Che said:
Here's a document stating that The New Deal helped. When removed to Economy plunged again.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_90_Notes.htm
And here's a quote from your source:
"Still, after seven years of heavy government spending - 20 billion dollars worth - and the creation of an enormous federal bureaucracy that supervised the new programs, millions remained unemployed."
Che said:
Here's a link showing how your wrong about the New Deal not Working and how I'm right :lol:
http://www.co.broward.fl.us/library/bienes/lii10204.htm
"the WPA eventually employed approximately one-third of the nation’s 10,000,000 unemployed, paying them about $50.00 a month."
keep in mind that this is only one program and that $50 was alot of money back then because you could go to the movies for a quarter.
Just because a government agency employs a lot of people doesn't mean that it's doing a good thing. In order to fund this buisiness enterprise, the government had to take money out of the economy and took away jobs somewhere else. The government cannot just create wealth and jobs out of thin air.
Che said:
Unions are good because they stop teachers from being paid $5.15 an hour to teach in a room of 40 kids.
That's absurd. In free market competition, school's couldn't pay teachers 5.15 an hour because then there wouldn't be enough quality teachers willing to teach. Additionally, they wouldn't be able to stuff 40 children in a room because then the parents will take their kids elsewhere, or establish their own school.
Did you read my John Stossel link on this? Because I'm looking at your links :2wave: and therefore I would appreciate it if you take a look at mine. :smile:
Che said:
Not nearly as many that come from private and the graduation rate is many times below 30%.
I believe that is a byproduct of the failure of our public school system.
Che said:
You act like getting a job is easy...
Well, I sure know that getting a good job is a bitch. However, this poverty stat works any job, even a minimum wage job. Getting a minimum wage job is easy. I'll try to locate the source of the statistic.
Che said:
Which is why BBC reported that people in Poverty in America are on the rise each year and as of 2004, 37 million were under the poverty line.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4198668.stm
Keep in mind that the increase in the poverty level was very small, and that the poverty line measure is in no sense an objective, absolute measure. They are constantly "revising" the line, and I just can't in all seriousness compare one year to the next.
Anyway, this does not address my point. My point is this: It is found that the people in poverty in 1996 are mostly out of poverty in 2006. In 2016, the 2006 group will be mostly out of poverty, and we'll get a new group. In fact, most of those in poverty are younger people who don't have much work experience yet.
Che said:
Yes it's that but also I sometimes think of it like this: when you have a hard day you'll come home from work sit on the couch and have beer. When you have a hard life and every day is hard, you may decide to take something more than a beer...
Fine - but the poor are not the only ones using drugs. You also have these spoiled rich kids thinking they can get away with anything. People have it far easier than they did in 1900, for example, so why weren't we innundated with drugs in 1900. (I don't know exactly what the situation was in 1900, but I doubt the numbers are proportional to "toughness of work. If you find the stats, I'll concede your point).
Che said:
Which is why I support federal academic requirements. I've written to my congressman about it (although I not sure he got it) and I urge you to do so to. There may be 10,000 per student if all averaged out, but take into account that the neighborhoods that have more money get better schools while the ones without don't get good schools. Also if you give three schools 1000 dollars each, one may use it for construction one may use it to deal with unions, and others may use it to build basketball court.
And that's funny, because none of the money is actually going into educating the kids.
I found this from the Connecticut government website that outlines per-puil spending:
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dgm/report1/cpse2005/table3.pdf
Note that the poorest towns still spend $8000 per pupil. That is certainly enough for a decent education, and I can tell you that the residents of Bridgeport and New Haven are not getting their moneys worth. Not by a long shot.
If the school stood to lost money and influence if they lost customers, then things would change. The money is already there.
Che said:
Our minority communities are just as bad if not worse. My facts are straght. We have more people in poverty, and they have a larger middle class
Okay, I'm going to have to see your source on that one.
Wow, long post.