This country needs a lot more talented & gifted students to excel and if we are to compete with China and others. Instead, now a lot of these NYC school kids will instead be waiting while the teacher calms down the trouble-makers/unmotivated kids instead of behind challenged further academically.
Like you said, it's leftist progressive dogma. To what extent can the incoming mayor reverse this?
Not really. Average American is already wealthier than the average Chinese. We need better college policies not giving away subsidized loans to useless majors. You should allocate the grants to the fields the country needs, including trade schools.
China does other things as well, like totally ignore environmental issues. You want to go down that road?
China doesn't ignore environmental issues, it's just more willing to carefully spend its ecological health. That is not to say that their bets will pay off, but we may also find that it will be China who leads the world in ecological tech.
Who will pay for all the social services required? The existing tax paying citizen via increases taxes and lowered standard of living.
We already have a shortage of housing, overcrowding in schools & major budget deficits. No, open borders are not the answer - no country has/allows them because of the reasons above.
Are you offering to volunteer your place to live?
A lot of things, like slavery and public beheadings were done 400 years ago, which aren't done today. Any other arguments you can provide to make your case rather than revisionist history?
You asked a question, I tried to provide an answer to it which is reflective of the common viewpoint.
Hopefully, informed people. Unfortunately I don't have a definite answer to your question but that does not make "the market" a valid one (maybe it is, though I don't think so because I don't trust people for making decision virtuous for the community through individual ones, there needs to be something more clever and functional).
Well I ask because in my mind it is simple: individuals decide for themselves what is virtuous.
Of course as a side effect this is reflected in the market, as individuals engaging in things they find virtuous are reflected in the market.
If you don't trust people to make decisions for the community, why not just let them all make decisions for themselves and nobody else? That would solve that problem, no?
For any given decision, letting individuals decide what they want does not necessarily lead to a great situation for the community. Climate change-related stuff comes to my mind. We are failing to take the right decisions, and have been for decades (in my opinion). I often see people say "let the market decide" as if it were the ultimate way of deciding what is best. It's often not in my opinion.
For the topic at hand I don't think there's a good way around letting people pick what they want to study among what is available. I deeply believe they should be able to decide what they are going to study for themselves and be given the keys to take informed decisions. Nobody can know better than themselves what is best for them.
You still need to provide a sensible set of available curricula, and people don't individually have the power to decide which curricula should be available so you still need an informed group of people to decide on this, not individually. Obviously you'll probably have to close curricula which don't attract enough people so you'll have some bit of market deciding.
You’re incorrect. People are moving to urban centers, many in the south, all of which meet your your criteria of “tax, tax, tax and waste money.” According to the conservative lens, which doesn’t really grasp the concept of “per capita.”
Meanwhile vastly subsidized rural America, much of it in the south, is dying, because the wealth producers and job creators in those tax tax tax waste money jurisdictions are tired of sending money to people who complain about having money sent to them.
Regardless, that’s a stat for morons to parrot (e.g. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-v...). A county that Biden won 60/40 that produces $1 billion GDP is not $1 billion of GDP support for Biden. It’s 600 mil Biden and 400 mil Trump, and that’s under the charitable interpretation that rich people are just as likely to vote Democrat as they are Republican.
I'm not really talking about their financial well-being. The "Greatest Generation" won a World War and built a great economy on the ruins of Europe and Japan while creating a very safe, very white, very Christian-friendly world of televised entertainment.
Boomers questioned that authority, protested their wars, wanted sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and then suddenly middle age hit them and they yearned for the safety of the world their parents raised them in. Many of them even decided that their parents' houses of worship didn't go far enough, leaving moderate traditional churches for extreme and fundamentalist churches.
The real horror of 9/11 was not the few thousand deaths in the western hemisphere, but the few hundred thousand unnecessary ones executed in retaliation in the eastern hemisphere (none of which reduces the likelihood of a recurrence).
All we learned from the whole thing is that if you want to attack the USA, terrorism is the most effective way. A tiny investment will cause the entity to respond by working hard to abandon its own principles destroying itself, destroying thousands of others, and wasting unfathomable amounts of money.
> The real horror of 9/11 was not the few thousand deaths in the western hemisphere, but the few hundred thousand unnecessary ones executed in retaliation in the eastern hemisphere (none of which reduces the likelihood of a recurrence).
Not to mention the tens of thousands of illegally detained, usually on fake or wrong pretenses, and the many of them tortured. Every one of them, and everyone that knows them, has every reason to hate the guts of everything remotely American.
No, they aren’t - the difference is all about formalities; from the moral standpoint they are precisely the same. It doesn’t matter if you go killing innocent people because of religion, political interests, race, or money.
If that's true (which I doubt), the US military is fantastically bad at their job.
Low estimates of the cost of the Iraq war put it at 185k dead iraqi civilians.
I believe that it is much more likely that the US military simply doesn't care much about civilian deaths incurred whilst it seeks useless vengeance. This satisfies Occam's Razor, too.
He would have done in a more controlled manner, and slow down if necessary - not let it get to this point where it's a total takeover by the Taliban while Biden is vacationing.
He was also the first president in 40 years to NOT start a war.
In the US, wars are started by Congress, not the President. The conflicts I listed are the only wars authorized by Congress over the last 40 years. We can bring other conflicts into the discussion, but that’s a different standard than “war”.
