Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 amHere, pick at this guy's analysis.

As you wish.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 amA US teacher’s opinion, with meaningful facts and numbers.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opini ... 222676002/

BEGIN QUOTE

“If only I had a dime for every time I have heard the claim America needs to spend more money on education. As a former public school teacher, it was frequently discussed and often used as an excuse for why U.S. schools aren’t performing as well as they should. But is education funding lacking in America?

“Hardly. The United States spends upwards of $1 trillion per year on education, more than the national defense budget.

Education budget: "annual budget of $68 billion (2016)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _Education
Defense budget: "In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ted_States
'This guy' is Chris Talgo, "former public school teacher and editor at the Heartland Institute". "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute In other words, an organisation with the aim of promoting the interests of the plutocrats and corporations I was talking to Greta about. I was going to type that you are free to think as you will. But then, the more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes that you aren't. They have got you lapping this stuff up.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:37 am Education budget: "annual budget of $68 billion (2016)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _Education
Defense budget: "In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget."

I ain't no economist, but perhaps the 1 trillion included private funding, such as students forking bucks over for text books, computers, blowjobs, accommodation, living expenses, and tuition fees?

The federal budget may be only 68 billion, but does that include municipal expenditures?

Is getting street smart, along with expenses such as policing, jails and hospital emergencies for knife wounds and bullet holes in the soft tissue in the chestual area included in the 68 Billion dollars?

"I was raised by a toothless, bearded hag,
I was schooled with a strap across my back
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas
But it's all right, I'm Jumpin' Jack Flash
It's a gas, gas, gas"

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:22 amI ain't no economist, but perhaps the 1 trillion included private funding, such as students forking bucks over for text books, computers, blowjobs, accommodation, living expenses, and tuition fees?

I ain't no economist either, but if you're going to include all that, you might as well include all the private firearms sales in the defence budget.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:22 amThe federal budget may be only 68 billion, but does that include municipal expenditures?

Dunno. Does the Defense Budget?

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:22 amIs getting street smart, along with expenses such as policing, jails and hospital emergencies for knife wounds and bullet holes in the soft tissue in the chestual area included in the 68 Billion dollars?

Or the $590 billion.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:09 amOr the $590 billion.

What REALLY pisses me off, is that each time the FED increases the money supply, my bank account remains the same.

If they're dishing it out somewhere, and they must, then I shalt make my quest to find the holy grail of money supply.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:37 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 amHere, pick at this guy's analysis.

As you wish.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:33 amA US teacher’s opinion, with meaningful facts and numbers.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opini ... 222676002/

BEGIN QUOTE

“If only I had a dime for every time I have heard the claim America needs to spend more money on education. As a former public school teacher, it was frequently discussed and often used as an excuse for why U.S. schools aren’t performing as well as they should. But is education funding lacking in America?

“Hardly. The United States spends upwards of $1 trillion per year on education, more than the national defense budget.

Education budget: "annual budget of $68 billion (2016)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... _Education
Defense budget: "In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... ted_States
'This guy' is Chris Talgo, "former public school teacher and editor at the Heartland Institute". "The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute In other words, an organisation with the aim of promoting the interests of the plutocrats and corporations I was talking to Greta about. I was going to type that you are free to think as you will. But then, the more I think about it, the more apparent it becomes that you aren't. They have got you lapping this stuff up.

Oh my. You have a case of kool-aid saturation.
And you're trying to slip some to Greta.



Non-sequiteurs are another Alinsky distraction.

Look to the principle young man!
Arise from the muck of google and look to your mind with what you already know.
Heal thyself from thine ignorance.



This may help you to properly understand the world.

Q: Where does the government get the money for education?
A: From the pocket of taxpayers.

Q: Where does the private citizen get the money for education?
A: Same pocket.

This is fundamental: the government does not create wealth.
The government either facilitates, or hinders the creation of wealth.

The question is, why do you resist the truth?
Resistance is futile.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:27 amWhat REALLY pisses me off, is that each time the FED increases the money supply, my bank account remains the same.

Well, what they mean is that they will get the population to pay even more debt. The super rich say 'Ta very much.' and hoover it up. It's meant to working according to 'Trickle down economics', but most of it just vanishes.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:27 amIf they're dishing it out somewhere, and they must, then I shalt make my quest to find the holy grail of money supply.

Try Switzerland or the Cayman Islands: https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredericka ... c5f1fd6ba6

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:54 amThis is fundamental: the government does not create wealth.

That is exactly what the government does. See my reply to -1-. The more than $20 trillion that the US is in debt is largely owed to plutocrats. Your government, Democrats and Republicans, has promised that generations of Americans will be taxed to pay those debts. Your future is the collateral that the government has traded. And as I said above, Trump plans to increase debt by over $5 trillion. You won't see a penny of it, but the grandchildren of people who aren't even born will be paying for it. Whatever your personal politics, they are your business, but you have been duped by extremely rich and powerful people to believe that their interests are your interests.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:11 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 11:54 amThis is fundamental: the government does not create wealth.

That is exactly what the government does. See my reply to -1-. The more than $20 trillion that the US is in debt is largely owed to plutocrats. Your government, Democrats and Republicans, has promised that generations of Americans will be taxed to pay those debts. Your future is the collateral that the government has traded. And as I said above, Trump plans to increase debt by over $5 trillion. You won't see a penny of it, but the grandchildren of people who aren't even born will be paying for it. Whatever your personal politics, they are your business, but you have been duped by extremely rich and powerful people to believe that their interests are your interests.

Good Gravy, this need to derail is obviously choiceless.
The Alinsky conditioning has made its way, into your DNA.

You have been blinded, blinded I say, to the difference between wealth and debt.

Wealth and Debt.

You have described Debt.

The government creates debt.

The topic was wealth.

The government does not create wealth.

Savvy?

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:23 pmYou have been blinded, blinded I say, to the difference between wealth and debt.
Wealth and Debt.
You have described Debt.
The government creates debt.
The topic was wealth.
The government does not create wealth.
Savvy?

Debt is wealth. Do you think a billionaire has a stack of a billion dollar bills? Money is the promise to pay. If there is a promise to pay, then someone has to pay it. In the case of the US national debt, that means you and you won't get anything for it.

Good Golly Ms. Molly, you think that the gubberment creates wealth, and that folks are just cogs to facilitate the government's production.

This is not surprising in the bizarro world of the Left.

However, the government creates the debt thereby indenturing the cogs of your world.

But it is those faceless cogs that create the wealth, and the government sucks at the tits of cogs.

I now invoke Quirk and declare ... Commie!



Hey Venezuela! Create some wealth! Your Cogs are starving!

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:38 pmThis is not surprising in the bizarro world of the Left.

Actually, it's libertarian economics. Deregulation was a key feature of Reaganomics. What the rich wanted was to own your future, the only thing stopping them was government regulations. One of the results was that people could lend money, i.e. buy a promise to pay with interest, to people who were not able to pay it back. Sub-prime mortgages being the most notorious example. This created a great deal of wealth, until people couldn't pay. The banks realised and Lehman collapsed causing the worst finical crisis since the Wall Street Crash. On the grander scale, the government goes cap in hand to very rich people and asks them for a bit of cash flow, which the rich sell them for a promise of interest. That interest is the money that makes the rich even richer, and it is the money that part of your taxes pays the rich back with.

To get back on topic …

Alinsky says, by any means necessary.

Any means necessary includes lying to the citizenry.
Example: Obama’s* whopper: If you like your health, etc.

Question: What does lying do to promises?
Answer: Makes them worthless.

Question: If money is a promise, doesn’t a philosophy of any means necessary make money, and the country, worthless?
Answer: Si. Mission accomplished. (Revolution and destruction)

Question: Why would anyone knowingly choose a revolutionary to govern, since revolutionaries are about destroying what is?

Answer:


* Alinsky acolyte.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 1:21 pmQuestion: What does lying do to promises?
Answer: Makes them worthless.

So what are Trump's promises of 6% growth and reducing the national debt worth?
Politicians lie. The American people voted for Trump, partly because he promised to change things, which to his credit, he has. He also had a manifesto that anyone is free to approve of, that's how democracy is supposed to work, but to uncritically accept everything he, or any politician says as truth, is naïve.

You miss the principle while knee-jerking into Alinsky-mode by accusing what you are.

Printing money and six percent growth are not the same thing.

Money is a promise, and six percent growth is wealth.

Obama the liar printing promises. That's clarifying.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:55 pm Maybe Alinsky didn't actually write the eight levels of control but it became the basis for the Clowrd piven strtegy.

translation: i was caught in a blatant lie, but the lie is true, because alternative facts