Is the Obama’s stimulus plan another windfall for big business as this article suggests?
Obama declared that he would oversee regulatory reform to halt “reckless greed and risk-taking” by banks and financial institutions, while reassuring Wall Street that the public funding spigots would remain open to bail out the most powerful firms. “It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy,” he said.
He essentially whitewashed the pervasive fraud and criminality of the US financial elite and the collusion of the US government, saying, “No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales.”
As though the plundering of the US economy over the past thirty years was a matter of a few “wrongdoers” and “cracks” in the government regulatory machinery! In fact, parasitism and fraud on a colossal scale have become the mode of operation of the banks and the dominant feature of an economic system whose decay is expressed in the destruction of industry and the basic productive forces. Successive administrations, Democratic as well as Republican, have systematically dismantled regulatory oversight of the banks, and the role of government regulators has been to facilitate fraudulent practices and shield the most powerful and influential perpetrators.
Throughout his speech, Obama was careful not to raise the basic social and class issues that dominate American society and underlie the crisis. Thus, in his potted review of the financial meltdown, he made no mention of the most important result of decades of economic parasitism and political reaction—the immense growth of social inequality.
No, they are just throwing money away when they should have raised interest rates to 17% as the monetarists did in England in ’79. When the current plan and insane counter productive bail outs fail they will likely have to go to 20% to make up the difference so there is a long way to go.
Inequality doesn’t come into it, Brazil is pretty much the US w/out many social programs, extremes don’t get much greater but to them the credit crisis is something effecting the ‘gringos.’
The gringos borrowed foolishly egged on by a culture of competitive consumption and a financial ‘industry’ built on the idea that it was safe and legal to loan out ever more money to people as long as the asset bubble property prices produced went on rising inexorably. It is claimed now that somehow only a v. Few foresaw and predicted the inevitable crash and the consequences but that is not true, the people at the top are making fortunes and will make even more buying back all the bankrupt stock, property and land available for next to nothing when we hit rock bottom some years from now. We were set up but inequality is an effect not a cause.
Only looked briefly at this link but looks interesting.
teachers should accept that tenure has outlived its usefulness?
Last week I went shopping in our small rural hometown, where my family has attended the same public schools since 1896. Without exception, all six generations of us — whether farmers, housewives, day laborers, business people, writers, lawyers, or educators — were given a good, competitive K-12 education.
But after a haircut, I noticed that the 20-something cashier could not count out change. The next day, at the electronic outlet store, another young clerk could not read — much less explain — the basic English of the buyer’s warranty. At the food market, I listened as a young couple argued over the price of a cut of tri-tip — unable to calculate the meat’s real value from its price per pound.
As another school year is set to get under way, it’s worth pondering where this epidemic of ignorance came from.
Our presidential candidates sense the danger of this dumbing down of American society and are arguing over the dismal status of contemporary education: poor graduation rates, weak test scores, and suspect literacy among the general population. Politicians warn that America’s edge in global research and productivity will disappear, and with it our high standard of living.
Yet the bleak statistics — whether a 70-percent high-school graduation rate as measured in a study a few years ago by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, or poor math rankings in comparison with other industrial nations — come at a time when our schools inflate grades and often honor multiple valedictorians at high school graduation ceremonies. Aggregate state and federal education budgets are high. Too few A’s, too few top awards, and too little funding apparently don’t seem to be our real problems.
Of course, most critics agree that the root causes for our undereducated youth are not all the schools’ fault. Our present ambition to make every American youth college material — in a way our forefathers would have thought ludicrous — ensures that we will both fail in that utopian goal and lack enough literate Americans with critical vocational skills.
The disintegration of the American nuclear family is also at fault. Too many students don’t have two parents reminding them of the value of both abstract and practical learning.
What then can our elementary and secondary schools do, when many of their students’ problems begin at home or arise from our warped popular culture?
We should first scrap the popular therapeutic curriculum that in the scarce hours of the school day crams in sermons on race, class, gender, drugs, sex, self-esteem, or environmentalism. These are well-intentioned efforts to make a kinder and gentler generation more sensitive to our nation’s supposed past and present sins. But they only squeeze out far more important subjects.
The old approach to education saw things differently than we do. Education (“to lead out” or “to bring up”) was not defined as being “sensitive” to, or “correct” on, particular issues. It was instead the rational ability to make sense of the chaotic present through the abstract wisdom of the past.
So literature, history, math and science gave students plenty of facts, theorems, people, and dates to draw on. Then training in logic, language, and philosophy provided the tools to use and express that accumulated wisdom. Teachers usually did not care where all that training led their students politically — only that their pupils’ ideas and views were supported with facts and argued rationally.
What else can we do to restore such traditional learning before the United States loses it global primacy?
To encourage our best minds to become teachers, we should also change the qualifications for becoming one. Students should be able to pursue careers in teaching either by getting a standard teaching credential or by substituting a master’s degree in an academic subject. That way we will eventually end up with more instructors with real academic knowledge rather than prepped with theories about how to teach.
And once hired, K-12 teachers should accept that tenure has outlived its usefulness. Near-guaranteed lifelong employment has become an archaic institution that shields educators from answerability. And tenure has not ensured ideological diversity and independence. Nearly the exact opposite — a herd mentality — presides within many school faculties. Periodic and renewable contracts — with requirements, goals and incentives — would far better ensure teacher credibility and accountability.
Athletics, counseling and social activism may be desirable in schools. But they are not crucial. Our pay scales should reflect that reality. Our top classroom teachers should earn as much as — if not more than — administrators, bureaucrats, coaches, and advisers.
Liberal education of the type my farming grandfather got was the reason why the United States grew wealthy, free, and stable. But without it, the nation of his great-grandchildren will become poor, docile, and insecure.
First of all, you blame the teachers for the downfall of American education when in fact it is the administration and the school districts themselves who plan the curriculum. The teacher is completely taken out of the discission making. So please, please, please, learn the facts of the matter before you start pointing fingers at the teachers again. The No Child Left Behind program of testing is making the situation even worse. Again, the teachers had nothing to do with making this program and they have nothinig to do with it’s curriculum. But they are forced to teach children how to take a test. That’s not education. That’s not teaching critical thinking. That’s teaching them to memorize and that isn’t education.
As soon as you raise the amount of money that are paid to teachers, you will attract the best and brightest minds to teaching. Why can’t you people get that through your heads? Do the major corporations pay their engineers, scientists, doctors, computer analysts, financial analysts, designers, artists, and other professionals crappy wages like the school districts do? NO they don’t. They pay the best because they want to attract the best people. They also offer them major perks and great health plans etc. Also, if you look at many public schools today, teachers are always having to study and mentor other teachers to improve their methods and their teaching abilities. I agree a good liberal education is the best type, but that’s not what our kids are getting today and it isn’t the teacher’s fault and I wish you people would stop blaming the teachers.
Is it worthwhile to sue for breach of verbal contract in California?
I have an unsigned written contract for business development funding that was agreed to verbally. I also have text messages and email communication that verifies this. I had lent this person some money, personally, and recently got upset that they weren’t paying me back and expressed that I felt that they were using me and dangling the development deal as a carrot to get me to lend them money. When I expressed this, they got upset and told me that I was too much “drama” and that they were backing out of the deal. And not paying me back. Now I feel completely used. Is there anyway I can sue for this. The amount I lent them is $700. The amount of the contract is $25k.
If you can prove your case, and there is no written contract then yes. If you have a written contract, that will ALWAYS override a verbal contract.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers