Yet with all this folks like you are so obesessed with us.
Seriously...what would make you say that the US does not care about education for the poor? I could think all day and not come up with an idiotic statement like that.
Newsweek Ranks USA Number 11
- Thread starter Bar Sinister
- Start date
Yet with all this folks like you are so obesessed with us.
Seriously...what would make you say that the US does not care about education for the poor? I could think all day and not come up with an idiotic statement like that.
I'm surprised they have the UK as worse off than the U.S. There should be more vitriol with that match-up moreso than Canada/U.S 
I always feel better when conservatives are revealed for the idiots they are; but thanks for caring.
That would be true if it was not for the fact that for years the USA was consistently ranked number one. And if what you say about the USA is true; then how do Canada and Australia manage to rank ahead of the US?
Unfortunately for the USA, the "pap" appears to be true.
I'm surprised they have the UK as worse off than the U.S. There should be more vitriol with that match-up moreso than Canada/U.S
Ever been to the UK or studied living conditions there? Poor quality over-priced housing, a sub-par educational system, high food prices, and a miserable climate. That is only to touch on a few of the country's problems.
Oh you want to go that route? I bet you got all excited running to post this you insecure clown.
"YAAAAAAY! We're number 7 according to Newsweek! USA is number 11! YaaaaaY! I can't wait to run to the forum and post this!"
Funny how a guy from Edmonton gets his news from a US magazine and the Cleveland Leader.
The CLEVELAND LEADER.
Really? I highly doubt it but if you are correct that means we dropped off the top now that Obama has taken office. The liberals really have their shyte together huh?
Besides, I always get a chuckle seeing the village...errrrr, sorry... the country of Luxembuorg as one of the greatest countries in the world.
Jeezuz, for a tough guy you sure seem to have thin skin. (I can't wait for your reply. I can't wait! I can't wait!)
Actually I have no security problems whatsoever. A somewhat bloated ego problem possibly.
And no, this has nothing to do with Obama as the Cleveland newspaper article clearly indicated when it laid much of the blame on good old GW. But even before Bush the US had been slipping steadily in international rankings as many nations caught up to and then surpassed the US in basic infrastructure. But then that is hardly surprising when the main goal of US government has been to keep taxes as low as possible. You get what you pay for and the US paid for 11th place.
As for my sources, does it really matter where I get them as long as they are accurate? I simply Googled US ranked 11 and found many stories covering the topic. For your information I first learned of the Newsweek article on the Colbert Report.
Tough isn't it when a magazine from own country actually points out how the US compares to other nations? If it will make your American ego feel better about not to being number one you should know that the difference between first and eleventh was only 4 points - Finland 89 and the US 85.
Sheesh! Calm down! You get way too excited, ES. Sloooow, deeeep breaths now..... You know, the Canadian way.... Calmer now? Ok, firstly do check your dictionary or spell-checker, Luxembourg may get very hurt if you don't.
Secondly, most important to you apparently ES, you claim it's your present President's fault that the US has slipped to 11th place in the UN's Human Development Index - HDI, since he took office. Not going to argue with you, ES, gets you too excited. So I've taken the UN official stats for their HDI's during your previous President's administration - former President George W. Bush, remember ES? and popped them into a jpg file so you can use them to back up your argument as you see fit. No editing except abridging for size, URL included so you don't have to take my word for it. Up to you whether you read it or not, others will I expect so you may want to take a quick peek - deep breaths first though, ES. You're going to do yourself an injury with all that bouncing around you seem to be doing.
Enjoy!
Obsessed? No, concerned?...Yes.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. Perhaps I am wrong.
If the US cares about access to higher education what are they doing about it even with that so called socialist in power?
Has access improved in the last decade?
What "tea party" like protests have occured to improve the educational situation?
Besides, isn't equality of access just a fancy term for socialism?
Take care.:smile:
Something I didn't catch when I first looked at Newsweek's great leap into the abyss....
Their assessment of the top five nations shouted out the fact that to remain insular and concerned only with domestic internal affairs is the way to gain popularity.
So if the U.S.and Canada were to withdraw from all of the U.N. "Peacekeeping" chores and the international wars going on in the middle east - would they regain a "nice nice" role in the world?
I mean what in your world have the top five done for you unless you happen to live there?
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Luxembourg
Their assessment of the top five nations shouted out the fact that to remain insular and concerned only with domestic internal affairs is the way to gain popularity.
So if the U.S.and Canada were to withdraw from all of the U.N. "Peacekeeping" chores and the international wars going on in the middle east - would they regain a "nice nice" role in the world?
I mean what in your world have the top five done for you unless you happen to live there?
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Luxembourg
Last edited:
That's true Curio, but, these sorts of 'rankings' tend to use metrics that refer to living there, not to what they're doing on the world stage (which can actually be detrimental to the comfort of its citizens). I didn't think anyone put a whole ton of stock in them unless they end up reflecting a drop below the other developed nations. Where exactly, with so many rich and comfortable countries, does everyone expect to fall on the list?
Thank you Karrie
Your words are very true and I wish all we had to be concerned with was the comfort of our own citizens and being able to accommodate the emigrating people from other nations so we could profit from new ideas
and new energy.
War drains all nations but I doubt I'll live to see Canada and the U.S. exist where the military was given domestic duty only and ceremonial foo-faw like guarding dignitaries when they travel internationally.
To make matters even worse I think of nations like Haiti - when a natural disaster occurs they have no way of combatting or coping without help from other nations. How are nations like Haiti allowed to continue
existence in the abject poverty they do without intervention before a natural disaster occurs?
Your words are very true and I wish all we had to be concerned with was the comfort of our own citizens and being able to accommodate the emigrating people from other nations so we could profit from new ideas
and new energy.
War drains all nations but I doubt I'll live to see Canada and the U.S. exist where the military was given domestic duty only and ceremonial foo-faw like guarding dignitaries when they travel internationally.
To make matters even worse I think of nations like Haiti - when a natural disaster occurs they have no way of combatting or coping without help from other nations. How are nations like Haiti allowed to continue
existence in the abject poverty they do without intervention before a natural disaster occurs?
Avro... the only people who get screwed are the middle class when it comes to higher ed. The poor get freebies all the time.
No, this is the typical insecurity that guys like you have.
Of course it did!
What makes this accurate?
So you got your story from a US poll, learned more about it from a US newspaper, after using a US Search engine, after hearing about it on a US comedy show. Boy we really suck!
Not at all. A magazine like Newsweek exists to rip into the US. That is why nobody buys it.
Well maybe some of those countries can take over being the go to guy for handouts.
Not really sure what you mean by this but it there is a typo somewhere please excuse me.
In the meantime, grab your KY and have fun in the bathroom with this edition of Newsweek. Insecure people need reports like this.
The poor do get freebies but let's not pretend all poor people have access to higher education....they don't.
I hear you about the middle class having a tough time but like I said, nothing is being done about it, no marches, no rallies, no "tea party" like demonstrations.
In fact, if Obama were to act like an actual socialist and raise taxes to improve access to education the tea party movment would lose their collective minds.
If you care to read it, this is a report done on this very issue.
Ciao for now.:smile:
All poor people do not have access to higher ed but the poor people who do well in school certainly do. Our poorest cities in Massachusetts get more money per student than the wealthier towns. Whether you are rich, middle class, or poor...if you do bad in HS the odds of going to a good college, getting grants or scholarships are slim. Do well and the resources are there.
True, the poor do get money....to attend poorly funded state schools.
Just take a look at the cut backs in secondary and post secondary education.
This goes for the middle class as well.
No one seems to give a crap.....but heck....raise taxes to pay for it and I bet you'd get attention.
Same with the other things that Colpy mentioned....no one cares.
This is where you missed my point. Our poorer areas get a greater share of money for education per student than our wealthier towns. A student in Boston, Lawrence, Brockton will have more money spent on his education than a student from Dover or Wellesley (rich towns). Money is not the issue.
I think you missed my point that free education doesn't mean good education.
Like I said as well, the middle class also get burned but no one seems to care.
No protests, no marches, nothing in the media, no tea party....nothing.
Why?
Nobody cares enough to do anything about it.
Just look at the BS surrounding ending the Bush tax cuts that are for the top 2%....people without a pot to piss in lose their minds over crap like that while their local schools crumble and teachers get laid off.
It's actually kind of psychotic.
A sure sign that a poster has lost the argument is when they resort to insults instead of intelligent commentary. Have an nice day and see if you can actually find something intelligent to say in your next post. I'm sure if you really focus on the task you will be able to manage something.
A good education has many components, one of which is the will of the student... But in the end, exactly what is free in any society?
Someone is paying for it in one form or another. Also, bear in mind that those people that are able to spend big dollars to send their kids to ivy-league schools pay directly out of pocket for tuition/fees while simultaneously paying into the tax system that funds the public system. They are (voluntarily) paying for both sides of the equation for the opportunity to access only one side.
At the root of your argument lies the potential that the marches, protests, etc. should be directed at the tax system and effective use of money. While the middle class gets the sh*t end of the stick, a progressive tax structure ensures that you get punished even harder because of the sin of doing well for yourself.
In the end, it's the top earners that bear the biggest burden in financing the overall system.
You still don't get it Avro. You have focused on the tax cuts that Bush offered to a small % of the US population but have not even recognized that a highly significant % of the population doesn't pay any (or very little) taxes at all.
The crumbling schools and laid-off teachers are a symptom of available funds. The vast majority of the taxes collected are generated from the top earners in society. Keep putting more and more pressure on that demographic and the dam will bust and when there are fewer overall tax dollars available, who do you think will bear the brunt of that?
That which is instinctual and genetically inherent, to teach the next generation how to survive, succeed and eventually teach the next generation; whether it be how to survive and succeed in living a nomadic existence as herders and traders, or to live off the land in a tropical rain forest, as brick makers in northern Africa or to have the education that will give them the skills to survive and succeed in an industrialized environment in which both survival and success are subject to the unpredictable whims of an ever changing societal model.
"Voluntarily" choosing to remove their children from an educational system that is made available by a society for each and every child and subject to the requirements of that society for the education provided through direct and indirect (government) parental and societal involvement. By removing their children, thus segregating them to a minimal exposure to the complete spectrum of society leaving them ill-equipped in the skills to understand or even survive in real and actual society when they leave the confines of an unrealistic system, they are not only depriving the public system of their equally important input in the functioning of that system they are depriving their children of the very skills all societies need: an understanding of how all aspects of their particular society functions and how to survive in it.
The more mundane aspect: in BC the Social Credit & then the Liberal parties when in power mandated that all private schools must receive for each pupil they enroll 40% of the amount designated per pupil out of the public education budget. Thus depriving the public system of 40% of its funding in order to pay for religiously based, wealth segregated, philosophically based, etc., exclusive private schools. Schools which may well have a curriculum based on principles in direct conflict with those of the society in which they and their pupils are located and substantially subsidised.
Ah! The "trickle down" or "horse and sparrow" theories once again! "If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.", a saying that came about because of the 'Panic of 1896' which was an acute economic depression in the US. It didn't work under Thatcher and Reagan and, to quote another homily at you, the proof is in the pudding as to Bush's trying it yet again, the results of which are plainly visible if you took your blinders off. Is Glenn Beck selling those too BTW?
Exactly! So how about no public funding, taxpayers' money, of private schools? And increasing the taxes on the wealthiest and decreasing them on the middle class and the poor? The latter two categories being proven to be the major consumers of basic goods with every rare and meagre tax cut; the wealthiest being the lowest per capita consumers of domestic goods at any level of tax rates.
Ding! Incorrect! However prove me wrong - only accredited, politically non-affiliated sources being acceptable of course. Stats, numbers please - not anecdotal chalk board fantasies.
The middle class and the poor of course. They always do. The rich are different. Didn't you know that? Tsk, tsk!