Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > July > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSchool options are lesson in common sense
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The pent-up demand for alternatives to traditional public schools erupted in Georgia last week.
That’s right. Erupted.
Some 3,300 families of children with special needs applied for vouchers to cover or supplement the purchase of services they want for their children elsewhere. And most will have real options. The State Board of Education on Thursday approved 115 private schools. Both the number of families and the number of schools certified as voucher-eligible top the start of a similar program in Florida. “With well over 100 schools, we will have the fastest start-up in the country,” said state Sen. Eric Johnson (R-Savannah), who sponsored the legislation in this year’s General Assembly.
On the same day the state board certified the 115 eligible service providers, which include such top-of-the-line schools as Woodward Academy in College Park and Paideia School in Druid Hills, emotional parents from Greene County who want the option of attending a new charter school near Lake Oconee expressed their frustration to board members. The 10-year charter, approved Thursday, has attendance boundaries parents want expanded.
The charter school is not for special-education children. It’s an alternative to underperforming public schools. Black parents in the Greensboro area wanted the charter option for their children. “We should be remaking every school like a charter school,” state School Supt. Kathy Cox was quoted by the AJC’s Bridget Gutierrez as telling one group. “Look at the history of Greene County schools. They haven’t had a good track record of raising student achievement.”
When parents are near tears because they want alternatives they don’t have to traditional public schools, and when 3,300 families step forward to take responsibility for the education of their special-needs children, the public and policy-makers should take note. The world has changed.
The truly significant lesson from the week’s education news is that the marketplace has shown a willingness to embrace concepts that educrats think radical and that their interest groups and unions have resisted forever.
A successful introduction is not, however, success. Johnson and other supporters managed to resist attempts to saddle potential competitors with all the rules and regulations that cover traditional public schools. Critics note, for example, that private schools aren’t required to have curriculums tailored to special-needs children, or to hire certified teachers or those trained in special education. True enough.
They note, too, that competitiors are free to accept or reject applicants. True enough.
And hallelujah.
What’s happening here is that the locus of authority is tranferring from government to parents. For the first time in well over a century, the earth is moving in a direction that empowers parents — all parents, not just those with money.
For choice to be real, providers of education services should never, ever, be required to take every applicant. If they can’t serve a child’s particular needs — either because he’s disruptive, not up to grade, or deemed to have problems the school’s not equipped to address — they should be free to reject him.
When enough like-needs children exist, creative educators and entrepreneurs in the free market will create new schools.
Those schools should be free to employ anybody they see fit and to configure themselves in any model they choose, so long as fully informed parents are satisfied with the results and academic performance is no worse than the average of traditional public schools in the county.
Despite the successful start of the special-needs scholarship/voucher program, opponents have not given up. And won’t. Here’s a prediction: Within a year, the experiment will have been declared an utter failure. Along the way, the evidence will mount that parents really are too dumb or distracted to make responsible choices and that some of these 115 schools are failing.
Be prepared.
Permalink | Comments (103) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By TW
July 14, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this
And in the end we will count this as yet another failure of government, another feather in the republican cap. With foreign policy and health care already wrecked, why not throw in education as well? In much the same way as Iraq has successfully recruited for Al Qaeda, the demolition of our government here at home will only increase the line of those questioning the use of their ‘tax money’. It’s really a very brilliant move, as all of it affects life inside the ‘Wooten White Castle’ not in the least.
By Mid-South Philosopher
July 14, 2007 8:20 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim, You and I are getting closer and closer on the issue of vouchers. I just wish you would fully embrace choice! If we are going to really achieve the type of parental choice that you say we should (still on the public’s dime, by the way), then we need to privatize ALL schools, dismiss all local boards of education, and turn over the operation of each individual school to the local school council already in place. The state should send out a voucher in the amount appropriated by the General Assembly (currently around $6,000 per pupil) for the education of each child. The local county commission or (in the municipalities) the city council should establish school taxes and send parents of each child a proportion of the revenue in the form of a county/city voucher, again so much for each student. Now here is a thought. Since local school revenues are generated by property taxes and since many, many parents do not pay property taxes, how would it be if the law required each parent, who is not a property owner and who does not pay direct school taxes, to devote 5 consecutive days each year in service to the school in which their child is enrolled? This would remove the need for fulltime employees such as janitors, some lunchroom workers, maybe even bus drivers. With these vouchers in hand, the parents could negotiate all phases of their child or children’s education…everything from transportation to morning milk. No school would be compelled to accept any child. All education would be provided on along the lines of the market economy. Of course, Jim, you and I know that this is NEVER going to happen…the reason being that someone has to look after the trash. In other words, someone has to deal with the undesirables…those kids that come from homes where the principal scientific interest is the manufacturing of methamphetamine, where the principal interest in math is accounting for the dole check, where the principal reading material lies somewhere between Harlequin novels and issues of Hustler Magazine, indeed if it has even reached that level, and where the principal interest in social studies is either the display of gang colors or the stars and bars. The bright lining to this dark cloud is that from that trash there are countless students who will emerge and overcome the challenges I have listed as well as many more. How? As a result of the efforts of teachers who meet those challenges everyday in public school classrooms! The education elitists, who drive the voucher movement, would restrict those teachers…the ones who stay in public schools and face the most dire challenges…and compel them to remain under the illogical and asinine provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, while, at the same time allowing the private or charter schools to soar by using unrestricted, innovative practices. What is wrong with that picture?
By time for the truth
July 14, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
The increasingly desperate pathetic hate America lies and distortions of the far left Pelosibitch surrender monkey crowd will soon enough come back and bite these scum electorally. Any leftist cut and run traitor will fail in 08 - and watching this happen will be fabulous entertainment. The leftist screeching will be endless … like a herd of diseased energiser pinko fascist pigs with visceral verbal dysentery.
Most normal folks are still cheerily sniggering about the abject failure and entirely predicktable flop of that utterly pathetic global screeching lies and distortions fest that just hilariously disappeared without trace after the sad sack the alBOre’s hysterical lies about a “2 billion” audience.
Liberals are robotic hateful intolerant moral fascists who glibly lie like KLintons and towel head terrorists with not the slightest, vaguest consideration for the future - so long as the crazed sick liberal lust for absolute Hitler like power by any means necessary is gerrymandered.
Liberalism is a psychotic mental disorder, and a very dangerous disorder to clear thinking patriotic folks. The sooner an effective vaccine for liberalism is produced the sooner the world will be a safer place. Arguably the safest, surest ‘current vaccine’ for liberalism and their beloved murderous towel head terrorism in their yellowbellied betrayal of America and their endless obsessive war on Bush is a combination of Fox News, steely quiet patriotism, a willingness to mercilessly ridicule and sneer at cowardly traitorous corrupt to the core pandering liberals and in an obviously ever increasing “handful” of especially deserving cases a 9mm bullet - smirk.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
“White House Claims Executive Privilege To Withhold Key Documents On Tillman Death”
When they claim EP, they are guilty and cut and run from accountability like cowards who are not man enough to own up to their crimes.
Three so far and many more to come.
Geez.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
“Iraqi PM: US troops can leave ‘any time they want’:
“Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave “any time they want,” though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.”
No oil, get out.
Geez.
“Vitter seen as the ultimate Southern hypocrite:
Louisiana Sen. David Vitter wrote, is “by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness.”
Like w and cheney, he will not man up and resign.
This is the gop.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this
Russia Steps Back From European Arms Treaty
Looks w started another cold war.
Geez.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I think Jim omitted the most interesting current story on the whole education development. A group tried to set up an all-female charter school in the worst performing district in Gwinnett county. The board of education rejected the proposal. “Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks told the board members he believes approval of the petition would put the school district at risk of litigation and recommended they take no further action.” http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=687&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=84&S=1
The excuse may have some validity. If the motivated female population is removed from the Ghettocreek High School, certainly their aggregate scores would fall off the board entirely. Everyone would be suing to transfer away from the school. Clearly the Board had to act, and borrowing from the Mel Brooks classic, Blazing Saddles, realized, “We’ve got to do something to protect our phony baloney jobs!”
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Can someone give me a “hrunph” there?
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this
Dear Getalife @ 10:33, I fear you don’t know the meaning of “hypocrite.” Great explanation by Andy Philips:
Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe. Let’s take the example of getting drunk. Let’s say that I believe that getting drunk is immoral. Does it make me a hypocrite if I get drunk? No, it makes me weak. I could believe that it is immoral but still not be able to resist the temptation to get drunk. It doesn’t make my belief any less true or my actions any worse.
Now let’s say that Larry Flynt doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. What are his consequences of getting drunk? Your comment on his living up to his own low moral standards hits the nail on the head. Objectively, my getting drunk is no more or less immoral than Larry Flynt’s.
If Larry Flynt attacked me for getting drunk, that would be hypocrisy, because he doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. It’s hypocrisy for him to say that it’s OK for him to get drunk but not OK for me to get drunk.
We saw the mainstream media’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to pain killers and Bill Bennett’s gambling problem. These men were not hypocrites. I guarantee you that neither of these men wished for their own problems, and, after having gone through what they did, they most likely feel even more strongly about them than they did before. Again, weakness, not hypocrisy.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010325
By Julie
July 14, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Republican free market fundamentalists have a great scam going. Deny schools the funds needed to provide quality public education, and then use the inevitable failure of school systems to promote free market solutions — solutions in which, ultimately, access to quality education will be limited to those who can afford it.
Georgia is driving in reverse, but fortunately, more and more Americans are onto the free market “solutions” scam and how these con-artists are desperately trying to destroy public education. This is a debate that we can’t afford to let them win – otherwise, Michael Moore’s next film will be about the failures of our profit-driven education system.
By jm
July 14, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw@11:15 - actually a more appropriate term for Senator Vitter, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Bennett would be hubris, something the current administration has plenty of (so did the previous administration).
By TW
July 14, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Julie - In 2004, the ten states with the highest dropout rates ALL voted for Bush - the republican party thrives on the snake oil consumer. The worst thing the GOP could do to itself would be to make a genuine effort at improving education.
By Duh stands for Democrat
July 14, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Somebody at the Vent is going to get in trouble!:
I know a 74-year-old Canadian woman who came to the U.S. to have cataract surgery because there was an eight-year-plus waiting list in Canada. The socialist medicine Michael Moore is advocating is a not a remedy.
A rare occasion when incredible and irony have the same definition: Bill Clinton criticizing Bush on a pardon or commutation he issued. It is ironic, and it is incredible. Al-Qaida couldn’t beat the U.S. military in a million years. The wimps in Congress are another matter. They can’t wait to surrender.
So Grady is sending Cobb County a $4 million bill for providing services to poor and uninsured people from Cobb. How much are they billing Mexico?
With the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich, every Democratic presidential candidate lives like the top 1 percent of the people they are denigrating.
Who knew the liberals at the Atlanta Journal Constitution would allow “hate” speech?
Did their Thought Control Kkkensor sleep late this morning?
The 24 percent approval rating for Congress matched its previous low, which came in June 2006, five months before Democrats won control of the House and Senate due to public discontent with the job Republicans were doing.
Finally! An “accomplishment” from the Democrat controlled Congress.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
fakelaw,
Geez, you are an idiot.
Preaching family values while banging w******* is hypocrisy.
He sets a fine example for the children.
He should man up and resign but the the gop are not men, they are cowards.
Geez.
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw’s favorite, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is really getting desperate — even for them. In an editorial yesterday they present data on corporate tax rates around the world and, like those people who find an outline of the Virgin Mary in a potato chip, they discover a Laffer Curve! It’s a miracle!
A statistian, on the other hand, draws a more plausible regression line through the data over at his site and finds that as tax rates go up, so does tax revenue. Shocking, I know. That is, it would be shocking unless you knew that the effective corporate tax rate in America isn’t 35%, it’s about 26%, and there’s not an economist on the planet who thinks the Laffer effect kicks in at anywhere near that rate. But we all knew that, right?
And one more thing. Just for laughs, take a look (see link below) at what the Journal’s barmy graph drawing implies: Norway, with a corporate tax rate of about 29%, generates enormous amounts of corporate tax revenue. But then, since it’s the only way to get an upside-down U out of the data, the graph goes nearly vertical. Even the Journal’s editorial writers, normally a pretty barefaced bunch, were apparently too embarrassed about this economic singularity to follow the right side of their graph to its logical conclusion, but we can: at a rate of about 33% corporate taxes produce no revenue at all. An increase of a mere four percentage points destroys tax revenue entirely! Mirabile dictu!
A high school statistic student would be embarrassed to produce work like this. But not the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Or the American Enterprise Institute, which created it in the first place. They apparently think their readers are too dumb to see what they’re doing. Why their readership puts up with this obvious contempt for their intelligence is a question for another day.
Check out the WSJ version — http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB118428874152665452-lMyQjAxMDE3ODE0MzIxODM4Wj.html
Then check what a real regression line would look like — http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/yet-again-tax-c.html
For those that haven’t taken a class covering statistics, a regression analysis tries to determine a relationship between two variables (e.g. tax rates and tax revenues) by using a mathematical formula to create a line that best fits the data (closest to the points on the chart). Linear regression is applied when you have exactly two pieces of data (an X-axis and a Y-axis).
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this
Dear Julie @ 11:21, as District of Columbia and City of Chicago have two of the highest per pupil public school expenditures in the country, we acknowledge your desire to make our school systems more like those.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 11:25, you would proffer that Bill Clinton is a republican, or you acknowledge “hubris” may be a characteristic of our overlords? I am grateful for your implicit acknowledgement of the regular leftist misuse of the term “hypocrite.”
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Dear getalife @ 11:53, I know I used some big words in the post, but if you read it 50 or 60 times you will realize the flaw in your argument.
By @@
July 14, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
My goodness Getalife, 10:20 is early for you. You “popped up” with Vitter’s sexual indiscretions on your “brain”?
If I may make a suggestion, given your disdain for political corruption and your love for strippers, I would advise you never to run for public office.
Most likely, you’d fall victim to your own You can smell my panties if I can smell yours SCRATCH & SNIFF BAROMETER.
Hold your finger up Getalife….see which way the wind blows.
Where is that stink comin’ from? ;-)
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 12:03, I perceive that statistics students may have trouble grasping fundamental economics, such as the obvious principle that a legal fiction does not pay taxes, it merely passes them on, in the form of higher prices, lower wages, squeezing suppliers if possible, lower yields to investors, and market inefficieny in the government corruption of supply and demand. Since lefitsts find all of the foregoing desirable, their affection for corporate income taxes is comparatively simple to understand.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 12:03, one other point your failed to address in your statistical analysis is the effect of corporate taxes on international competitiveness. Certainly you have excellent regional models in the US, showing that [ceteris parabis, or even if not, if you embrace the perspective of our friend Julie above] tax and wage rates affect corporate decisions of where to locate industry. If the US has to compete with an Ireland or Estonia, countries with educated populations and significantly lower overall tax rates, why would any international company locate here?
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Discussing something with jbmlaw is like playing whack-a-mole. If you hammer him on one falsehood (or those of his “intellectual” sources about corporate income taxes) then he’ll just bounce back with another:
“a legal fiction does not pay taxes, it merely passes them on, in the form of higher prices…”
It needs to be pointed out that corporate income taxes, the subject of the earlier post, are taxes on profit. If the corporation doesn’t make a profit (most don’t), they don’t pay the tax.
Fortunately, most corporations understand that it would be self-defeating to build a tax on profits into the price of the product if doing so would reduce demand and risk…wait for it…profits. That’s why they leave pricing up to the marketing guys and leave the tax guys out of it.
Apprently, the WSJ editorial page hasn’t taught it’s readers that prices are determined by supply and demand, not corporate income taxes. jbmlaw should look into that. In the meantime, he’ll pop up from another hole in the ground with more misrepresentations to whack.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Dear WEJema @ 12:38, I discover that if I list 10,000 reasons something is a bad idea, and you have a partial counterargument for even one of the 10,000, you selectively ignore all of the others.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this
Dear WSjema @ 12:38, perhaps I should explain the flaw in your current argument, “prices are determined by supply and demand, not corporate income taxes.” When I earlier posted that ome of the effects of the corporate income tax was “market inefficieny in the government corruption of supply and demand” we were addressing the fact that unnecessary costs, imposed by government edict, shift the supply curve, and the differential between the supply that would have been offered at market price, and the supply offered at the new government-mandated change, is lost, a market inefficiency. You’re welcome.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
@@,
I never preach abstinence, faithful marriage or family values like Vitter.
There is outrage with the cajuns and they want him gone.
It would be nice to read the gop apologists actually stand up for their morals and principals and write to have him removed like the cajuns here.
But they sell out their morals and souls to make excuses like that idiot “fakelaw”.
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Okay…we know that the laffer curve model produced by the WSJ crowd is bogus and that corporate income taxes do not determine prices.
As to the implication that industry is always attracted to locations with the lowest tax rates, that’s like saying that all people go to McDonalds’s to buy their hamburgers. Some do, and others do not. For business, it depends, in part, on priorities and, in part, on whether management thinks in terms of what’s best for stockholders in the long-run.
For example, some businesses choose to open plants in locations with higher tax rates but a better public education system or a better health care system. A pharmaceutical manufacturer recently selected North Carolina over Georgia for the former reason and an auto manufacturer recently selected Canada over the U.S. for the latter reason. In both cases, industry would have paid lower tax rates if they had chosen otherwise.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Dear getalife @ 12:40, as you affirm your low standards, your assertion is that others who aspire for better, but live down to your standards, deserve condemnation, but you should be celebrated for your “consistency.” Sounds like a leftist principle to me, you ought to publish. I suggest as a title, “getalife is a scuz, don’ try to be any better”
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 12:57, I understand the Laffer curve causes you distress, as it has proven historically accurate. I understand you believe that tripling current tax rates would triple the tax revenuw, and would not cause any evasive action by the taxpayers. Please appreciate that those of us who embrace the Laffer curve’s intuitive principles find your argument specious.
I note you trickily change my language from corporate taxes are “passed on” to the laughably false “corporate income taxes do not determine prices.” A little honesty here, please.
I realize my mispelled “ceteris paribis” probably totally threw you off, leading to the misapplication in your McDonalds argument. I argue simply that higher tax rates alone are often sufficient to persuade industry to look elsewhere. Your defense of the US’s world’s highest corporate income taxes rates seems to me an obvious embrace of corporate Luddism.
Why not increase corporate income taxes to, say. 80%. Don’t you think that is a good idea?
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @12:47,
The laffer curve is real. The issue is where does the peak occur? The economic concensus is that the 29 percent peak implied by the WSJ graph at is way low (remember our effective corporate tax rate is 26 percent).
If way we’re significantly below the peak, then we’re below where corporate income taxes are a significant disincentive for businesses to form (although such rates do influence the decision about whether to incorporate). Since we’re below that point, income tax rates are not, as you say, shifting the supply curve and resulting in higher prices.
Again, an argument that our current tax rates send business away can be supported by anecdotes about patriotic companies like Halliburten moving their headquarters to Dubai, but overall, this argument is not supported by evidence produced by anybody outside the WSJ crowd.
Your premise that unnecessary costs affect supply are correct. On the other hand, your points that corporate income taxes are unnecessary and are shifting the supply curve are mistaken.
Thank you.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
Dear WSjema @ 12:57, I think we would agree that US corporate income taxes have remained at their present level for a generation or so. I think you would agree with me that, over that generation, most of the world has reversed course and reduced corporate income tax levels so that they are below those of the US. (Here comes the hammer, two of my firm beliefs.)
Do you believe comparatively high corporate income taxes alone could persuade a company to take jobs offshore?
Do you believe comparatively low corporate income taxes alone could persuade a company to repatriate jobs previously taken offshore?
Do you care about jobs leaving the country, that such can diminish the long term employment prospects for our citizenry?
By getalife
July 14, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
Standards?
cons have standards?
Do tell.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 1:18, you credit me with common sense, in error. I believe a 1% corporate income tax is a bad thing, even if the rest of the world charges 99%. My desire is not maximizing tax revenues, my desire is eradicating the adverse effects of Leviathan on our daily lives. Any tax is bad; income taxes have worse economic effects than sales or consumption taxes. Corporate income taxes have more bad effects than other income taxes, because of the economic dislocations.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
Dear getalife @ 1:26, you argue,”Standards? cons have standards? Do tell.”
Some-foolish-one earlier argued, “It would be nice to read the gop apologists actually stand up for their morals and principals.”
Now give me a real target - do we have standards that I should defend, or are all of your “hypocrisy” arguments mere oral flatulence?
By jm
July 14, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@12:08 - I would proffer the second. However, I am sure if asked to admit a mistake he had made in the past, I am sure Bill Clinton could come up with one or two, unlike W, who could not think of any during the 2004 election.
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I’m not sure I understand your questions. If your questions are meaning — everything else being equal — then answer to your first two questions are yes and yes. (But that’s not reality, is it?).
If by “alone”, you’re asking if corporate income tax rates are the only factors considered, then the answer to the first two questions are no and no.
The answer to the third question is always yes.
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I note you trickily change the subject of my original post, which you were responding to, from corporate income taxes to corporate taxes (all-inclusive).
In addition, you imply that I disputed the laffer curve in general. I did not. I disputed, it’s false application by the WSJ.
A little honesty here, please.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this
That is a hell of an argument fakelaw.
Your intellectual dishonesty, obfuscation, lack of standards and integrity make a legitimate debate with you, an exercise in futility.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 1:40, at least part of your critique is fair, and I apologize for falsely implying your rejection of the Laffer curve. (There are a significant number of non-conservatives who hold such a belief, and I wrongly imputed those convictions to you.)
On the other hand, corporate income taxes are the elephant in the corporate tax room - there is no economic disingenuousness in arguing those interchangably.
By Jen
July 14, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
Speaking of consumption, it was reported yesterday consumer spending plunged in June. Consumer spending, which makes up about 2/3 of our economy, plunged in June and consumer confidence (which can be a leading indicator of future consumer spending) is plunging in July.
Hold on to your hats boys. Things are about to get ugly.
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 1:39, you parse the questions correctly, and we agree with the theoretical answers. I believe the unchanged US corporate income taxes are adversely affecting our international competitiveness; I infer, from your parenthetical note, you do not so believe.
Dear getalife @ 1:46, thanks, that is the response I usually get when someone is truly boxed in by logic.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
One thing I can not figure out is the stock market is soaring with record oil prices.
In the past, high costs of gas would decrease profits, but in this bull market, it seems of no consequence.
I am trying to determine how long this scam will continue.
Any thoughts from the WSJ readers?
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
Your 1:10 and 1:29 are perfect examples of the whack-a-mole game I referred to. In the earlier post you argue for the laffer curve (“you believe that tripling current tax rates would triple the tax revenue”) and in the later post you argue, in effect, that the discussion about the laffer curve is irrelevent (“My desire is not maximizing tax revenues”).
See? Whack-a-mole.
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw @1:47 and @1:52,
I appreciate these posts and the way in which you chose to disagree without being disagreeable.
Thanks. Much appreciated.
(I was still frustrated at 1:57 before I read those. Sorry.)
By @@
July 14, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Getalife:
I’ve done some reading in the Shreveport Times. It seems some cajuns down your way, while acknowledging Vitter’s moral lapse in judgment, are eager for him to get back to the business of advocating for his district.
Of course, William Jefferson’s constituents re-elected him to do that very same thing (bring home the bacon) inspite of his impending indictment on suspiscion of criminal activity. The fact that the bacon was frozen made no difference to his supporters.
So tell me, I’m not that familiar with Louisiana…on what platform did Jefferson run? Did he ever mention anything about corruption in Washington? Greedy politicians? Ethics?
I know that you’ve said that Jefferson should be booted. I just don’t recall you mentioning him as frequently as you mention the family value Republicans whose personal lives may suffer human weakness.
I could check archives.
BTW, is this true?
Do I care?????
By Jen Tries Again
July 14, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
Speaking of consumption, it was reported yesterday that consumer spending, which makes up about 2/3 of our economy, plunged in June. In addition, consumer confidence, which can be a indicator of future consumer spending, is plunging in July.
Hold on to your hats boys. Things are about to get ugly.
(Hope that’s better.)
By jbmlaw
July 14, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this
Dear WSJema @ 2:03, no apology necessary. I enjoy spirited exchange, and you represented your views well.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
@@,
“Clenis” on the phone list would be on every front page and lead story for the corporate w-hore media.
Talk about fever swamp, that site is knee deep in bs.
Who is Jefferson?
Is he a con?
Geez.
By Francesco Sinibaldi
July 14, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this
This is the answer.
In the dead of winter, when the sound of the nature arrived near a luminous care, in the darkness, I saw her with a graceful dress and a sullen behaviour; the bird ran away like a painful dreamer, a loving profile returned in a marvel and then, in a moment, a delicate wind discovered the sun: she said “let it be”, and this is the answer……
Francesco Sinibaldi
By Amber
July 14, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this
WSJ Editors Mislead Again,
I read your 12:03, and as much as I hate to admit it, the WSJ may be onto something here.
First, to your point regarding the regression line, your analysis was correct. When formulating the line using all data points, then the properly drawn line shows a continuing positive relationship between corporate income tax rates and tax revenues.
However (I can’t believe I’m saying this), but it might be reasonable to do a little cherry picking here. If you only plot the points up to Norway (28 percent or so), then there is an obvious positive relationship between the two factors. On the other hand, if you only plot the points after Norway, then there appears to be a an inverse relationship. If this approach is valid, then the WSJ might be onto something when they recommend reducing corporate income rates to increase revenues.
To your point about effective tax rates vs. marginal tax rates, it’s true that the U.S. effective rate is 26 percent, but (and I’m speculating here), I suspect it’s also true that the effective rates of the other countries are lower than the marginal rates plotted. Therefore, while a chart using effective rates might have been better than the WSJ chart using marginal rates, since the WSJ chart does plot apples-to-apples data, the points on the chart could be considered to be relatively valid.
What do you think?
By WSJ Editors Mislead Again
July 14, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
Amber,
I think you’re a genius!
Seriously, I’m going to think/investigate further, but you might just have changed my mind. Maybe we should reduce the “marginal” corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 29 percent???
Thanks.
By getalife
July 14, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this
w told me I have war fatigue and and it is effecting my psychology, so I have decided to take August off like the Iraqi government.
Its too hot and is hard work.
Geez.
By Redneck Convert
July 14, 2007 5:04 PM | Link to this
Well, I ain’t much for school, as most of you know. I never made it out of the 5th grade and it never hurt me none.
But if I was for schooling, I would take jbmlaw’s side. Just let the state pay for schooling of rich boys, because the rich are going broke paying all that private tuition. Let the rest bumble around for awhile and then go out and work to buy their own trailer and pickup. The girls can stay home like Sister Dusty and do nothing but keep house and attack the libruls oncet in awhile and maybe read a poetry book to help make her point.
I guess the people here got a point about Sen. Vitter. One thing you got to admit about our good Republican politicans. They would find a woman of the night in a whole stadium full of angels. But at least they vote Right. You don’t have to be moral to be Right.
Have a good day everybody. I don’t have much understanding of this stuff about taxes on corporations and it bores me. I wish people would get back to the topic.
By Dusty
July 14, 2007 5:50 PM | Link to this
Now that I am home gently resting from my hard day of housekeeping, attacking liberals and reading poetry, I find that RedNeck Convict has clarified the psychology of Louisiana politics perfectly.
Why do you have thou$ands in your freezer? Unimportant!! How do you vote?
Are you called “loose” by moral standards??? Yes!! But how do you vote??
And LOCALLY in New Orleans & Katrina with the Brave Mayor..”Damn the schoolbuses!!! Full speed out of here!!! “
And the dear Liberal Governor after Katrina: “I’m supposed to call somebody? Who?”
Then there is our boy wonder of Louisiana “getalife”!! He makes you wonder. Indeed. Seems he has war (WWI) fatigue. Maybe that is what they call it in Louisiana.
Anyway, RedNeck, maybe you could improve your status and take his place. I think you would fit right “in” in Louisiana and be a real real “librul” without the cornshucks. But please, NO FREEZER…
G’nite, sweet prince and all that Hamlet stuff….tomorrow is another day…
By GodHatesTrash
July 14, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this
Let’s face it - the biggest problems with Georgia schools are Georgians.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Spend your money any way you want, you can’t change the fact that trash can’t learn.
Trash.
By Duh stands for Democrat
July 14, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this
Why do they want to kkkensor you?:
Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues.
Are they afraid of the truth?
By Duh stands for Democrat
July 15, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
As the nation’s top doc from 2002 to 2006, Carmona was ordered not to discuss embryonic stem cell research or the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B, he said last week in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was ordered to water down a report on the dangers of secondhand smoke.-Cynthia Tucker, AJC
Oh, the horror!
Isn’t it enough to control the thoughts in your own little “news” paper, now you want to extend your kkkensorship to the office of a Republican president?
I got an idea, Cynthia, pick out a presidential candidate, campaign for them, win the vote in the general election and then you libs can appoint your own Surgeon General or, in your case, Junk Science General.
{{{{{{{Carmona is just the latest in a parade of former Bush administration officials to criticize a White House that is hostile to science and impervious to scholarship. Modern-day know-nothings, Bush administration officials share with Islamic jihadists a profound distrust of modernity.}}}}}}}}}}
My goodness is somebody irked that other people have different beliefs than hers or what?
If embryonic stem cells showed any promise, maybe they would be worthy of federal tax dollars. Where is the private research, don’t they know they are “sitting on a gold mine?”
If Abstinence Only is so ineffective, then why did the lib media have to manufacture a slanted and kkkensored report to try and discredit it? This lib Cynthia hasn’t seen the recent numbers on plummeting teen sex? Isn’t this something a normal person should want?
What does Plan B contraception offer, other than another excuse that endangers the health of our children?
Duh.
Jay Kookman breaks new ground, explores new horizons, brings fresh, new opinion to ponder over:
{{{{{{{{{Further delay is too costly: Iraq debacle beyond our saving; time to move past ‘if only’ and withdraw By Jay Bookman The Atlanta Journal-Constitution}}}}}}}}
Yawn.
By Dennis
July 15, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this
Jim Wooten writes, “For choice to be real, providers of education services should never, ever, be required to take every applicant. If they can’t serve a child’s particular needs — either because he’s disruptive, not up to grade, or deemed to have problems the school’s not equipped to address — they should be free to reject him.”
And then what, Mr. Wooten, let that student learn a trade of crime and murder on the streets?
If a public school teacher advocated this, they would be fired. And, if Mr. Wooten heard about it, he would be all over that teacher with his “editorial”.
Of such is the hypocracy of Mr. Wooten’s educational reforms.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Terrence
July 15, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this
The proof of failure in our public education is the heir apparent of government intervention. One of your first posters wrote that the children left behind in the public schools are destined for failure. Point made and point taken. The words defeat the argument.
The NCLB was the fuse that ignited the bomb that is government’s failures to educate our children. The excuses that the NCLB Act is the problem is crap. What was the excuse for their failure before NCLB?
More money invested in a failed experiment makes no difference. Try something new. Some of the worst school districts pay their teachers higher salaries as an incentive and still they fail.
Here’s a social-engineering experiment for the dems. Pay the government educrats more money. Let the private schools compete and may the best system win.
By Pope rednecks - Amerikkka's Al Qaeda I
July 15, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Greetings whiners and haters of the Woo-ten Klan and Luckovich losers.
It is We the Pope, on a warm afternoon in London. Today’s papers here are talking about the British withdrawal from Iraq (expect them to “redeploy” to Afghanistan, but send most everybody home). British casualties in Iraq have been higher per 1000 than the US the last three months, leading one of “the most senior commanders in Iraq” to say “that the war… was now regarded by political and military chiefs within the Ministry of Defence as a lost cause.”
Are you Johnny Reb retards happy now? You’re involved in another lost cause, and you’re gonna lose this one too. Way to go morons.
Another story about the pressure Dumbya is getting from the GOP. Watch him in September after Petraeus’s report announce a return of the “surge” troops to the US in “early 2008”. This will give the GOPers running in 2008 some cover, since most of you red state idiots will see this as some kind of success.
We have to agree with GodHatesTrash - educating Georgians is like trying to teach an elephant to tap dance - ridiculously impossible.
By Dennis
July 15, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
By Terrence July 15, 2007 9:38 AM “The proof of failure in our public education is the heir apparent of government intervention.”
Democrats and Republicans aside, if private industry invested in its enterprises like government has invested in public education, private industry would fail, too.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By JH
July 15, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
If embryonic stem cells showed any promise, maybe they would be worthy of federal tax dollars. Where is the private research, don’t they know they are “sitting on a gold mine?”
Duh, are you familiar with the old adage, “Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”?
16 February, 2007 The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine became the biggest financial backer of human embryonic stem cell research in the United States when they awarded nearly $45 million in research grants.
06 June 2007 - Research reported by three different groups shows that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed to an embryonic state in mice.
18 June 2007 Scientist Shoukhrat Mitalipov reports the first successful creation of a primate stem cell line through somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Here are just three of numerous examples in the past 5 months that clearly show that major efforts/research on these embryonic cells is going ahead at a furious pace.
To these scientists, medical professionals and others there IS a great sense of urgency to find answers to alleviate the horrific suffering of people with a host of different maladies and prevent them in the future. I would think that the so-called “compassionate conservatives” would at least try to understand this, if not jump on board.
But it appears that unquestioning faith in their blind theology and being manipulated into believing their backwards focused, anti-progressive ideology almost always get in the way of making informed decisions.
To find proof just look at our Demagogue-in-Chief.
By Redneck Convert
July 15, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this
What we need is some schools that teach things like nail filing and skin smoothing and car repairing and stuff. Not this reading and writing and thinking and science stuff. Redneck kids got no use for that. They need to learn how to make money to get their own trailer and pickup.
Anyway, if my grandson little Sonny Zell George gets a voucher he is going straight to NASCAR school. There is money in that.
We never have taken to book learning and we never will. So just give rich guys like jbmlaw the money to pay his kids schooling and give me the money to teach Sonny Zell George a trade. Long as he can sign his name to indorse checks he don’t need nothing else. This is GA, not some yankee state. Why do you think they put little drawings on traffic signs? Like if there is deer near the road you put up a little picture of a deer. Its because most of us can’t read good but we can figure out what we are suppose to do if you show us.
Just get rid of the public schools. They are nothing but babysitting places. Lets get back to the way things use to be. When the well off people paid to send their kids to school and the rest kept their kids at home to help out with chores. This is America. We don’t need to turn out a bunch of little nerds. If a kid is a blockhead he don’t need to be wasting his time in school learning stuff he will never use.
By Terrence
July 15, 2007 10:11 AM | Link to this
Democrats and Republicans aside, if private industry invested in its enterprises like government has invested in public education, private industry would fail, too.
Dennis, the objectives are different. One seeks a profit and the other seeks servitude. Can you guess which one does what? If you can’t, then you are a by-product of government education. If you can, and accept it, then you’re an eager servant whose life is built on empty political promises that have been proven failures.
By Analchord
July 15, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
The truant officers aint gonna like the vouchers, Yogi….
Friedman’s column and Jay Bookman’s column about our impending end game in Iraq would have been brilliant and visionary and accurate, if it were written as the ending to either the latest Harry Potter book, or of course, The Supranos.
Mission Accomplished. We are stuck in Iraq 4ever. I’m shocked that both of these amazing journalists can gloss over the crucible in Iraq (without nailing it) simply to mask their discouragment over our country’s diplomatic resurrection.
Post USA Iraq: It’s not about the civil war; THAT is there before, during, and after our occupation. How can you point to a perpetual state of war and presume to know the outcome? It simply continues with or without USA troops. That’s not the relevant post USA scenario.
Neither article declares a mission for USA troops today, (that’s a good thing, cause there IS no mission) .
Both Bookman and Freedman warn readers about the ancient religious hatred. Sirs, if the religious hatred were the problem in Iraq, then I could end the war with two phone calls.
The Iraqi problem concerns interlocking subsets of ancient ethnic liasons that extend all the way to populations in China: The problem is cross-border ethnic hatred as ancient as the Garden of Eden. That is the reason we can never leave.
We aint nevah gonna git outta Iraq.
By getalife
July 15, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
This should make Jim happy since ge hate health care for children:
“The Bush administration said Saturday that senior advisers would recommend the president veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for children’s health insurance.”
Pathetic but will waste billions on a failed occupation for their friends.
Geez.
By Dennis
July 15, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
By Terrence July 15, 2007 10:11 AM. Dennis said, “Democrats and Republicans aside, if private industry invested in its enterprises like government has invested in public education, private industry would fail, too.”
Terrence said, “Dennis, the objectives are different. One seeks a profit and the other seeks servitude.
I agree industry seeks a profit, but that does not negate my statement that if private industry invested in its enterprises like government has invested in public education, private industry would fail, too.
As to the “servitude” that public education seeks, what is that?
If this country has ever had (and still gets) empty political promises, it’s the establishment of, and provision for, a sound public education.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Duh stands for Democrat
July 15, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
By JH July 15, 2007 10:00 AM But it appears that unquestioning faith in their blind theology and being manipulated into believing their backwards focused, anti-progressive ideology almost always get in the way of making informed decisions.
Either that or we believe in protecting all human life from the moment of conception instead of using the weakest among us to experiment on in search of our own selfish agenda.
How long until you deem that old people are a burden on your longevity and well being and you consider them expendable for the common good?
It truly is remarkable that the only argument you liberals have for long held traditional beliefs is that it is “backwards” when you are the ones who approach everything 180 degrees opposite of what is morally right.
The Al Qaeda slaughters innocent people in Iraq because, with the help of Democrats, it’s the only fight they can win, while the United States kills Al Qaeda to protect the innocents the terrorists target, and which side are you liberals on?
Same as why you want to kill human fetuses to promote your own vanity.
It is necessary to note that the power of adult stem cells is not nebulously potential, but tangible and real, as it has produced wonderful results in multiple cases. These have been documented in clinical trials, that is, treatments with human patients. With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.[3] Furthermore, adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness.[4] They have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers[5] and improved movement in spinal cord injury patients.
It also has to be asked why you liberals want to pursue the unsuccessful therapy but yet you totally ignore the already highly successful adult cells?
Is the wanton killing of humans for your own selfish goals your true motivation?
Just last week we were dreaming of a human free Earth in the pages of the AJC.
And now you want us to believe you want to prolong life?
Yeah, maybe yours.
By getalife
July 15, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Make that he hates health care for children.
Geez.
Blowing up babies is not morally right.
Duh.
By JH
July 15, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
My goodness is somebody irked that other people have different beliefs than hers or what?
Nice red herring try Duh, but it is as transparent and illogical as your stem cell research “hypothesis”.
Rational non-extremist Americans don’t oppose differing beliefs. But they properly get “irked” when their government of the people squashes legitimate credible scientific evidence to fit this administration’s reactionary agenda.
It is obvious to those who simply open their eyes. How many examples do you need?
In testimony before Congress, former U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of muzzling him on sensitive public health issues. According to the Washington Post this makes him “the most prominent voice among several current and former federal science officials who have complained of political interference.
Carmona, a Bush nominee who served from 2002 to 2006, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B.
‘Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,’ he said. ‘The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds.’”
Source: Washington Post, July 11, 2007
By getalife
July 15, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
What Kind Of Person Denies Health Insurance To Children?
The gop and wingnuts want to blow them up and then not treat them.
Torture, if you will.
Geez.
By candide
July 15, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
Since all integration accomplished was the destruction of the public school system, an alternative should be to resegregate the schools. Segregated schools, both black and white were better before Brown vs. Bd. of Ed. than integrated ones are now.
By JH
July 15, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
Either that or we believe in protecting all human life from the moment of conception instead of using the weakest among us to experiment on in search of our own selfish agenda.
The first part of your statement is clearly sincere and I’ll accept that. BTW does your protecting all human life include from capital punishment and war as well?
If not, you might consider dropping the all.
The second part degrades rapidly though. If my “selfish agenda” involves helping men, women and children avoid agonizing pain and the horrors of a slow death, then I’m guilty as charged.
How long until you deem that old people are a burden on your longevity and well being and you consider them expendable for the common good?
Utterly ridiculous and another red herring to get away from the topic at hand. And the one you brought up - embryonic stem cell research. Are you haunted by the writings of George Orwell or something?
It truly is remarkable that the only argument you liberals have for long held traditional beliefs is that it is “backwards”…
Actually I have numerous arguments against reactionary thought, remarkable to you or not. And though I can’t speak for liberals, as someone who is pretty traditional I offer that you really haven’t thought this through.
Unless of course, you truly do believe in the superiority of the white man, for example. You can try to pick and choose which of those long held traditional beliefs you want to stick with but you have no choice but to acknowledge, like me, that many, many are just crap. And have been replaced by more accurate ones.
… when you are the ones who approach everything 180 degrees opposite of what is morally right.
Really too inane to comment upon, but for those who can’t see the obvious, hint, hint - what is morally right to YOU. And in this case, unless there is a mouse in your pocket, you alone.
I’m not a Democrat, but the Al Queada/Iraq/Democrat alliance nonsense requires no response.
It also has to be asked why you liberals want to pursue the unsuccessful therapy but yet you totally ignore the already highly successful adult cells?
How in the name of Sam Hell do you assume anyone is “ignoring” adult stem cells. I can prove you wrong by providing dozens of links where scientists (one has to infer for themselves if they’re liberal or not, I presume you think all scientists are) are working hard to utilize and further the research on them. Unless you have some substantiated evidence you can link to counter my claim, I’ll consider this yet more of your emotional rhetoric.
Duh, I’m beginning to think that you really don’t have any basic understanding of embryonic stem cell research at all.
But I could be wrong. To demonstrate some credibility on this matter though, would you provide at least three examples of this “unsuccessful therapy” you allude to?
Thank you.
By getalife
July 15, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Ship of fools: Johann Hari sets sail with America’s swashbuckling neocons The Iraq war has been an amazing success, global warming is just a myth – and as for Guantanamo Bay, it’s practically a holiday camp… The annual cruise organised by the ‘National Review’, mouthpiece of right-wing America, is a parallel universe populated by straight-talking, gun-toting, God-fearing Republicans.
Great article to understand the wingnut mind set.
They are a dangerous, delusional cult that should reside in the “holiday camp” known as Gitmo.
A permanent vacation, if you will.
They are tiny minority of marginalized failed Americans and are a bad example for our children.
By Duh stands for Democrat
July 15, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
By getalife July 15, 2007 11:25 AM Blowing up babies is not morally right.
Which side is “blowing up babies?”
And are they doing it to help Democrats?
By JH July 15, 2007 11:27 AM Rational non-extremist Americans don’t oppose differing beliefs. But they properly get “irked” when their government of the people squashes legitimate credible scientific evidence to fit this administration’s reactionary agenda.
What about our beliefs that abortion is murder?
Do you respect that, JH, or is it only your ideas that we have to swallow whole?
Look I got my traditions and you got your junk science but we own the White House and rightfully get to set OUR agenda.
Deal with it.
By JH July 15, 2007 12:12 PM BTW does your protecting all human life include from capital punishment and war as well?
Al Qaeda kills innocent women and children indiscriminately, they’ve done it here, in Iraq, in Great Britain, in Bali and many, many other places. They do not respect life in deference to their religion and therefore should get no respect for their lives, we should slaughter them wherever we can find them and have a duty to protect those that do respect other people’s lives.
Apply that statement to all who it describes including murderers.
How in the name of Sam Hell do you assume anyone is “ignoring” adult stem cells.
Find the AJC article that tells of adult stem cell success, or better yet, show me a Cynthia Tucker column that even acknowledges adult stem cells, you can’t.
That right there should tell you something about what liberals are really thinking.
Killing embryos is only a first step for them, a hurdle they are trying to clear.
By Terrence
July 15, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Dennis said If this country has ever had (and still gets) empty political promises, it’s the establishment of, and provision for, a sound public education.
The statement can be read two different ways.
Either the acceptance of empty political promises confirms the lack of education or that the acceptance of empty promises is all the more reason to promote better government education.
Why would government work for a better education if the the people who believe in it continue to buy their defective product in the hopes that it will improve.
A company’s objective is to offer the best product to keep their customers coming back thereby rewarding the company with a profit. Their profit is not guaranteed. It’s earned through customer satisfaction.
The government’s objective is to dumb down the buyer so that they can continue to sell them the defective product by way of empty promises. Their profit is guaranteed without customer satisfaction.
By