Americans Spend More in Taxes Than Food, Clothing and Housing Combined

 

 

 

Chart_TFD_web_0

 

http://taxfoundation.org/article/tax-freedom-day-2014-april-21-three-days-later-last-year

Tell us something we didn’t already know. But we get the usual drivel, we don’t pay enough.  We are greedy when we say that we pay too much in taxes.  The Pregressives demand more and more and attack us when we ask “when will it be enough”.  After receiving over $3 Trillion in direct revenue per year, they demand more since they want to spend more in social spending.  All the while slashing the military budget to the point that aggressive world leaders take notice.

When will enough be enough for these moochers and thieves?

Advertisements

49 thoughts on “Americans Spend More in Taxes Than Food, Clothing and Housing Combined

  1. 02casper April 8, 2014 / 9:37 pm

    I did a little comparison just for the fun of it. See a pattern?

    States with highest life expectancy
    Hawaii
    Minnesota
    Connecticut
    California
    Massachusetts
    New York
    Vermont
    New Jersey
    Utah

    States with highest taxes
    Connecticut
    New Jersey
    Connecticut
    New York
    Massachusetts
    California
    Minnesota
    Illinois
    Maryland
    Washington

    States with lowest life expectancy
    Mississippi
    West Virginia
    Alabama
    Louisiana
    Oklahoma
    Arkansas
    Kentucky
    Tennessee
    South Carolina
    Georgia

    States with lowest taxes
    Louisiana
    Mississippi
    Alabama
    Tennessee
    South Carolina
    Kentucky
    South Carolina
    West Virginia
    New Mexico
    South Dakota

    • tiredoflibbs April 8, 2014 / 9:40 pm

      Yes, as usual, you post something irrelevant to the topic.

    • tiredoflibbs April 8, 2014 / 9:46 pm

      Plus, you forget the other died down talking point. Those states get more in federal dollars than they pay.

      Your “comparison” was brought up before by you from another source and we poked holes in it then.

      You’re miry as well as your analytical skills are dismal.

      • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 8:02 pm

        Amazona April 9, 2014 at 2:40 am

        casper “did” this comparison?

        Really?

        I don’t think so,”

        I did. I used Tired’s link and Wikipedia.

        “Amazona: “Is he really trying to say that the more you pay in taxes, the longer you will live? Really?””

        I’m just pointing out that there might be a correlation between the two. It would be interesting to do a comparison of countries using the same criteria.

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2014 / 8:10 pm

        “I’m just pointing out that there might be a correlation between the two.”

        Just like there is a correlation between increased ice cream sales and drownings. Your analytical skills are abysmal.
        Stop posting irrelevant crap, unrelated to the topic.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 8:12 pm

        No, you didn’t DO the comparison, you just copied and pasted someone else’s work. Which is exactly what I expect of you.

        And BTW, what you find “interesting” is usually just mind lint.

      • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 8:23 pm

        “No, you didn’t DO the comparison, you just copied and pasted someone else’s work. Which is exactly what I expect of you.”

        I took information from two different sources and compared them. Neither source listed the information the way I did.

        “And BTW, what you find “interesting” is usually just mind lint.”

        I find you interesting.

    • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 2:40 am

      casper “did” this comparison?

      Really?

      I don’t think so,

      No, one of his Lefty rags printed this supposedly significant comparison, and he slurped it up along with everything else in the trough.

      Is he really trying to say that the more you pay in taxes, the longer you will live? Really? Oh, he may well believe this, along with so much other crap he believes that is simply not so, but every now and then I am a little embarrassed for casper when he blurts out something so clearly lacking in analysis.

      • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 8:24 am

        Or it could be in support of states rights to administer their own level of government assisted health care – but we all know that would be a stretch.

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2014 / 12:38 pm

        Amazona: “Is he really trying to say that the more you pay in taxes, the longer you will live? Really?”

        Yes it is confirmed.

        cappy: “If people who are taxed more live longer, what does that mean? Government works.”

        He posted this at ANOTHER blog. After the 2nd blog disallowed their disgusting attacks on this blog, conservatives and conservative politicians.

  2. 02casper April 8, 2014 / 11:17 pm

    Point is Tired, a lower tax rate doesn’t mean a better place to live. I would much rather live in New York than Mississippi. But then that’s just me.

    • M. Noonan April 9, 2014 / 1:01 am

      Mississippi median home price – 123,900; median New York home price – 512,900. Normal people can live in the former, only the rich can live well in the latter. I’d rather live in Mississippi than New York, any day.

      • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 8:09 pm

        “Mississippi median home price – 123,900; median New York home price – 512,900. Normal people can live in the former, only the rich can live well in the latter. I’d rather live in Mississippi than New York, any day.”

        I didn’t say I wanted to buy a house there. I could rent an apartment in NYC for less than my current house payment.

        “Casper, you can’t afford to live in New York.”

        I could. New York has great public transportation. I wouldn’t need a car. And other than the higher end restaurants, food prices really aren’t that much higher than what I spend now.

      • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 8:16 pm

        Have you considered the cost of housing?

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 8:36 pm

        Yes, you could get a studio apartment in Harlem for about $1700 a month. That is, no separate bedroom, and probably not really a kitchen, either. My cousin used to rent an apartment, about ten years ago, in Manhattan for $2500 a month—-that was a single room with a bed on one wall and a small couch on another, and the kind of kitchen she said you would find in an older RV.

        We are supposed to be impressed that you could rent “AN APARTMENT”. What kind of apartment? Could you maintain anything close to your current standard of living on the same amount of money? I notice that you are not factoring in the outrageous taxes you would have to pay in NYC.

        No, I’m going to change that from “probably” to “maybe” and you would be sacrificing several rooms. New York has “great” public transportation, which is not free by the way, and which has serious limitations, such as which hours of service are safe and in what neighborhoods. After the convenience of pulling into your garage and carrying armloads of groceries right into your kitchen I have to wonder how long you’d be happy with hauling those bags up a few flights of stairs.

        The devil is always in the details, and details are what derail Libs,

      • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 9:18 pm

        Amazona April 9, 2014 at 8:36 pm

        “Yes, you could get a studio apartment in Harlem for about $1700 a month”

        There are a lot of other options. And yes I know that public transportation costs money. I spent a week there last summer and loved it. The transportation casts are less than i spend currently.

    • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 2:34 am

      But in New York casper would be surrounded by like-minded people, not isolated by his ignorance as he is in Wyoming.

    • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 8:30 am

      Casper, you can’t afford to live in New York.

  3. bardolf2 April 9, 2014 / 1:16 am

    Job producers only need so big a house, so much clothing and so fancy a meal no matter what they earn. The percent of taxes is a percent of income so OF course the people who pay most of the taxes as a whole spend more on taxes than the rest of food/clothing/shelter.

    I know I spend more on taxes than the rest of the material things, but I think it provides a safety net for other deprived peoples.

    • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 2:32 am

      If your choice is to “provide a safety net for other deprived peoples” by allowing a Central Authority to confiscate your money for redistribution to those chosen by that Authority, with much if not most of it sticking to the many fingers through which it passes on its way to those “other deprived peoples” then you must be a happy man.

      If you are comfortable in your belief that this money is distributed on the basis of true need, and not cronyism, corruption or vote buying, then your complacence about our tax system is understandable.

      If you believe our nation doesn’t need to be governed by its own own Constitution, or have found in that Constitution the delegated duty of charity toward “other deprived peoples” then your acceptance of the federal government in the role of benefactor with OPM is explained.

      If you are comfortable with the establishment, development and promotion of a Dependent Class of “peoples” able to work,but who have chosen not to, preferring to be paid handsomely to suck up the earnings of the Productive Class, then you are in the right place at the right time.

      • bardolf2 April 10, 2014 / 1:10 am

        I’m pretty comfortable with the way taxes are spent, though the military should be trimmed along with ag subsidies. I think that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security in general are good things.

        I don’t believe the whole ginormous Dependent Class of people shtick unless you are talking about the education industry, energy industry, finance industry, real estate industry, …

        The ‘productive class’ is doing the least of interesting investing nowadays exactly because they are interested in having large amounts of money and not doing things with that large amount of money. Facebook buys some company for a billion dollars simply to make itself look important for investors, not because it thinks the company will do anything revolutionary.

      • Cluster April 10, 2014 / 8:22 am

        I don’t disagree that the military could be “trimmed”, but do you support the pre WWII levels that the administration is advocating especially in light of what a mess the world is in, and how aggressive some of our counter parts are?

        Also, the trillions of dollars that corporations are holding off shore, do you think that is done purely out of greed, spite and malice towards the American worker? Or do you think that there might be some legitimate tax and economic concerns?

      • M. Noonan April 10, 2014 / 12:52 pm

        I’m actually getting around to the need for a major military build up – the world is arming like it hasn’t since the late 1930’s and the war clouds are growing. The army is ok as I don’t like a large, standing army anyways…but we’re down to ten carriers and I’d rather we had fifteen.

      • 02casper April 10, 2014 / 7:49 pm

        Cluster April 10, 2014 at 8:22 am

        “I don’t disagree that the military could be “trimmed”, but do you support the pre WWII levels that the administration is advocating especially in light of what a mess the world is in, and how aggressive some of our counter parts are?”

        Except, no one is advocating pre WW II levels, unless you you think today’s aircraft carriers aren’t mush better than those in the 1930s. I would bet that only one of today’s carriers could defeat all the navies in the world in 1939.

        “Also, the trillions of dollars that corporations are holding off shore, do you think that is done purely out of greed, spite and malice towards the American worker? Or do you think that there might be some legitimate tax and economic concerns?”

        I think it’s because they are just greedy bastards. They don’t care one way or another about the American worker.

      • M. Noonan April 11, 2014 / 1:18 am

        Of course they don’t – but that is not the reason they keep the money offshore. They keep it there because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stock holders and to bring that money back involves a massive charge. Eliminate the tax on repatriated profits and a very large of that money will come back into the United States.

        As for our carriers being better – indeed, they are; but so are the enemy’s weapons. We need enough carriers to keep absolute command of the seas at all times – and that means at least four in the Pacific, two in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, two in the Mediterranean, two in the Atlantic…that is ten, right there…but we have to have some refitting at all times (probably two) and then a few extra to reinforce the most threatened areas and to account for possible battle losses.

    • GMB April 9, 2014 / 2:59 am

      “Job producers only need….”

      Who is fit to decide what I need?

      You?

      Faceless kleptocrats in some dank D.C. basement.

      My local Council of Soviets?

      “How does “Thou shall not steal” sound to you, or is it not theft if done by government action?

      • bardolf2 April 10, 2014 / 1:15 am

        The job producers themselves have decided the percent of income they spend on housing/food/clothing. It’d be better if they spent more on those things because that money would flow into the economy. But they have decided they only want to spend so much on a steak, so much on a shirt, so much on a roof over their heads etc.

        But then when they have limited their disposable spending to x amount no matter their income y, while taxes are 25% of y then eventually one gets to the obvious fact that more money is spent on taxes than on stuff.

        Should you be the one telling them to spend more? On the other hand should the richest have a lower percentage rate of taxes than you or I?

      • GMB April 10, 2014 / 6:18 am

        “The job producers themselves have decided the percent of income they spend….”

        And where is the problem with that? Is envy playing a part in this? Are you envious of those who produce more than you do? Are you thinking “it’s just not fair because you are hungry around a thousand tables full of food, that you are homeless around a thousand houses?

        Did you forget Number Six?

      • Amazona April 10, 2014 / 8:56 am

        “The job producers themselves have decided the percent of income they spend on housing/food/clothing.”

        What an odd perception of the free market and its setting of prices dependent on supply and demand. In a twisted sort of way, he is almost right. After all, if more of the “job producers” were to rise up in revolution and demand that their steaks now cost $20.00 a pound, well….

        Well, this would price much of the Productive Class out of the steak market, because the Productive Class is not the Very Rich, much as dolf’s little mental scenario sees them as being quite able to spend more money but just being jerks and refusing to do so.

        ” It’d be better if they spent more on those things…”

        Be careful of what you wish for. The drought and fires in Texas and Oklahoma, the drought in California and the dedication to the illusion of protecting various species, are all contributing to what some fear will be a massive shortfall in meat and produce this year. How high do prices have to go and how many have to be priced out of the market before you decided these “job producers” are paying enough?

      • Amazona April 10, 2014 / 9:03 am

        ” On the other hand should the richest have a lower percentage rate of taxes than you or I?”

        And here we have the stale old Straw Man tactic of the Left—-and no, to head off your shrill squeals of outrage at being considered on the Left, you come here with your complaints about people having too much freedom to decide what to do with their own money, and ideas of what some vague unspecified entity ought to be able to do about that, ideas which certainly put you left of center.

        No, no one ever said that “…the richest (should) have a lower percentage rate of taxes than you or I…” And you know it. Show me where this has been proposed.

        What a doof…………………..

    • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 8:28 am

      Job producers only need so big a house, so much clothing and so fancy a meal no matter what they earn.

      And who determines that? I think Obama would actually like to apply for that job considering he did say that we just can’t drive SUV’s and keep our homes at 72 degrees and expect the rest of the world to be ok with that.

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2014 / 8:59 am

        “Need” is nothing more than a communist buzz word, but, then, as someone recently said, Progressives are nothing more than patient Communists. The really sad thing is the percentage of Americans who, thanks to the subversion of our educational system, believe that ours is a society based on need.

        Good citizens do things: they speak out, they vote, they volunteer, they organize. But to do those things well, citizens need to know things. Civic action requires civic knowledge.

        This might seem so elemental as to need no defense. After all, an ignorant citizenry is easily manipulated by propaganda and the seductions of flattering and over-promising politicians. (LIV anyone?) Only when citizens are knowledgeable are they empowered to resist the self-serving machinations of ambitious elites and act in their own interests. Only a knowledgeable citizenry can preserve its freedom.

        This is why the persistent evidence of citizen ignorance is so hair-raising. Surveys show that almost half of Americans, for instance, think the phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” appears in the United States Constitution. (It is from The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels). Speaking of Communists, almost half of Americans believe that Communist Party members cannot run for president. Three-quarters of the population think the Constitution guarantees a high school education.

      • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 9:12 am

        What is really sad is that by advocating a “need based” society because of some misguided compassion, they are actually advocating for a society of Kings and serfs. The middle class will disappear.

      • Retired Spook April 9, 2014 / 9:16 am

        And, unfortunately, Progressives and products of our progressive education systems don’t have a monopoly on constitutional ignorance.

        During his speech last year before the Conservative Political Action Conference, talk show host Rush Limbaugh said, “We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.”

        Again, that’s the Declaration of Independence.

        Although, I would submit that getting the right phrase but the wrong document isn’t quite the same as attributing one of the most famous communist phrases to our most prominent founding document. But that’s just me. Limbaugh caught a great deal of grief for that gaff, but nary a peep from the Left when Michigan Congressman, John Conyers, referred to the “good and welfare clause” of the Constitution.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) April 9, 2014 / 11:51 am

        And who determines that?

        Ah, that is the 64 trillion dollar question. In a free society, it’s the individual. In a not-so-free society it’s the government.

      • bardolf2 April 10, 2014 / 1:16 am

        They determine that for themselves and have. But then you can’t say look they spend more on taxes because they’ve been frugal in the other areas.

      • tiredoflibbs April 10, 2014 / 5:29 am

        Plus he said “there is a point where you made enough money”.

        He would like that job to determine what the proletariat could have while reserving the best for the party.

  4. Retired Spook April 9, 2014 / 9:27 am

    Different sources cite different statistics, but the ignorance of Americans, particularly young Americans, is frightening.

    Can the young people you know tell the difference between James Madison and Karl Marx? Sadly, a new national poll reveals that 42 percent of Americans wrongly attribute Marx’s famous communist slogan, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” to one of the country’s Founding documents. Nearly one in five Americans believe this phrase can be found in the Bill of Rights, of all places. You can take some solace in knowing that among young adults, only six percent made this mistake, though 30 percent of them believe Marx’s statement can be found in either the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution.

    The national survey, conducted by Harris Interactive* on behalf of the Bill of Rights Institute, also reveals that 60 percent of Americans can’t identify the principle that our government’s powers are derived from the people as an attribute that makes America unique.

    The First Amendment fares particularly poorly; 55 percent of Americans don’t recognize that education is not a First Amendment right, while nearly 1 in 5 mistakenly excludes from the First Amendment one of the five rights it actually does guarantee.

    And, perhaps, one of the frightening statistics of all:

    The lonely Tenth Amendment, meanwhile, is recognized by only 20 percent of Americans as the amendment that reserves powers to the states and the people.

    Is it any wonder we’re in the shape we’re in?

    • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 8:37 pm

      Spook.
      “This is how the question appeared:

      To the best of your knowledge, in which of the following documents can the following principle be found? Please select all that apply.“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need“

      Six options were given:

      The Bill of Rights
      The Federalist Papers
      The Declaration of Independence
      The Constitution
      None of these
      Not sure”

      I would guess that the vast majority of students had never read Marx. That meant they were guessing. It’s not surprising most of them got it wrong.

      • Amazona April 9, 2014 / 8:46 pm

        Anyone with even a marginal education in what we used to call “civics” would have been able to immediately eliminate the first four, and anyone with even a marginal education in history would have been at least a little familiar with the most famous Karl Marx quote in the world, narrowing your “guess” to only the two last answers.

        By “marginal” I mean through, say, 6th grade.

        But hey, give them all an “A”. They tried, and we don’t want to bruise their self esteem.

      • Cluster April 9, 2014 / 8:51 pm

        But if the students were properly instructed on that list of founding documents, they would know the answer.

      • tiredoflibbs April 9, 2014 / 8:53 pm

        Ama and cluster, cappy has never been one to connect the dots or look at the big picture very well.

      • 02casper April 9, 2014 / 10:38 pm

        Amazona April 9, 2014 at 8:46 pm

        “Anyone with even a marginal education in what we used to call “civics” would have been able to immediately eliminate the first four, and anyone with even a marginal education in history would have been at least a little familiar with the most famous Karl Marx quote in the world, narrowing your “guess” to only the two last answers.

        By “marginal” I mean through, say, 6th grade.”

        Are you saying that sixth graders should be learning about Marx? I haven’t ever seen that in a textbook. Sorry, but we don’t teach 11 year olds everything you think we should.
        Which shows how little you know about kids and education.

        “But hey, give them all an “A”. They tried, and we don’t want to bruise their self esteem.”

        I don’t give my kids “A”s. They have to earn them. Some of them also earn “F”s.

      • Amazona April 10, 2014 / 12:02 am

        I’m not saying 11-year-olds should be expected to “study Karl Marx”. But they should start learning some basics and get an overview of world affairs. Kids throughout history have been quite capable of taking on studies in Latin and Greek, history and literature.

        “Through 6th grade” is only two years out of high school, plenty old enough to be reading Animal Farm (which I know we studied before high school) and getting a foundation upon which to build a more in-depth understanding of things they need to know later on. At this age they ought to know about the two world wars and have a basic understanding of the political forces behind them. And they for sure ought to know who is the president of their own country, and have a grasp of why the country even exists.

        Of course, this is probably not on YOUR agenda, being so busy with lip syncing to videos and all. Being a buddy.

        “Which shows how little you know about kids and education. ” Oh me oh my you are quite the catty little thing, aren’t you? I know enough about education to know that kids these days are not learning how to spell, how to punctuate, how to speak, etc. They read so little that they don’t even realize that there ARE homonyms, so the very idea that “discrete” and “discreet” are two very different words is completely beyond them. And this is due to “teachers” like you. I know “kids” are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for being. Read a little about what children like Thomas Jefferson were studying when they were 11 and 12. Find out what British children were being taught, a hundred years ago. Dumb down an educational system so its graduates are as ignorant as you are, have these people be the teachers of the next generation, and it really doesn’t take long to produce 11- and 12-year-olds who can’t understand a thing about Marx—–though they can probably rattle off the entire plot of Game Of Thrones, hack a computer program, and recite favorite movies verbatim.

        A whole week in NYC Wow. I guess that makes you as quite the expert on living in the Big Apple. You know, you really ought to move there. It is not often you can do something that would improve a whole state. (And I am not talking about improving New York.)

      • 02casper April 10, 2014 / 7:18 pm

        “I’m not saying 11-year-olds should be expected to “study Karl Marx”. But they should start learning some basics and get an overview of world affairs. Kids throughout history have been quite capable of taking on studies in Latin and Greek, history and literature.”

        Well, you got me there. Our kids don’t study Latin and Greek, although they do learn Spanish or French. They also study both history and literature.

        “Through 6th grade” is only two years out of high school, plenty old enough to be reading Animal Farm (which I know we studied before high school) and getting a foundation upon which to build a more in-depth understanding of things they need to know later on. At this age they ought to know about the two world wars and have a basic understanding of the political forces behind them. And they for sure ought to know who is the president of their own country, and have a grasp of why the country even exists.”

        Students do get a foundation upon which to to build a more in-depth understanding of things they need to know later on. They learn American History in grade 5, Geography of the Western Hemisphere in grade 6, Geography of the Eastern Hemisphere in grade 7 (where they compare cultures, religions, and political systems), and American History again in grade 8 (with about a quarter of the time taken up in studying the constitution.

        “Of course, this is probably not on YOUR agenda, being so busy with lip syncing to videos and all. Being a buddy.”

        All videos are done out side of the school day.

        “I know enough about education to know that kids these days are not learning how to spell, how to punctuate, how to speak, etc. They read so little that they don’t even realize that there ARE homonyms, so the very idea that “discrete” and “discreet” are two very different words is completely beyond them.”

        And I happen to know a number of kids who can do all of those things. I also know that there wer students in my classes growing up that couldn’t do them.

        And this is due to “teachers” like you. I know “kids” are a lot smarter than you seem to give them credit for being.

        I know kids are smart. I work with them everyday and I continue to find them amazing. i also don’t expect 11 year olds to have read Marx.

        “Read a little about what children like Thomas Jefferson were studying when they were 11 and 12.”
        Jefferson was a genius and had private tutors. I have students that learning amazing things in my classrooms, just not all of them. But then, how many Jeffersons were there250 years ago.

        “Find out what British children were being taught, a hundred years ago.”

        How does that relate to today’s society?

        “Dumb down an educational system so its graduates are as ignorant as you are, have these people be the teachers of the next generation, and it really doesn’t take long to produce 11- and 12-year-olds who can’t understand a thing about Marx—–though they can probably rattle off the entire plot of Game Of Thrones, hack a computer program, and recite favorite movies verbatim.”

        My students do some amazing things and know far more than you think.

        “A whole week in NYC Wow. I guess that makes you as quite the expert on living in the Big Apple.”

        Actually, my original statement was that I would prefer NY over Mississippi. While I would love to spend more time there, I’ll probably stay here.

        “It is not often you can do something that would improve a whole state. (And I am not talking about improving New York.)”

        The state actually improved a great deal a few years ago when you left.

      • M. Noonan April 11, 2014 / 1:20 am

        I doubt the kids “study” either literature or history – I base this upon the fact that most young people I encounter these days know nothing of either. I’d bet that out of 100 high school seniors I couldn’t find 10 who could so much as accurately date the Civil War, let alone know such crucial things to understanding our world as the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, etc.

      • Amazona April 10, 2014 / 11:31 pm

        “My students do some amazing things and know far more than you think.”

        Oh, I’m sure they do. Just imagine what they could do with a real teacher.

        “The state actually improved a great deal a few years ago when you left.”

        Ooooh…burn!

        Well, not so much. Not even a scorch mark. Your feeble efforts at scathing comebacks are always this kind of soggy, flaccid snottiness, devoid of punch. As usual, you never have an original thought, but only wait till someone else does and then either snarl at it or try to piggyback on it.

        And in this case, to try to turn my comment back on me you have to reinforce your image as a catty bitchy kinda-guy, chins quivering as you desperately flail around in impotent rage—–or as close to rage as a squishy lump can get—–coming up with nothing better than a version of “Oh, yeah! Well, uh, you too….” before waddling off in search of a saucer of milk.

        BTW, I never left the state. I share a house there, spend time there, and maintain it as a residence. Of course, this is by choice, not because of the kind of self-awareness that makes you realize you simply could not make it anywhere else.

      • Amazona April 10, 2014 / 11:54 pm

        “Jefferson was a genius and had private tutors.”

        Ah, so Jefferson was a GENIUS!! And he had PRIVATE TUTORS!! So THAT explains why he could learn Greek at an early age. And here I thought it was because someone taught him, with confidence that he could learn.

        ‘…how many Jeffersons were there250 years ago.”

        As one who actually studied early American history, I can assure you that there was only one Thomas Jefferson. Actually, even without studying early American history I could tell you that.

        Duh.

        However, reading the words of the Founders, it is easy to tell that each and every one of them had a foundation of classic education that puts our modern people to shame. It’s not because they were inherently more intelligent—–it’s because they were expected to learn, and they were taught. Oh, and because their teachers were educated, too, and able to pass on their knowledge.

        “Find out what British children were being taught, a hundred years ago.”

        How does that relate to today’s society?

        And this reminds me of why I am sometimes embarrassed FOR you, as you so evidently lack the ability to feel shame for yourself. If you could, you could not post such inane drivel.

        But please do tell us how and why studying the Greek classical writers—–IN GREEK—–250 years ago was more relevant to society then that it would be, as you put it, “to today’s society”. I guess to an intellectual lightweight such as yourself, nothing is of value unless it “relates to today’s society”—which would, I guess, find the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills an acceptable substitute for Aristotle or Cicero.

        (And yes, wipe that smug simper off your chins—-I do know Cicero was not Greek. I also know that in the era you so snidely dismiss, many children were expected to read Cicero in Latin.) I also know that this was an expectation a couple of centuries past the era you mention. I once knew a man who attended British schools in the 1950s who spoke and read Greek, as well as French and Italian, and thought nothing of it till he came to the United States and discovered the abysmal state of education here.

        If you were to express your outrage at the idea of 11-year-olds starting to learn about Karl Marx he probably would have told you he had started reading Marx, in Russian, by the age of 11.

        Today’s children could learn as much and as well as those of, as you snarl, “250 years ago”—-if they had teachers to teach them. Your poor students are stuck with a “teacher” who can’t even process a simple written statement, and who passionately supports a political movement not by understanding, explaining and defending it but merely by tossing out vapid snot-nuggets at an opposition he also does not understand, simply because they are the opposition.

  5. tiredoflibbs April 9, 2014 / 8:47 pm

    “That meant they were guessing. It’s not surprising most of them got it wrong.”

    They still got it wrong. They were ignorant of the answer. If the educational system in this country spent time on our country’s founding documents as they did with the social and self esteem crap, then they would not be able to choose one of those famous documents as the answer. The educational system in this country is as abysmal as your analytical skills.

Comments are closed.