Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
correction, the GREAT Bush RECESSION... as long as we are in this trough, how ever long we are here, we must give credit to the guy that put us here. quit trying to rewrite history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Right. So as most that are hurting from the great obama recession, losing jobs, homes and whatever nest egg they had, the "rich" can and DO continue to spend, even though they might tighten their belts too.
I guess we should believe YOU know what you're talking about when it comes to economics?
I actually do. The Democratic economic agenda aims to put more money in the pockets of the poor and middle class, who will spend it and create economic activity. The Republican economic agenda aims to put more money in the pockets of the rich, who will end up saving it.
I'm not sure why conservatives think that depressing aggregate demand will improve the economy?
Conservatives support doing what is best for the economy as a whole so that everyone can have more money in their pockets and certainly do not support taxing the middle class at a higher rate. And putting more money in the pockets of the poor in the form of welfare is certainly not sustainable.
As far as the rich saving money, you're right to some extent. But the rich also invest in businesses and projects that give the lower and middle class far more money.
so, the failings of the "high achievers" is the fault of the liberals, how? isn't the fault of the individual kids?
Read the article linked in my posts, specifically the subsections I mentioned, and you'll clearly see that the answer to your question is definitively, NO.
The dumbing down of the middle- and high-achievers is intentional because liberal educators believe it isn't "fair" that some kids have the 'advantage' of higher intelligence and/or academic skill levels.
Exactly where in NCLB is it mandated that the middle- and high- achieving students be dumbed down to more closely match the skill- and ability-levels of the lower-achieving students? Hmmm???
Nope, it's not NCLB. NCLB doesn't mandate dumbing anyone down. Liberal educators have done that all on their own. It's been their agenda for at least 5 decades. Read the Alantic article.
People in the 1% drive the economy a hell of a lot more than anyone else. I don't think any conservative would argue that the 1% drives the entire economy themselves.
Some well-known financial/wealth author (someone like Thomas J Stanley or Robert Kiyosaki, although I don't think it was either of these two) cited an expression he had picked up elsewhere, something along the lines of:
"To live with the classes, sell to the masses,,,those who sell to the classes live with the masses."
The message there is that there is more money to be made selling to the 99% than to the 1%.
Conservatives support doing what is best for the economy as a whole so that everyone can have more money in their pockets and certainly do not support taxing the middle class at a higher rate. And putting more money in the pockets of the poor in the form of welfare is certainly not sustainable.
As far as the rich saving money, you're right to some extent. But the rich also invest in businesses and projects that give the lower and middle class far more money.
We've tried the GOP's economic agenda under Bush and it was a failure.
not sure where in the Dem's platform it says that either, but you wingnut will "invent" anything to fit your spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Exactly where in NCLB is it mandated that the middle- and high- achieving students be dumbed down to more closely match the skill- and ability-levels of the lower-achieving students? Hmmm???
Nope, it's not NCLB. NCLB doesn't mandate dumbing anyone down. Liberal educators have done that all on their own. It's been their agenda for at least 5 decades. Read the Alantic article.
Not so much until after the Democrats took over Congress.
And under Reagan, it turned the economy around.
Good try, but fail. I'll put Clinton's economic agenda up against Bush's any day. Clinton and the Democratic path expanded the middle class. Bush and the Republicans decimated the middle class.
Many DO understand, which is why you see the vast majority reject obama's rhetoric of trying to lift the bottom by tearing down the top.
My god, is there any better example of what liberalism is all about than what they have done to California?
I was not pointing out whether California was liberal or conservative. But the fact remains that there is tremendous inequality in California,and I don't think it will make the state stronger. Nor do I feel it is a winning equation for any other state over the long haul.
And I don't think liberal education has lowered attainment. Lower income parents produce lower achieving kids. There could be many mechanisms. We are this all across the country in red and blue states. I think blaming the teachers is foolish. They have not suddenly become incompetent.
My point is that inequality will weaken America from within.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that some kids have the 'advantage' of higher intelligence and/or academic skill levels.
