You Can't Teach Liberals Anything

John Ransom
|
Posted: Sep 26, 2012 12:01 AM

Kevlar wrote: Lots of us owe our love of numbers to our Public School Education.

40 percent is the drop-out rate for Chicago Public School Children

40 percent is how many Chicago Public School Teachers won’t send their kids to any public school…not even in Suburbia

40 percent of Chicago Public School 8th Graders rated “basic” and 36 percent rated “below basic” so nearly 80% were not proficient in reading

40 thousand dollars – average household income of Chicago Tax Payers ----- well over 100 thousand is the average household income of Chicago Public School Teachers

40 hours is probably your average work week – 23 hours is the average for a Chicago Public School Teacher equaling 1260 annual hours which is…

40 percent fewer hours than you work

40 is the IQ required to know sub-standard teachers would get fired... if our President or his children were ever forced to attend a Public School

Don’t we just love numbers? Last year, Chicago Public Schools spent $16,600 per student. During the strike, how many tax payers were allowed to attend the negotiations?- Unions Tell Taxpayers: “We have no confidence in you.”



See more top stories from Townhall Finance. New Homepage, more content. Be the best informed fiscal conservative.

Dear Kevlar,

All excellent points. Seriously, Chicago is the inevitable outcome of the system that Obama is designing. I grew up there. Lived there off and on into my 30s. You do not want the United States of America to look like THAT.

It may be too late.

Go Bears!

Jkacan wrote: Teacher never was real appreciate a job and salarie get.When a boss is a Gov,is easy target for rob,that not happening in a private school.Yes a solution are send a student to charter school.Union and teacher don't care if a distrit have a money or not,but another question are,that teacher merely high salarie? - Unions Tell Taxpayers: “We have no confidence in you.”

Dear Comrade J-can,

Is that who I think it is?

By the way readers, look for teachers unions around the country to stage these “no confidence” votes just prior to a strike or a walkout by the teachers. It’s newest, secret liberal tactic by the American Federation of Teachers to get us all to cough up more cash for public employees.   

Dcaye wrote: America is one of the few nations that educates all children, that tests all children the same despite economic conditions, language barriers, or home situation. Blame our teachers where blame is due, but don't blame them for things they are not responsible for. - Unions Tell Taxpayers: “We have no confidence in you.”

Nations like Singapore, Sweden, the UK, Finland educate all students as well.

The difference is that in those other nations they offer education choices, which are not available to American students.

As a country Singapore is number one. You know why? They offer state subsidies for private schools in Singapore- in other words they offer a voucher that parents can take to the best schools their children can get into.

Even socialist nations like Finland and Sweden offer more educational choices than the United States.

The problem we have in the US is that there’s a closed system in which politicians dole out money at the state and federal level, a portion of that money goes to unions, then that money goes back to the politicians who then give money back to the system, etc.

Money is not the solution here.

Break up the union monopoly in education.            

KBStreet1 wrote: 10.17% true Inflation as of September 2012

14.7% U-6 Unemployment as of September 2012

24.9 Misery Index

And Pravda001 replied: Great stats where did you get them Townhall.com?- Obama's Misery Index

Dear Comrade Pravda,

Probably somewhere on Townhall you can find the numbers that KB shared with the rest of us.

There’s a great site called Shadowstats.com that has an explanation of how the government- both Republicans and Democrats- re-wrote the rules to calculate inflation in the 1990s. In brief, the government wanted to cut down payments on things that were indexed to the consumer price index, so they came up with a way to make sure that inflation was always understated.

These revisions were a follow-up to revisions made in 1980 under Carter and continued under Regan- again mostly to lower indexed payments for entitlements like Social Security.

If you count in the real prices using the same methodology that they used before 1980, inflation is indeed at or near 10 percent. That’s an indisputable mathematical fact not subject to liberal deconstruction.

Unemployment is a bit trickier, but here too the government changed the rules to drop people out of the workforce in order to change the number of “unemployed” for the benefit of the government.

As Shadowstats reminds us: “The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.”

It is interesting to note that the major revisions to inflation and unemployment calculations both happened under president Clinton as a part of a larger budget battle. The advantage for Clinton was that he could cut down on payments going for entitlements.

If you include those who are marginally attached to the workforce- like part-time workers- and those who have dropped out of the workforce because they are long-term discouraged workers, the actual number of unemployed in the US is closer to 23 percent, instead of the 14.7 percent that KB uses.

But nice try Pravda. Next time try Google. I know it hurts liberals to learn things, but wouldn’t you rather learn the truth than cling to the remnants of a dead 20th century economic theory?

Oh…that’s right: You wouldn’t.           

Edoely wrote: Based on the number of unemployed and number no longer looking has anyone figured out the population of what State or Sates this number of people would fill...might be very enlightening. Also, we might want to figure the total dollar amount paid out to those collecting unemployment and visit this cost to the entitlement effort so pompously ignored just spoken of. -Obama's Misery Index

Dear Ed,

I think last February it was about the size of the state of Kentucky- 4.6 million. Now it’s more like the state of Massachusetts- 6.5 million.

I covered the economic effects of the lack of jobs last winter:

In the end what it means is that wages in the US have been permanently reduced by $208 billion per year and counting so far. That’s about 1.5 percent of GDP just in wages, not counting anything that is actually produced by those workers. When you figure in total output subtracted from GDP from missing workers, the number is closer to 2.1 percent of GDP that’s permanently missing from our economy. That’s about $320 billion.

Even the most optimistic projections for Obama’s millionaires’ tax doesn’t come close to raising that amount.   

Over the long-term those little variations of 2 percent more or less in GDP growth make a huge difference in our economy.  Over a ten-year period an economy that grows by 2 percent versus an economy that grows by 4 percent is the difference between having a GDP of $18.5 trillion versus a GDP of $22.5 trillion by year ten.

In total over ten years, it means that the economy will miss about $20 trillion worth of GDP in those ten years, and between $3.4-$4 trillion in tax revenues unless we start to follow pro-growth policies that lead to job creation for someone other than major Obama donors.

See? And here I ended up doing some math anyway.

That’s just another reason to deny Obama four more years.

Now I have 20 trillion reasons plus one. And so do you.   

Yachtsman388 wrote:  What was the unemployment rate when FDR took office? What was it when he died? Gee, was that the last time we reached full employment, during the war time government run socialized economy? -Obama's Misery Index

Dear Comrade Boat Snob,

I hear Roosevelt loved boats too. He was also a snob.

Are you related?

There were about 13 million unemployed or about a quarter of the workforce when Roosevelt took over in 1933.

When he died in April 1945, there were about 12.5 million Americans serving in the armed forces of the United States.

So what?

Roosevelt drafted a great deal of soldiers and lots of women joined the war effort.

Here’s the point that liberals miss about the World War II: It wasn’t government spending that got us out of the Great Depression. It was demand.

Customers, who just happened to be governments, had demand for war materials that the United States was capable of manufacturing.

It may have been tanks and airplanes, but the demand was real.

Government spending does nothing without demand except distort the economy.

That is why we see higher oil prices today despite mounting evidence of a world-wide recession taking hold.

Government spending now accounts for 40 percent of our GDP.

During World War II federal spending on the war effort averaged 35 percent of GDP.

If government spending was going to solve our problems, they would have been cured by now.     

Gosh Darn Liberal wrote: you criticise Obama for taKing credit in killing binLaden saying it was other people who killed bin Laden. Now you criticise him for not being in charge while campaigning. You should be saying, thank God he is campaigning and not in charge. but then you would not.have a thing to say. - Obama's Score: Fundraising 100, National Security 0

Dear Comrade Liberal,

Were you typing in a hail storm?

‘Cause dude, that’s messed up typing.

You might have missed the part when I pined for Obama to miss a few more intelligence briefings. I reprint it here for you:

Ironically, over the weekend, newly minted defense secretary Leon Panetta blasted those who would betray intelligence secrets for petty partisan or financial gain.

“How the hell can we run sensitive operations here that go after enemies if people are allowed to do that?” said Panetta on an interview with CBSNews.

Panetta however wasn’t talking about the president. Instead, he was talking about an account of the raid by a Navy SEAL who participated in the Bin Laden operation. The secretary missed the irony that once again we have a case where the president doesn’t have to follow law or even common sense. The president, you see, can release any information he wants for any reason he wants, even sources and methods of intelligence gathering if it can help his campaign.   

Now the task is to just get Obama to skip the briefings all together and only concentrate on fundraising.

Oh, yes.

That happens in January 2013, when the new campaign for the Obama Presidential Library starts in earnest.

People are criticizing Obama because he’s out of touch with the national security needs of the United States, while campiagning on a key national security victory of which he had little to do with.

Our contributor Bob Beauprez explained it a week ago:

The question comes up a lot these days, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"  But, the question is almost always asked in a personal economic context.  Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense and widely published author, analyzed the "Are you better off…" question from a foreign policy/national security perspective.  His conclusion: "America's enemies are, not our allies."      

Doctor Roy wrote: Well only Republicans would complain about a one billion dollar jobs bill to help the guys that actually fought in the wars after authorizing hundreds of billions to contractors that didn't. - Obama's Score: Fundraising 100, National Security 0

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Really? $1 billion? That’s all you remember?

How about the $5 trillion in deficit spending since the start of the administration?

You think $1 billion is going to help?

Put an end to this farcical administration. This is like a circus company taking over a bank. That’s the billion dollar question; not some piddley bill  

DagNabbit wrote: You know what would have been good? If Bush missed a few more briefs, and either started a few less wars with the wrong country, or finished the ones that he DID start. Obama's Score: Fundraising 100, National Security 0

Dear Comrade Dag,

You mean like the civil war that’s raging in Libya because of Obama?

At least Bush had the guts to commit American resources to Iraq to allow them to have some choice in their future government.

That’s more than is happening in Egypt or Libya.

Bush saved Iraq; Obama has lost the whole Middle East.

Brucebaby wrote: Oil is sliding below $93 right now. Are you going to give Obama credit for the decrease?- Thank You Mr. President: Despite Recession, Oil Prices Continue to Rise

Dear Comrade Bruce,

Sure I’ll give him credit for prices going down $7 if you give him credit for the run up from $45 per barrel to over $100 while president.

I’ll wait here for your reply.

Yachtsman388 wrote: Very clever how Rancid the Clown wrote a whole column about oil and gas prices without ever mentioning the speculators in the commodities markets and how they manipulate the prices to make money. If any of the so called "experts" really knew what caused prices to go up or down, they wouldn't be writing about it. They wouldn't want anybody to know about it. Instead, they'd be in the market themselves cleaning up.­- Thank You Mr. President: Despite Recession, Oil Prices Continue to Rise

Dear Boat Snob,

Speculators exist in all markets. I can say the same thing about the gold markets. Or Treasuries. Or wheat.

Again, so what?

Long-term prices are dictated by supply and demand. I don’t claim to be an expert in oil and gas, but I know plenty of people who are and make a very active living in it.

They seem to feel that the United States has enough proven, recoverable oil, for all intents and purposes, to keep imports of oil at or below 20 percent, if not create total energy autarchy.

The problems is that Obama won’t do it.

Our economy will not recover as long as Obama continues to ration energy, healthcare, banking and success.

That’s it for this week.

V/r,

JR