tactics.

You had the developed world collapse while we stayed intact.
That allowed us to economically explode on the scene.
We had a production and population boom.

And we had bretton wood which put us in control and the world hungry for our debt(opposite seems to be occurring today) which helped finance our deficit and allow us to expand.

I’m assuming that you bringing trump up that its somehow going to get me bothered… you would be incorrect.
Trump increasing the debt doesn’t change my feeling in any way because I would have to be blind and naive to think that any president has the power to lower spending and the desire to eliminate the national debt. There are no modern case studies to show that logic.

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Killingtime]

Thanks for making the argument for school vouchers and school of choice!

Sweden is a perfect case study of exactly that. The best schools win and expand and the terrible schools are forced to to fire trash teachers and change.

Thomas sowell wrote a book on charter schools short read audible on YouTube I believe maybe 4hrs long. Had a guy I knew who’s kid lived in San Francisco and daughter was a teacher argue about how terrible charter schools are and tried to say private and homeschool numbers were lies.

I found Sowells book that night and read another book over that weekend which reaffirmed my believe that while some charter schools may be subpar the majority even in the same neighborhoods as some of the worst schools in individual states are far superior to public education. Told him about it and he refused to read it or look into the data(suprise surprise)

Me and my siblings transferred from public to private school very early in life when my mom went back to work and used her full income to pay for the schooling. While my father payed the essentials of life.
I know we were on financial aid which all private schools offer in some capacity. And we homeschool are children.
In sowells book and in life I’ve seen and believe that the kids of parents who sacrifice the most and hold high expectations will as an average do better then those who don’t.

 

[rookhawk]

"haven’t cracked a book because there’s no one at home to force them to….and have no one in their lives who value education." Perhaps if their parents weren't working 2-3 jobs, 60+ hours a week they would have someone at home to guide them more often?

Typical liberal thinking on this one. His theory is that parents are so busy working 2-3 jobs, 60+ hours a week so there is no one at home to guide the troubled yutes.

Counter-theory. Culture matters. Shitty students come from shitty parents. Shitty parents are concentrated into certain ethnic groups and it has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with wealth or oppression.

My evidence would be the richest ethnic groups in America:

1.) Chinese. They either grew up under Mao's marxist oppression, or their ancestors were treated as slaves building the transcontinental railroad in America. All that oppression and prior poverty, yet their kids flourish in school and its the richest ethnic group in America.

2.) Indian. 6000 years living under a caste system. 500 years living under British rule where their wealth was extracted and sent to the UK. Post-partition, many suffered atrocities and witnessed murder in the late 1940s. Yet their kids flourish in school and they are the #2 wealthiest Americans.

3.) Ashkanazi Jews. 70 years ago they were in internment camps. Prior to that the pograms nationalized their wealth and roles in successful companies. Roughly 1/3rd of global jewry died in WW2. Yet somehow, in spite of starting with nothing and having lost numerous ancestors in the modern era under brutal conditions, they flourished in school and they are the 3rd wealthiest ethnic group in America.

It seems to me working 2-3 jobs and 60+ hours a week like the stereotype for these three groups is a leading indicator of academic success for their children, not failure.

#Culturematters
#PersonalResponsibility
#NotVictimsOfCircumstances

 

[skydiver386]

With friends like that.....

Large-scale scheme to supply Russian defence industry uncovered in Germany

German law enforcement has dismantled a major smuggling network supplying European dual-use technologies to Russia’s military-industrial complex in violation of western sanctions.

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Australia has mandated six China-linked shareholders to divest their interests in Northern Minerals, as announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers.

This decision follows concerns over attempts by Chinese parties to gain control of the company, which is advancing the Browns Range heavy rare earths (HRE) project in Western Australia, reported Reuters.

Australia orders six Northern Minerals investors to divest stakes

The investors are required to divest their shares within a two-week time frame.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Foxi]

Common denominator is the need for controlled immigration. There are many places in this country that don’t resemble the country we grew up in.

it's not just you guys.
Our metropolitan areas no longer belong to us.
In fact, we've already lost.
Sic transit...