Election q: what's important to you?

With this election year upon us, I was curious as to what folks thought was important this year when voting for a President or Congress, what issues, platforms, etc. Usually, it seems, to have to pick one main thing because unless you are lucky (or extreme right or left) no candidate or party is going to answer all your questions the way you want...

The War in Iraq? Whether or not the American people where "mis-led"? The economy? Abortion? Gun control? Crime? Taxes? Education? or do you vote party lines? Others?

At this moment, education is the one I'm looking the hardest at: Bush's "Leave no Kid Behind" laws/plans have failed and really have done little to make any real improvement that I can see, they may have made it worse: anyone see that differently? Still not sure what the Dems are going to do any different... To late to vote in regards to the war, and I doubt we'll know without a doubt for years if we were truly and intentionally mis-led about the reasons, plus being an election year, I'd have a tough time believing anything that "suddenly" came out from either front. We all know that the Prez has little to do with the economy, sure his policies may help "influence" it, but it is mainly cyclic, abortion isn't going to change in the near future, IMO, and gun control of most any form is a joke, again IMO.... Crime is obviously an important issue...

 

education starts at home. school is not a daycare.

president bush did not fail the children. parents failed the children.


i just want a president who can play the saxophone, and appeal to the young minds in america who have not a clue about life. oh, and one who can lie constantly. oh, who doesn't know what the meaning of is is.

oops, too late..... had one of those already.


GWB will win the election.

 

Brad, you are only so bold on the BBS b/c it is impossible to eat your words if they exist only in the form of electrons.

Right now, I'd give the edge to Kerry, in another squeaker, especially given that the latest smear (re intern affair per the Drudge/Sludge Report) has be proven to be a lie.

Perhaps we could have a wager. . . who wants to hold the book on this one???

 

"The world needs ditch-diggers too!!! "

Ted Knight- Caddyshack

 

Oh, on topic again: the iraq fiasco, failure to more agressively hunt Osama and kill Al Qeada; jobs, education, not necessarily in that order.

 

Rodger, how do you reconcile the earlier reports that Polier's father stated "I think he’s a sleazeball. I did wonder if she didn’t get that feeling herself,” about Kerry, and "He’s not the sort of guy I’d choose to be with my daughter. John Kerry called my daughter and invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it.” with the obvious turnaround that "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."?

Kinda odd, isn't it? Maybe the Polier's got a lot of ketchup and pickles.

 

TAX CUTS!!!!!

 

Ketchup and pickles?

Maybe his daughter talked to him. Maybe he was paid off. Maybe he was releived to hear that his daughter wasn't a Lewinsky. Maybe, just maybe, he was misquoted?

Does it matter now? Kerry's gonna win unless he gets caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.

 

What does this have to do with the general election, this smear was from his fellow democrats, not Bush or the republicans.

 

B/c either way it would hurt him in the general election against Bush.

Karson, i have no idea where this thing originated. What linkies you got?

 

You are 100% correct that education starts at home. You are also correct that school is not a daycare, but it doesn't help your point. Schools are supposed to teach, daycares aren't.

One of the platforms President Bush ran on was education reform (or improvement, whatever...). Terrorism was not on his ticket(9/11 hadn't happen yet), mainly just education and taxes. So he gets in the office, gets this "Leave no kid behind" crap through congress that does nothing to make any real improvements. Since I am paying School Income Tax and property taxes, I expect my public schools to be up to the task, President Bush made campaign promises to improve that and he failed, ergo he failed the children, not me. He may have made an honest effort, and I'd buy that, but it ain't workin' bubba... Why doesn't his programs work? Many reasons, but I'll touch on a few: 1) It grades schools on a number of criteria, one of the main ones is the scores to a standardized test. Now since Federal Funding is DIRECTLY tied to the results of these grades, schools are teaching the standardized test. A fourth grader (one of the grades the test is given in) in many cases is no longer learning what you and I did in fourth grade, they are learning how to pass this battery of tests. Does it prepare them for fifth grade? Nope, but damn, we did good on the test. So you have fifth graders that are behind fourth graders of a few years ago, but damn, they can take that test! Another problem with the test is with smaller school districts: have a few kids that don't do well on the test and it blow the average and the whole district suffers... 2) Most people that know what teachers earn realize they are underpaid for what they do. Experienced, graduate level professionals making $40-50k. So they only work 2/3 the year, do the math, it still ain't crap. Your daycare provider or babysitter probably makes more per-kid-per-hour than a teacher does. Now that is nothing new, but Bush's plan is to base not only pay raises but if a teacher can keep their job on the results of standardized test for their class. Sounds reasonable, teachers need graded somehow too. Or does it? Say you have 20 kids in you class, and only 1 or 2 of them aren't that bright. So your class does good on the test. Next year, you have 20 kids, but 4 or 5 of them aren't very sharp. This is reality, by the way... So anyhow, the test scores are now lower than the previous year. Did the teacher do a worse job? If the percentage of smart kids was reversed, does that mean the teacher did a better job? Does this tell test you anything? Nope. I could go on, but I'm tired of typing... The plan doesn't work, learn from it and scrap it. I don't care if it's the Republicians or Democrats that take it on, just get it done. Unlike the blind masses who believe there really are differences between the donkeys and the elephants, I don't typically vote party lines, just the candidates who promise to address what I feel is important...

 

here's one. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37102

And a qoute from the link:

 

Figures Clark would do something like that. My bro in law, a ret. marine col./Pentgon employee, said Clark was all about devious self promotion

 

The testing nonsense in the schools makes no sense, but it is not responsible for the poor job the schools have been doing for many years. I was apalled at the lack of teaching when my son entered first grade, and he is a junior in HS now. Public schools have been a mess for many years. There was no job accountability long before Bush was President.

As far as teachers being underpaid, I don't agree. Even with the time they spend getting an education, the hours they put in are not comparable to those high-earning executives work.

My brother is a VP for a Fortune 500 company, his work-week is usually in the 80-100 hour a week range and involves extensive travel and time away from his family. If teachers could take their education and go make more in the private sector, they would.
Most of the teachers I know wouldn't last a month in the corporate world.

Most people work 245-250 days a year. Teachers work 180, get all holidays off, week-long vacations several times a year including a long Christmas break, all summer off and get sick and personal days on top of that. Their benefits are better than most people get in the private sector. And because they are union employees they are nearly impossible to fire if they are poor performers. If they find dealing with kids too stressful, they shouldn't be in the business. They stay for a reason, and it isn't altruism or love of children. They stay because it's a nice deal for them.

 

sounds like he's working for the wrong company.


how can GWB be responsible for what is a system failing years in arrears?

 

I should have said sales VP, he has a 300+ sales force and over 30 offices in N America to visit, plus he goes to Europe on a regular basis. He has to fly sometimes 3 times a day.
On the upside, he has to play a fair amount of golf for business purposes. Not my idea of a fun job, but he's a type A personality.

Work hard and get those promotions and all that could be yours someday, Brad.

 

The kids are not the stressors, the administration is. There is a lot of pressure to pass the kids. The system is not out after quality students.

 

already a VP. it ain't that great.

work smarter, not harder. how many hours a day can he spend on the BBS?

i'll keep what i got.

 

You are correct that Prez Bush is not responsible for the mess the schools got in, but part of his campaign promise (a BIG part) was to fix it. He hasn't. He may have tried, which is good, but I am curious what he and the other candidates are going to do about it.

As far as teacher's pay: I agree the hours are good. But if they worked the 250 days like the rest of us dogs, then the pay multiple out to about $57k. Still not much for a graduate degree with years of experience. Heck, I start green BS engineers out at $40k+. As far as unions go, in many district, union membership is NOT required, it is opitional. My benefits are better than teachers, and they are only average. They do have to work after hours many if not most nights (or mornings), conferences, getting ready for the next day, etc. Even during the summer... Compare it to what you pay your babysitter. The going rate is what $5hr. Multiple that by 20 kids, you are now at $100hr. I can assure you that teacher make a fraction of that. The only real point with teacher pay is that you are unlikely to attract as many of the brightest and the best as the private sectore can. Yes, it's a decent gig, but not as good as most folks think it is...

 

Most high school teachers are not educated to an engineer's level and most aren't holding masters or doctorates... those teachers are in colleges. If your area's public school teachers are working late most nights then they are not using their time efficiently. They have quite a bit of time during the day to take care of "business". Not to mention they get several days throughout the year now where they are at school without the students. This is based on Arkansas and Tennessee public schools. My father was VP of the school board at my school for many years but we were an exceptional district.

I should add Clinton has always been a piece of shit. Sorry, just thought I would sneak that in.

I don't feel teachers are paid enough but it isn't as bad as you make it sound. They aren't exactly hurting.

It will take years for a plan like Bush's to work. Too many people want instant change and any teacher that is teaching the exam should be fired.

Comparing teaching to daycare is like apples and oranges... they are both fruits but you have to eat them differently.