People seem to think Romney won the debate. Not decisive by any means, but certainly a step in the right direction for him. I don’t believe a Mormon can win the presidency though.
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Why is public education an oxymoron? Just because the U.S. system doesn’t work doesn’t mean public education doesn’t work. I also don’t see why we need to teach religion in school to teach civic duty, responsibility or morality. Perhaps teaching critical thinking and logic would be more helpful.
I also wonder why it is that criticizing a BAD Republican President like President G.W. Bush made you a traitor while threatening and making racist comments about President Obama is totally acceptable. Why is that? Surely the line “Respect for the office if not the man…” applies as much to President Obama as it ever did for President Bush.
I don’t consider myself a liberal/progressive, I consider myself an Independent, and before someone here says “You aren’t an American so you don’t count.” I will assure you I am American, born and raised. If the GOP wants my vote they have to run a serious candidate. So far the choices are underwhelming. Palin? No. Bachman? No. I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot but at least he’s a serious guy with some education, even if he can’t get the age of the earth right. Perry? The “Pray for rain” candidate? The guy who is cutting education spending and has a massive deficit but is spending tax money on Formula-1 racing? That’s not a serious candidate, or at least shouldn’t be.[/quote]
Perhaps I should have said that AMERICAN public education is an oxymoron. The jobs are low-paying, but unionized government jobs. This attracts lots of caring people, to be sure, but the brightest and best would rather go be a petroleum engineer (starts around $80,000) or similar.
It takes 15 or 20 years in a high paying district to get $80,000 per year.
Anyway…only the economy can beat Obama. The voters still somehow think that government can solve their problems and Obama will make speeches about how he could REALLY fix everything if he gets 4 more years, and so on.
Plus they want their food stamps, extended unemployment $$$, and SS checks.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
People seem to think Romney won the debate. Not decisive by any means, but certainly a step in the right direction for him. I don’t believe a Mormon can win the presidency though.[/quote]
You are right, smh.
And guess what?
Huntsman has now declared that he’s in.
Mufasa
Not every state allows unionization for teachers. How much, if teachers unionize goes by a state to state basis.
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here.
In fact, in Texas, teachers have longer hours, more students per class, more classes, increased workload, and Perry and the Texas congress are trying to lower the already low salaries in addition to that. The teachers can’t do anything about it because they’re not allowed to unionize whatsoever.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
Where do you get this stuff?? Do you mean a starting Prof. salary?? Public school teachers start at around 35K.
You did the same thing saying bus drivers make 150K a year, I asked for proof and you provided none. The only state that had those high salaries were Wisconsin.
Cali has a ridiculously high cost of living.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
Where do you get this stuff?? Do you mean a starting Prof. salary?? Public school teachers start at around 35K.
You did the same thing saying bus drivers make 150K a year, I asked for proof and you provided none. The only state that had those high salaries were Wisconsin.[/quote]
My teacher number was off, the salary I posted was the average teacher salary (with pension and health care package), not the starting teacher salary. My mistake.
Scroll down and see the average teacher pay according to school district, you might pass out.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
Where do you get this stuff?? Do you mean a starting Prof. salary?? Public school teachers start at around 35K.
You did the same thing saying bus drivers make 150K a year, I asked for proof and you provided none. The only state that had those high salaries were Wisconsin.[/quote]
My teacher number was off, the salary I posted was the average teacher salary (with pension and health care package), not the starting teacher salary. My mistake.
Scroll down and see the average teacher pay according to school district, you might pass out.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html[/quote]
Does not seem high. Not only are those not starting salaries but, they are salaries of teachers who have workes more than/close to 15 years.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
Where do you get this stuff?? Do you mean a starting Prof. salary?? Public school teachers start at around 35K.
You did the same thing saying bus drivers make 150K a year, I asked for proof and you provided none. The only state that had those high salaries were Wisconsin.[/quote]
My teacher number was off, the salary I posted was the average teacher salary (with pension and health care package), not the starting teacher salary. My mistake.
Scroll down and see the average teacher pay according to school district, you might pass out.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html[/quote]
Does not seem high. Not only are those not starting salaries but, they are salaries of teachers who have workes more than/close to 15 years.[/quote]
Show me a profession where your pay is doubled within a 15 yr period.
Not to mention the horrible student performance we see, those teachers have not earned those salaries. Without union protection they would be fired.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
$74k is a lot, esp if you were away from the super-expensive places.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
In fact, in Texas, teachers have longer hours, more students per class, more classes, increased workload, and Perry and the Texas congress are trying to lower the already low salaries in addition to that. The teachers can’t do anything about it because they’re not allowed to unionize whatsoever.
[/quote]
They are shooting themselves in the foot, for sure. They should simply privatize and let the market decide salaries. All that shafting the teachers does is drive away even more good people.
Back to the original question.
Nobody seems to bring up the Mid-Terms.
Isn’t the beating that the Dems and the President took “evidence” that he can be beat?
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
HH,
Starting salary for a Cali teacher is $74k/ year, not what I could consider “low paying”. And I am talking about a non-tenured teacher, with tenure taking only 2 years to accomplish. The violin music doesn’t play so loud over here. [/quote]
Where do you get this stuff?? Do you mean a starting Prof. salary?? Public school teachers start at around 35K.
You did the same thing saying bus drivers make 150K a year, I asked for proof and you provided none. The only state that had those high salaries were Wisconsin.[/quote]
My teacher number was off, the salary I posted was the average teacher salary (with pension and health care package), not the starting teacher salary. My mistake.
Scroll down and see the average teacher pay according to school district, you might pass out.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html[/quote]
Does not seem high. Not only are those not starting salaries but, they are salaries of teachers who have workes more than/close to 15 years.[/quote]
Show me a profession where your pay is doubled within a 15 yr period.
Not to mention the horrible student performance we see, those teachers have not earned those salaries. Without union protection they would be fired. [/quote]
Check out the numbers for my profession ATC and I only needed a two year degree. I have known/heard of people who have gone from D1 to CPC in 2.5 years.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back to the original question.
Nobody seems to bring up the Mid-Terms.
Isn’t the beating that the Dems and the President took “evidence” that he can be beat?
Mufasa[/quote]Anybody conceivably CAN be beaten. The question is, is he LIKELY to be beaten. On one level it depends on who the GOP nominates AND if they run another boring flavorless campaign which goes a long way back to who they run. It’s the republican’s to lose from that standpoint. On the other hand the dems are much better at utilizing modern technology and techniques during a campaign which was huge in getting bam bam into office. Honestly I think turnout favors Obama so on that hand I hope fewer people vote. On yet a further hand I don’t really hope fewer people vote overall, I just want certain people not to vote. On yet one more hand the GOP pummeled Clinton in 92. PUMMELED!!! And smiley boy got himself reelected. On the very last hand, more than any other election cycle since I’ve been paying attention I just don’t know. Or would that be less than any other… you get the idea.
This guy is now largely a loud public disaster, but this nation seems hell bent on destroying itself so yet another round of empty headed voting wouldn’t be surprising.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]TheTick42 wrote:
Why is public education an oxymoron? Just because the U.S. system doesn’t work doesn’t mean public education doesn’t work. I also don’t see why we need to teach religion in school to teach civic duty, responsibility or morality. Perhaps teaching critical thinking and logic would be more helpful.
I also wonder why it is that criticizing a BAD Republican President like President G.W. Bush made you a traitor while threatening and making racist comments about President Obama is totally acceptable. Why is that? Surely the line “Respect for the office if not the man…” applies as much to President Obama as it ever did for President Bush.
I don’t consider myself a liberal/progressive, I consider myself an Independent, and before someone here says “You aren’t an American so you don’t count.” I will assure you I am American, born and raised. If the GOP wants my vote they have to run a serious candidate. So far the choices are underwhelming. Palin? No. Bachman? No. I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot but at least he’s a serious guy with some education, even if he can’t get the age of the earth right. Perry? The “Pray for rain” candidate? The guy who is cutting education spending and has a massive deficit but is spending tax money on Formula-1 racing? That’s not a serious candidate, or at least shouldn’t be.[/quote]
Unions have destroyed the public school system, because you simply cannot fire a teacher. With that in mind, teachers have no reason to work hard because there is no risk of recourse. So they got lazy, and kids today feel more entitled than ever before.
Who threatened the president and who accepted it? Should we not hold Obama to the same scrutiny as Bush? Is that not pulling the race card ? Political affirmative action ? Were ethnic groups racist against white people who hated Bush, or could it be that they hated his policies?
If you want to talk about respect for the office of the President, that was lost when people were calling for Bush’s head. But you see, the hate-whitey train MUST keep rolling on.
Perry with Rubio is the only ticket I see challenging O’Bummer. [/quote]
How is suggesting that racist cartoons are inappropriate saying “Presidential affirmative action”? Did we forget about Marilyn Davenport? How about the video at the top of the thread? While I don’t think this guy would actually take a swing at President Obama the point was disrespect for the office. It’s great to say President Obama is wrong. It’s another to suggest beating the President. Or shooting him? Like suggested by Ted Nugent. So a bunch of stupid liberal loud mouths wanted to “kill” President Bush…so what? They were wrong. That’s an excuse for Republicans to do the same? Ok…a good excuse?
I agree with you about the teachers union. It’s great to demand fair pay, which they don’t really get, it’s another to protect horrible teachers who need to be fired. Unions shouldn’t protect drunks, drug addicts, child molesters etc… Moderation seems to be the key. Also I don’t see why liberals get bent out of shape about testing kids. Canada has provincial exams. Most European countries have stricter standards as to who can pass to the next grade. Why can’t we. [/quote]
Racist cartoons? You mean like this ?..
Bush had a shoe thrown at him, which could have very easily been a grenade.
The Unions have become an abomination, they used to stand for something good, but now they are mafia-like. [/quote]
It really depends on the state in question. There’s problems with too little unionization and problems with too much in different parts of the US.
[/quote]
Can you provide an example of a problem caused by too little unionization?
Also, because I think it was you that said otherwise, teachers in Texas can indeed join unions. Many do. However, teachers are not required to be members of a union in order to teach in Texas.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back to the original question.
Nobody seems to bring up the Mid-Terms.
Isn’t the beating that the Dems and the President took “evidence” that he can be beat?
[/quote]
Absolutely. Obama’s current low approval rating, the sluggish recovery, and a number of Obama’s economic decisions, public posturings and duplicitious trade positions have alienated a broad swath of americans.
On the other hand, he’s probably the most charismatic president since Reagan. His 2008 campaign convinced a majority of voters that merely RUNNING A CAMPAIGN counts as a supreme executive position. And he’s going to have the biggest war chest ever seen on a national campaign. Filled through shady dealings, sure, but filled nonetheless.
I, for one, am looking forward to the horse race.
When was the last time we had a president who didn’t have any shady dealings?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
When was the last time we had a president who didn’t have any shady dealings?[/quote]
Be careful, Fletch.
This is “PWI”; Reagan is almost Diety here…
Mufasa