I blame President Bush.
It seems to me, that when President Clinton was in office and the stock market was breaking records, it got an awful lot of coverage. This year, there has been noticably less. I wonder why that is?
Dow Crosses 12,000
Posted October 18th, 2006 at 02:21 PM by Gordy Hulten
The market is a poor indicator of the federal government's Executive Office abilities and the Dow although popular is one of the poorer indicators of the market.
Although it is somewhat difficult to keep the true market indicators in focus when the Presidental connection is being pushed so hard now as it was in the past by MSM owners like General Electric and other corporate giants. The pressure is particularly strong this time of year when the political parties join MSM's efforts for their own gain. Gordy's post here is a good example of that push.
How about this then, LV? Is this a good indicator of Bush's tax cut policies?
"But the 2003 Bush tax cuts coincided with a dramatic reversal of these misfortunes. Revenues jumped a total of 35 percent between 2003 and 2006, well outpacing the also-large 22.9 percent increase in federal spending over that period."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZlMDZkY2VmODg3M2IxOTQ1Y2I3ZjQ0ZDBjZGFkZTY=
You know, that 22.9 percent spending increase is really aggravating.
We call that antecdotal evidence. Do you have any actual evidence that the tax cuts caused the reversal? Any evidence that the tax cuts are causing the dow to rise? Anything at all besides cute little quips like "I blame President Bush"?
No, of course not.
The reason the coverage is more sparse is because average Joes are making any money. Nobody cares when the elites are turning massive profits on their stocks. It's not much of a story because (surprise!) most people don't like the elites (who, btw, are overwhelmingly Republican).
Now those two guys who just sold YouTube to Google? That was a story. In other words, who cares that the rich are getting richer?
Not me.
"We call that antecdotal evidence."
- Yes, you should be quite familiar with it. Its all liberals have when they attack Bush's economic policies.
Wow. What a reply.
btw - did you know that Joan Dykstra is now censoring comments on her threads? Pretty interesting technique for a school teacher, eh?
RSW--You are as good at making this 'Political' hay as Gordy. The increases over the last several years are due predominantly to recovery from 9/11. In fact, most states, of couse not Illinois or the Federal Government, have bailed themselves out of the debt that 9/11 caused.
over half the country owns stocks, 'call me'. Democrats need to remember that when they consider policies designed to punish investors.
all those profits to investors in America mean more money available in our capital markets, which leads to more investment in buildings and equipment and research and............ more good jobs for people.
A rising tide raises all boats.
"Wow. What a reply."
- One uninsightful comment deserves another. :)
LV, just think about it logically. If you want to spur the economy and help it grow, does it make more sense to raise taxes or lower taxes?
"btw - did you know that Joan Dykstra is now censoring comments on her threads? Pretty interesting technique for a school teacher, eh?"
If you have a problem with Joan, please take it up with her in one of her threads. But I censor comments in my threads sometimes. I edit out profanity, and sometimes delete comments that are only personal attacks that do nothing to address the issues. Frankly, there's way too much venom on this site right now, and way too little discussion and amicable disagreement.
"Pretty interesting technique for a school teacher, eh?"
- Yes, if she would only follow the liberal policy of an uncontrolled classroom then she too could contribute to the decline of our educational system. When will she learn?!
RSW--Taxes are just one component and a small one at that in the health of the economy. Debt is another component with Market being the 'heavy hitter' in the mix.
I know that it is hard for politically focused individuals to really accept the concept but "The market is a poor indicator of the federal government's Executive Office abilities and the Dow although popular is one of the poorer indicators of the market."
Here's a problem with economic reports and similar issues that require a bit of work for voters to sift through, understand, and interpret:
They won't, by and large. Most participants on this blog seem to be notable exceptions, but we do not represent the majority of voters in terms of our motivation to really investigate the issues and their significance.
When they have been able to apply it, the KISS approach has been very effective for Republicans in recent times. The majority of voters want simple, if inadequate, messages that they can swallow whole and rub their bellies over. I'm referring to both Republicans and Democrats -- with a notable recent difference between the parties being the lack of "comfort food" messages from the Democratic side.
LV,
I agree the Dow is a very incomplete indicator. I'm much more interested in the coverage. Any idea why Dow results were so hyped in the late 90s but so ignored now?
I have my suspicions, of course, but I'm curious if anyone agrees with me.
if you leook at the media today, 12,00 ios being pretty hyped.
in perspective, s and p and nasdaq are still below where they were 6+ years ago
"RSW”“Taxes are just one component and a small one at that in the health of the economy."
that is true, unless those taxes punish dividends and capital gains, throw massive rates at hign incomes (like 80% top marginal rate), and/or restrict trade by placing huge tarriffs on imports.
Just one example - One of the favorite ideas of the Dems has been to take the income ceiling off Soc Sec tax - this would add 15% in tax to high wage earners and small business owners. Do you not think this would have a detrimental impact on the economy? (Will behaviors be changed?)
As to debt, interest rates fell like a rock while Reagan was piling up deficits. If this is the debt to which you were referring, the link is pretty loose.
The DOW hitting 12,000 is being treated by cons just like libs treat news favorable to them.
It's just feel good fluff, and as usual the MSM is hyping something that is far more complicated, and far less relevant, than it appears.
What's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander, I suppose, but don't buy into it because it makes you feel good. It doesn't mean much.
"It doesn't mean much."
on its own, no. But if you look at it as a symbol of an economy that is performing pretty well (low unemployment, high corp profits, low interest rates, nice tax receipt growth, inflation under control, ...) then it means quite a bit. Do you want to throw out the party that was "in charge" during this period, or keep them in?
I have also been thinking about how there's been very little economic news lately, but today I've seen a couple of prominent Reuters stories about the economy. The headline of one is "Economic woe spurs Democrats in heartland". The other one was a top news story about how the NASDAQ was down and the Dow had fallen sharply since this morning.
By the way, during the supposedly great economy of 2000, the NASDAQ dropped 47% of its value from its high in March to the day that Clinton left office. When a Republican is president, that's called a stock market crash.
It's just silly to argue that the MSM wasn't foaming at the mouth happy giving Clinton all the credit for the great economy. I don't know how many times I have heard that when Clinton was in office there was a balanced budget and a great economy. Now after Bush has bought us though 9/11 and a recovery and the market has hit 12000 for the first time the MSM has become quiet as a church mouse (I hope I have not offended them). They were going great guns hammering Bush and blaming him for a poor economy a few month's ago when it seemed like it was going to be a political issue for the Mid-Terms. The economy improved Delay came on the scene then Foley the MSM had bigger fish to fry then. I guess if they were fair and balanced there would be a real investigation of Blagojevich but for Democrats the MSM is reactive not proactive like they are for Republicans. So for Blagojevich we wait for the movie to come out on tape.
Yes tax cuts increase tax revenue because of the increase spending and people have more money to spend on investments in business which create jobs.
We do have a budget deficit because we still spend to much and partially because we are fighting a war to protect this country.
I remember that Republicans used to argue that the prosperity of the 1990s was a result of Reagan's tax policies -- in other words, that there was a delay of several years before federal policy impacts the economy. Under the Republicans' own argument, any prosperity they see in today's economy is thanks to Bill Clinton.
"I remember that Republicans used to argue that the prosperity of the 1990s was a result of Reagan's tax policies"
I don't remember hearing or reading that. I remember thinking that the prosperty of the 1990s was due to the GOP Congress' tax cuts, the defeat of Clinton's universal health care plan, welfare reform, and to the end of the Cold War and new global markets.
RSW says--"that is true, unless those taxes punish dividends and capital gains, throw massive rates at hign incomes (like 80% top marginal rate),...
CORPORATE INCOME TAXES HAVE BEEN FLATLINED THROUGH SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIONS. CORPORATIONS PAY INCOME TAX ON DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS ON THEIR INVESTMENTS AS THEY ARE CONSIDERED PROFIT. THE RECEIPENT OF THESE MONIES ONLY PAYS 15% REGARDLESS OF THEIR TAX BRACKET. SO THE LIFTING OR SETTING OF THESE LOWER TAX RATES DID NOT DO MUCH FOR BUSINESS.
"and/or restrict trade by placing huge tarriffs on imports."
YOU ARE ONLY ADDRESSING ONE COMPONENT OF THE IMPORT/EXPORT MARKET, TARRIFFS. TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES OF INTERNAL PRODUCERS AND OUR EXPORTS.
As for your SS example, RSW, there is a corporate savings but it is very very small because most employers' workforce is made up of employee that never reach the maximum.
I am not sure how paying taxes on profits is a punishment for making money. A punishment would be if you had to turn over all of the profits, and then a 15 percent penalty for making the profit. Otherwise you are making 85% of the profit that, usually, you did very little to earn.
But whatever, since over half of Americans (that would be what - 150 million people?) seem to own stocks I guess this penalty isn't doing much to dissuade investors.
If you have a problem with Joan, please take it up with her in one of her threads.
I'd like to, but she won't let me post comments anymore. That's what I mean by censorship.
Yes, if she would only follow the liberal policy of an uncontrolled classroom then she too could contribute to the decline of our educational system. When will she learn?!
Yes, I can certainly tell you that at the beginning of each year the Principals remind the teachers of their "uncontrolled classroom policy". Something like,
"Now remember, ALL classroom must be uncontrolled this year! Don't forget!" :roll:
Ah, how I long for the days when students who disagreed with the teacher were told to be sit down, shut up, and never speak again in class. How great it used to be!
And now we can all experience those effective teaching techniques here on IP. Yay!
Gordy says, "It seems to me, that when President Clinton was in office and the stock market was breaking records, it got an awful lot of coverage. This year, there has been noticably less. I wonder why that is?"
Gordy, one reason might be that on January 14, 2000, the Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 11,750. To take more than six years for the Dow to go up two percent, might be something the conservative media doesn't want to remind people of, particularly just three weeks before the election. I know you're being sarcastic by saying you blame President Bush, but I'm not when I say it. I blame President Bush. This website might be considered somewhat nutty, by some, but it gives you something to think about. http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
Profits are up so corporate tax's and income tax's from dividend's are up.
? “Now remember, ALL classroom must be uncontrolled this year! Don't forget!”ÂÂ
I think Joan is 5th grade teacher it wouldn't be a good idea to let her class start dropping the F-bomb or get out of control. So I am not sure what your talking about even the Supreme Court hasn't said that students can say what ever they want. I do like free expression but I think parents want their children to learn not sit around doing what ever comes out of their mouth's. Maybe your a anarchist we just like to discuss issues here can we leave the vitriol at home.
Even more interesting - oil stocks are at near 52-week highs despite oil dropping by over 20% per barrel and unleaded gasonline dropping by 33%. It's these times when people are nervous and pessimistic that I am making the most money - interest is low, stocks are high - what a country!
"Gordy, one reason might be that on January 14, 2000, the Dow Jones Industrial average stood at 11,750."
And on September 21 of that year - 10 days after you-know-what - guess where it stood:
I'm sure that I don't blame Bush for a 3,500 point decline in his first 8 months in office, before any of his major policy goals had been enacted.
Sounds like the best news since 1929.
LV,
let me try again.
“RSW”“Taxes are just one component and a small one at that in the health of the economy.”ÂÂ
But doing dumb things on the tax side can really screw up the health of the economy, without changing anything else. We could put a 50% tariff on all imports (or even just those from China). We could raise the marginal personal tax rate. We could remove the income ceiling on SS taxes. We could eliminate the large exemption on capital gains tax on the sales of homes. We could increase corporate income taxes rates. We could change depreciation rules to allow less writeoff per year on the purchase of equipment. We could increase the double taxation problem by taxing dividends at a higher rate (since dividends go mostly to rich people).
Instead, Bush and the GOP Congress did none of thest things, and in some cases the opposite. The economy has grown, and tax receipts have increased (even with all the tax cuts).
run4cvrlib said at 12:10
"Now after Bush has bought us though 9/11 ..."
I have often accused run4cvrlib of not writing well, but this time he hit the nail on the head.
Again, with emphasis: "Now after Bush has bought us though 9/11 ..."
"Ah, how I long for the days when students who disagreed with the teacher were told to be sit down, shut up, and never speak again in class. How great it used to be!"
- Yep, back when we used to lead all industrialized nations in test scores. Now we're dead last, but I bet our students have achieved the highest usage of the F-word! Hooray for liberal progress!!
***“Ah, how I long for the days when students who disagreed with the teacher were told to be sit down, shut up, and never speak again in class. How great it used to be!”ÂÂ
- Yep, back when we used to lead all industrialized nations in test scores. Now we're dead last, but I bet our students have achieved the highest usage of the F-word! Hooray for liberal progress!!***
Yep, swearing is now a "liberal" problem! Now THAT is funny.
Bush turned to Blair and said: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over."
Bush complained about New York Times reporter Adam Clymer, calling him "a major league asshole".
John Major castigated members of his cabinet as "b*******", promised to "crucify" them, and confessed that he was a "wimp" who had no idea how to win an election.
"did you know that Joan Dykstra is now censoring comments on her threads? Pretty interesting technique for a school teacher, eh?"
Glad you brought up the teacher part. I don't let my students say really awful stuff to other students.
I delete really disgusting, gratuitous insults or comments, but never legitimate comments/criticism. If you like that stuff, go watch Jerry Springer.
But Joan, the issue isn't that you are moderating posts, the issue is that you are not allowing certain writers to comment AT ALL. What I personally did to deserve this distinction escapes me. I guess there was a swear word or something?
If Mr. ILVoter thinks the "f-word" (we are a clean blog aren't we?) is tolerated in any school he needs to stop typing and go by for a visit. Just remember that we are a diverse country. We aren't going to beat the Japanese test scores anytime soon because *surprise!* we aren't all Japanese. Nor are we all white, black, latino, or asian. We count everybody, even the developmentally disabled and the severely learning disabled.
In Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc. they are almost all the same ethnicity. It makes a huge difference.
Cheers! :)
OK, corporate profits are at a all time but real wages are the lowest in 40 years (more or less)? Might be a "recovery" for the Dow. But, not by any means for the average wage earner in this nation! These same companies are making no reinvestment into infrastucture or anything along that line. All the cash is going to the shareholders; nothing to stakeholders. Meanwhile, national tax policy does nothing but encourage this policy. There's a Perfect Storm brewing...
"All the cash is going to the shareholders; nothing to stakeholders."
Over half of Americans now own at least some stock. And I would bet that many who don't are expecting retirements (pensions, 401(k)s, etc.) that are at least partly dependent on stocks.
It's not like this is a boom that's only benefitting the wealthy.
It's not like this is a boom that's only benefitting the wealthy.
No, just mostly the wealthy.
Where'd you get that stat about have of all Americans owning stock?
It is courting disaster if there is no reinvestment into the business or employees below the CEO. Most of the corporate disasters that we have recently seen have been because of the need to show performance regardless of the consequences. Meanwhile we constantly export more and more business while importing cheaper labor. The breaking point is nearer than any of us want to admit.
Oh, just read this: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15781393.htm
That's right! Am I the only one that's been reading that the rise in the Dow is not just because of lower fuel costs? There have been direct correlations between the downturn in the housing market and Dow rise. Rumor has it that everybody's pulling out of housing and putting whatever they can into the Dow. Less risk or something. lol On that note, what's the price of gold lately?
I think there has been pretty sufficient coverage of the dow record. Maybe not as much as Gordy would like, but sufficient enough for those who really think that number is truly indicative of more than people are buying more stock The market always has peaks and valleys, and this happens to be a peak.
Anyways, I've heard one reasoning for the dow number is this: the housing market has cooled off (interest rates are up, etc), therefore those who had been putting money into homes and real estate are now putting that money into the market instead.
Either way, I'm happy for the number. It's obviously not a bad thing. However, I'm also not going to give sole credit to the president. It's not all Bush's fault now, and it wasn't all Clinton's fault earlier. Anyone who takes that position, rep or dem, is probably trying to push a political agenda during a campaign season...
Sorry anon, didn't mean to recycle your point; we must be reading/hearing the same material....
Gordie says, "It seems to me, that when President Clinton was in office and the stock market was breaking records, it got an awful lot of coverage. This year, there has been noticably less. I wonder why that is?"
Inflation. The DJI average will have to hit 13,500 to be equal to the 12,000 of 1999.
"Yep, swearing is now a “liberal” problem! Now THAT is funny."
- The toleration of unacceptable student behavior in the name of political correctness IS a liberal problem, and THAT is not funny.
"If Mr. ILVoter thinks the “f-word” (we are a clean blog aren't we?) is tolerated in any school he needs to stop typing and go by for a visit."
- If Mr. Just Call Me thinks that the f-word isn't prevalent in our schools (along with a host of other outrageous behaviors) then he is divorced from reality. Take your own advice and go visit a Champaign school and see for yourself.
"We aren't going to beat the Japanese test scores anytime soon because *surprise!* we aren't all Japanese. Nor are we all white, black, latino, or asian."
- What an absolute cop-out. Our broad diversity MAY keep us from reaching the top spot, but it is NO excuse from being DEAD LAST.
“All the cash is going to the shareholders; nothing to stakeholders.”ÂÂ
All shareholders are stakeholders, but not all stakeholders are shareholders. Your argument lacks basic logic.
"Over half of Americans now own at least some stock. And I would bet that many who don't are expecting retirements (pensions, 401(k)s, etc.) that are at least partly dependent on stocks.
It's not like this is a boom that's only benefitting the wealthy. "
Gordy, it goes beyond that. Nowadays, most companies offer some sort of employee stock option plan, leading to direct ownership of stock by the employees.
Further, the largest shareholders in the market are institutional shareholders. Most of these institutional shareholders are, as you brought up, pension and retirement funds.
The past few years has seen the rise of direct participation in corporate governance by institutional shareholders through proxy services and research firms such as ISS. Some of the most prominent institutional shareholders use their power to improve the companies they own, maximizing net stakeholder welfare - look at CalPERS (interestingly enough, a government entity).
With these things in mind, I think that taxes on investors affect more Americans than generally perceived. But what would I know, I'm just a tax accountant.
RSW says---But doing dumb things on the tax side can really screw up the health of the economy, without changing anything else.
That is always a possibility but has rarely if ever happened. Things that really screw things up economicly are what I call protective legislation. Examples that wrech economic havic both in this country and other countries would be subsidies for making/growing or not making/growing products, export and import restrictions and tax breaks for specific product activities (which are really subsidies).
"...the housing market has cooled off (interest rates are up, etc), therefore those who had been putting money into homes and real estate are now putting that money into the market instead."
I have also heard and read this explanation for the Dow's move, but I have a troubling observation:
The explanation assumes that those who had been putting money into homes and real estate have liquid assets that can be moved to the stock market. Since the housing market has indeed cooled off, this is a big assumption. It's much easier for me to imagine a large group of frustrated real estate inverstors who would love nothing more than to cash out of that market and take their money elsewhere, but they can't.
"What an absolute cop-out. Our broad diversity MAY keep us from reaching the top spot, but it is NO excuse from being DEAD LAST."
I completely agree with this. Those that opposed the Oakland "Ebonics" resolution a decade ago (and the overall prevalence of the "speak-before-you-think" mentality) significantly hold back the education system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were conservatives opposing the improvement of the education system.
Before you start dismissing my arguments as "liberal mumbo-jumbo," I'm a conservative (as one should gather from my previous tax comments).
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were conservatives opposing the improvement of the education system."
- Umm...teaching Ebonics would have been an "improvement" over teaching correct English? Right. If something is too difficult for some students to learn, just standardize and legitimize their ignorance. Liberal education reform at its BEST!
The Oakland resolution had nothing to do with "teaching Ebonics."
Please research the issue first, then post about it.
Your reaction, however, proves my point that the relationship between information about a subject and the level of activism or vocality is indeed an inverse one, and not a direct one.
"the relationship between information about a subject and the level of activism or vocality is indeed an inverse one, and not a direct one."
Heh. Brilliant!
from the resolution:
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Superintendent in conjunction with her staff shall immediately devise and implement the best possible academic program for imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language whether it is known as "Ebonics," "African Language Systems," "Pan-African Communication Behaviors" or other description, and to facilitate their acquisition and mastery of English language skills; and...."
OK, how about teaching 'in Ebonics' then?
Points for RSW.
thanks v.v.l. :-)
***- The toleration of unacceptable student behavior in the name of political correctness IS a liberal problem, and THAT is not funny.***
Please show me some EVIDENCE that teachers allow swearing because it is "politically correct". I have never met a teacher, liberal or otherwise, that allows students to swear because the DON'T want to offend anybody. Your arguement just doesn't make sense.
***- If Mr. Just Call Me thinks that the f-word isn't prevalent in our schools (along with a host of other outrageous behaviors) then he is divorced from reality. Take your own advice and go visit a Champaign school and see for yourself.***
My job does, in fact, allow me to be in schools across the county for about 10 hours a week. Guess how many swear words I have heard in classrooms this SEMESTER? None. I'd like to know in which classrroms you are sitting. I will visit those next.
"Your reaction, however, proves my point that the relationship between information about a subject and the level of activism or vocality is indeed an inverse one, and not a direct one."
- LOL. In this instance, that statement appears to apply directly and exclusively to YOU. :)
"Please show me some EVIDENCE that teachers allow swearing because it is “politically correct”ÂÂ."
- You're right. It may very well be allowed in schools through sheer stupidity, and not political correctness. The system is worse than I thought.
"Guess how many swear words I have heard in classrooms this SEMESTER? None."
- Wow. You never heard a student swear at a teacher or another student? You never heard students swear before of after class started? You never heard students use swear words in their side conversations in class? You never heard students swear when they would get into arguments with each other? Not even in the hallway? Not in the cafeteria? Huh. Your mere presence must be inspiring this angelic behavior. If only you could spend 40 hours a week in each classroom, then all the Unit 4 discipline problems would be solved!
**- Wow. You never heard a student swear at a teacher or another student? You never heard students swear before of after class started? You never heard students use swear words in their side conversations in class? You never heard students swear when they would get into arguments with each other? Not even in the hallway? Not in the cafeteria? Huh. Your mere presence must be inspiring this angelic behavior. If only you could spend 40 hours a week in each classroom, then all the Unit 4 discipline problems would be solved!**
Ahhh. Very typical black-and-white thinking. Of course adolescents use swear words (psst: they always have), and I have heard them in the hallway, transition times, etc. But in a classroom while instruction and work is going on: nope, not yet this year. In the past, the rare incidents when it has happened in a classroom, there are consequences. It has nothing to do with my presence (though, thanks for the compliment).
If discipline is your main beef, talk to parents, not teachers. There are sons and daughters of conservative in the schools, too -- and I bet they swear!!!
And, again, when was your last observation in a classroom?
Since you refuse to look up the full context of the situation, I'll provide it. If you want specific references to papers, statutes, etc. it'll take a little while for me to dig them up, but I can provide them.
I'll provide a simple background of the situation that should provide adequate context:
Leading linguistic research shows that students learn best when taught in their native dialect. Further, they find that students learn SAE (Standard American English) best when it is taught through their native dialect. Using a native dialect, teachers can explicitly discuss the differences between the dialect and the standard. When students don't understand what the teacher says (if they're taught in a non-familiar dialect), they tend to ignore the material, rather than seek out additional instruction.
Many students in Oakland speak a form of AAVE (African American Vernacular English, or "Ebonics"). However, English classes did not explicitly address the distinction between AAVE and SAE. Rather than teaching kids how the dialects differ, the students are simply told that they're incorrect. The lack of feedback greatly inhibits learning.
Finally, technicalities relating to the funding of such an initiative required a distinction of AAVE as a separate, unique language or dialect. This led to a highly controversial (and flawed) pseudo-scientific history of AAVE, saying it originated with African pidgins. Hence the "maintaing the legitimacy..." language in the resolution.
I think this context proves sufficient for explaining the situation. Oakland was not seeking to teach Ebonics to kids, nor were the teachers going to start jiving. They only wanted to teach their students in the most effective manner.
ILvoter, your comment doesn't deserve much response. It's purely inflammatory, as you clearly lack sufficient knowledge of the subject you're talking about.
Regardless of our stances on the Oakland issue, I hope this shows the effect the ill-informed MSM has on people.
"ILvoter, your comment doesn't deserve much response."
- Liberals: Can't handle their own criticisms.
"Leading linguistic research shows that students learn best when taught in their native dialect"
- Slang is now called "native dialect". Didn't George Carlin do a bit on this?
"Many students in Oakland speak a form of AAVE (African American Vernacular English, or “Ebonics”ÂÂ).
- As opposed to SAVE (Southern American Vernacular English) or BAVE (Bostonian American Vernacular English).
"This led to a highly controversial (and flawed) pseudo-scientific history of AAVE, saying it originated with African pidgins. Hence the “maintaing the legitimacy”¦” language in the resolution."
"I think this context proves sufficient for explaining the situation."
- You just proved my point. They tried to legitimize and standardize ignorance of SAE. Thanks for your help!
"you clearly lack sufficient knowledge of the subject you're talking about."
- RSW just posted the resolution, which was clear as a bell. But hey, denial is the favorite river of liberals.
teacherlove,
About 9 years ago. My time as a student was years before that, but still well after our national test scores took a nose dive to last place...and no, my personal grades did not contribute to the decline. I worked very hard to keep our scores ahead of Ethiopia.
"devise and implement the best possible academic program for imparting instruction to African-American students in their primary language for the combined purposes of maintaining the legitimacy and richness of such language..."
legitimacy and richness of such language - right. Do you think people would be talking about Obama as a Presidential candidate if he was maintaining the legitimacy of AAVE (African American Vernacular English, or “Ebonics”ÂÂ)? Instead of focusing on teaching the kids proper English, so they can succeed in our country, we want to tell them that their slang is a legitimate and rich language?
And who exactly is "significantly hold(ing) back the education system?"
I'm out of this "debate" - RSW and ILvoter, I'll let you get back to Rush. Neither one of you seem willing to actually change your viewpoint (or effectively argue your own viewpoints) when I bring up all relevant background information.
You don't seem to even read what I've written - RSW, your last comment demonstrates this best. I don't know if my arguments were poorly worded (and, consequently, misunderstood), you ignored them, or you dismissed them as pure rubbish. ILvoter, I explained why the wording of the resolution read as such (technicalities with funding). As I stated in my original post - I'm not at all liberal (and your insults to this extent demonstrate your reading comprehension). Unless, of course, liberal means "one who listens to experts, and not just the MSM."
Whatever the reason, both of you refuse to pursue reasoned discourse. You will continue to ignore whatever I post here, regardless of its validity.
its been fun, ThoughtPolice. Maybe we can try it again sometime - maybe we'll connect.
Dow closed above 12,000 today.
Spanish speaking immigrants have fought against bi-lingual education because they have seen that their kids learn faster and better when immersed in the English language. Shouldn't the same apply to all who do not speak proper English?
Also in the news, schools banning tag on the playground (and previously, dodge ball). The best and most astute comment I have heard regarding this ridiculous policy is the fact that recess monitors, be they volunteers or paid, do not want to have to confront a kid who takes the game too far. When the adults in schools don't confront kids' bad behavior on an individual basis, learning suffers; that includes academic as well as social learning.
"I explained why the wording of the resolution read as such (technicalities with funding)"
- I read your excuse as to why the resolution somehow didn't mean what was clearly written and I found it to be absurd. The meaning of words does not change with "funding".
"I'm not at all liberal (and your insults to this extent demonstrate your reading comprehension)."
- At least in this case, you definitely are liberal. Remember, admission is the first step to recovery.
"Whatever the reason, both of you refuse to pursue reasoned discourse."
- Your positions were considered, and then rejected. The belief that one must accept all opinions lest he be considered unreasonable sounds awfully ...liberal. :)
LOL
I know I said I'd leave, but I have one additional thing to say.
Read through John Rickford's remarks here, then get back to me. His comments will give you lots of background information, far more than I could ever hope to provide in this textbox. Look at the Contrastive Analysis section to see some empirical research on the effectiveness of the methods proposed in Oakland.
http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/VernacularToTeachStandard.html
Interesting reading TP. It sounds to me like the idea is not to beat kids over the head for talking in local slang, give then introductory books written in language similar to their own, then, over time, ease them into "the king's English". I would assume, during this time, the teachers would be modeling proper English for the children.
I can't say that sounds like a terrible strategy, but it is a bit different from the resolution, and its "maintaining the legitimacy of AAVE". And they HAD to say this for funding purposes you say? Trying to collect federal monies by calling AAVE a language? I guess if its not poor educating, maybe we could just call it fraud, or at least some abuse of a grant program?
I also found his closing interesting:
"In closing, I would like to turn on its head a comment which the Rev. Jessie Jackson made in his initial phase on the Ebonics issue, before he saw the light and changed his mind. He said at first that the kind of approach that Oakland was advocating represented "an unconditional surrender, borderlining on disgrace--an Unconditional Surrender Bordering on Disgrace. I would argue that to continue with existing methods in the light of the dramatic failure rates that are associated with those represents to me an unconditional surrender, bordering on disgrace."
I would argue that this very same statement could be made in regards to vouchers.
I'm glad you read it (or, at least, a good part of it - it's really damn long). Don't get me wrong - I think the wording issue of the Oakland resolution was awful, regardless of the intent. The Linguistic Society of America unanimously passed a resolution on this matter. In it, they said that it's irrelevant whether AAVE is a "language" or a "dialect," as those terms are very open to interpretation.
I read at one point that the wording was put in, as I said, to accomodate funding requirements. I'll keep looking for an official source on that. I think that this is borderline fraud (and, consequently, should have been the main MSM story of the time). However, the fact that the LSA refused to take a stance on the matter makes it pretty difficult to prosecute.
And I agree completely with the vouchers. Why shouldn't the primary and secondary education systems become more like a free market, like the university system (sort of) is? Like I said, I'm actually a conservative.
Discussions like these prove exactly why IP's quality will always exceed the UC-IMC's quality (ignoring, of course, the fact that their views are polar opposites...just read on, you'll see my point).
Had this taken place on the UC-IMC site (which I frequently "troll" - their words, not mine...I just like messing with their heads, I guess), all of our comments would have been hidden by editors as quickly as possible. However, personal attacks from crazy "Zionist conspiracy" types would have remained. I know this follows logically from the sites' respective mindsets and political persuasions - the IMC's "anti-controversy, why can't we all get along approach, where's big brother to protect me" vs. IP's free-market of ideas. This is exactly why I engaged in the previous discussion - I know that the moderators won't delete the posts. Further, everyone can learn a little more about it.
I guess the next time I want my capitalist posts to remain on the IMC site, I'll just have to start including crazy conspiracies and random accusations of institutional racism. Oh, and throw in some "Bush knew!"s for good measure.
The media is doing its best to show its class bias and/or ignorance with its wild celebrations of the 12,000 Dow. I like a good party as much as anyone, but being someone who works for a living, I didn't get invited to this one, and neither did most of the rest of the country.
This story is straight from Econ 101. The stock market is supposed to represent the future profits of U.S. corporations. In principle, it goes up when expectations of future profits rise. So, the 12,000 Dow tells us that investors now are more optimistic about the prospects for future profits. Of course profits aren't bad, if the economy is growing more rapidly and profits rise along with wages, then everyone can be happy.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the story here. Wages for most workers have been stagnant for the last five years, and there seems little prospect that wages will suddenly start rising in a big way anytime soon. In other words, this is not the 50s and 60s when a strong stock market was associated with rapid growth in both wages and profits, this is the 80s and first half of the 90s, when strong profit growth came at the expense of wages.
So make sure you keep track of who's wearing the party hats. We know which side they're on.
It's all free money, kind of like highway robbery but with expensive suits.
that's funny. in this same thread, the "MSM" has been blamed for ignoring Dow 12,000, and now for reporting it.
The blame should go not for reporting it, but for overreporting it.
It should not be the lead story, as it was in misguided newspapers like the Pantagraph. The Dow average is overrated as a measure of economic vitality.
For years, we've heard about a rise in "productivity." These days, "productivity" means doing more work for the same pay. Eventually wages and salaries need to start rising.
The blathering BS about "MSM" is the same ignorance this site features day in and day out. I worked at a very conservative newspaper that trumpeted the Dow average when Clinton was in office. That's because it was an easy story to play up. All you need is a giant number and some text to follow it.
The "MSM" isn't shrewd enough to have a widespread conspiracy. Of course, I've pointed that out here before, and the same misconceptions continue. I guess you can lead an elephant to water, but you can't make it drink.
To the people who think the economy is doing well, and that 12,000 is a miracle wrought by the Bush tax cuts, go here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/23/55243/408
Remember, not all Republicans are stupid, but nearly all stupid people are Republican. The latter group includes everyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job with the economy.
Michael--Dailykos theirs a place to go to get balanced reporting on the economy. It's too bad the Democrats are mad that the economy is doing so well it could mean jobs for people. Even Halloween sales are way up an indicator that people have money to spend and will for Christmas. I hope that does not make you mad Michael I won't tell you what group that makes you part of could be the intolerant, maybe the I have my head stuck in the sand so everyone else is stupid group.
"Remember, not all Republicans are stupid, but nearly all stupid people are Republican."
Now that's persuasive!
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/BehindDow12000AnEconomyAtRisk.aspx