Couple questions about the Presidency

[Guest Some Guy]

It's in one of Thomas Sowell's books. I don't have the numbers.

 

Then go find it in the government's figures, because I have shortsighted figures (ones of Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton, which show Clinton drew more people out of poverty than the others).

 

I might at some point.

 

Bullshit.

 

Vouchers allow for exclusion and cause those same kids to be sent back to the now underfunded public schools, while the middle class kids get sent to a now overcrowded RELIGIOUS school, even if they're not religious.

 

Vouchers allow kids the chance to go to a better school, whether they are religious or not is imaterial. Not every kid who goes to Catholic scholl is Catholic. The schools are nto underfunded. Boston schools spend almost twice as much per student per year than my town does and we're doing a lot better than they are.

 

Then why throw money at defense?

 

Because defense works. Ask Saddam how well our military works.

 

 

There are always going to be people who can't/won't succeed. Drugs, stupidity, lazyness, whateverwill always ensure that some never make it. But we can do better than this and we haev to stop worrying about hurting feelings and Unions to do it.

 

 

There are other issues besides those, but those are conveniently brought up a scapegoat.

 

I didn't say that those were the only reasons. There are others, but those are the first that came to mind and probably the most prevelant.

 

Whatever. Not every liberal follows these stupid benchmarks and you know it.

 

This is such a silly argument. Of course not every liberal follows these. Most do and that's why I said it. If I said AMerica supports the war in Iraq (70-80% do) would you disagree because of the 20-30% who don't?

[Guest Powerplay]

It's in one of Thomas Sowell's books. I don't have the numbers.

 

Then go find it in the government's figures, because I have shortsighted figures (ones of Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton, which show Clinton drew more people out of poverty than the others).

Point of order: How 'bout both you cite your sources? Always good when you have conflicting statistics. But again, I doubt Clinton help more get out of poverty than it was the internet creating tons of new jobs. Clinton was incredibly lucky that he got in office right as one of Mankind's greatest inventions was revolutionizing business as we know it. Besides, I really don't remember Clinton doing much with the economy anyways.

 

Bullshit.

 

Vouchers allow for exclusion and cause those same kids to be sent back to the now underfunded public schools, while the middle class kids get sent to a now overcrowded RELIGIOUS school, even if they're not religious.

 

Um, I agree here. I've never been a fan of vouchers nor private schools, though I admit I'm quite biased on the subject since my mom is a public school teacher.

 

Then why throw money at defense?

 

Defense has failed? Defense has worked incredibly well, imo.

 

I'm going to disagree with SG on the Teacher thing, since (In my state) the quality of schools have gotten increasingly worse, even though the state legislature was (And I believe still is) controlled by Republicans and the teacher's union being exceedingly weak and ineffective. I've just seen Lansing and Engler try to run the school instead of the people in the area and basically work the teachers who work into the ground while the superintendant has a million dollar salary and has hired 6 new assistants with 100K salaries as well. It's not the teachers to blame or their unions, but generally mismanagement both by the state and the upper levels that screw you over. At least, this is what I have witnessed in my area. Your milage may vary.

 

SG, standardized testing is a mixed bag, really. The problem is we have to find the balance to which it doesn't mean enough to where the teachers will start teaching the test and mean enough that schools with low scores have to take responsibility. I think some more stuff has to be evidenced here before we can really tell how accurate standardized testing really is.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm going to disagree with SG on the Teacher thing, since (In my state) the quality of schools have gotten increasingly worse, even though the state legislature was (And I believe still is) controlled by Republicans and the teacher's union being exceedingly weak and ineffective. I've just seen Lansing and Engler try to run the school instead of the people in the area and basically work the teachers who work into the ground while the superintendant has a million dollar salary and has hired 6 new assistants with 100K salaries as well. It's not the teachers to blame or their unions, but generally mismanagement both by the state and the upper levels that screw you over. At least, this is what I have witnessed in my area. Your milage may vary.

 

SG, standardized testing is a mixed bag, really. The problem is we have to find the balance to which it doesn't mean enough to where the teachers will start teaching the test and mean enough that schools with low scores have to take responsibility. I think some more stuff has to be evidenced here before we can really tell how accurate standardized testing really is.

I live in MA, it's all Libs here and the schools aren't terrible but they could be better if the Unions were weaker and tehre was some diversity of thought in the legislature.

 

SG, standardized testing is a mixed bag, really. The problem is we have to find the balance to which it doesn't mean enough to where the teachers will start teaching the test and mean enough that schools with low scores have to take responsibility. I think some more stuff has to be evidenced here before we can really tell how accurate standardized testing really is.

 

What the fuck does "teaching the test" mean? This really bothers me. The things an that test (the MCAS in MA) are all stuff that kids should learn in class. "Teaching to the test" (The Mass version of the line) seems to me like a good thing, it means that techers are actually teaching subject matter that they are paid to teach.

 

Plus kids here have about 7 chances to pass the test and can get get excluded from the rules if they fail it 7 times. It seems to me that high school kids should have enough basic knowledge of English, Math, Science, and History to graduate High School and the test I took was very easy. And I took it as a Sophmore (10th grader, I was in the 90% on every thing except math (which was like 85%).

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Teaching the test means that they put out standards for the... standardized test... beforehand. The teachers teach what is going to be on the test and nothing beyond. It's a rampant problem in Virginia, which has a Virginia Standards of Learning system, under which schools can be decertified if they don't have a sufficient number of students passing the exam.

 

My source, which is from the Census bureau, says that there were 31.822 million people in poverty when Reagan was in office, and 31.745 million people when he left office. Thus, 77,000ish people were lifted from poverty under Reagan.

 

According to the same source, www.census.gov, there were 39.265 million people in poverty in 1993 and 31.054 million people in poverty when he left office in 2000. That's roughly 8.2 million people.I won't even go into the statistic that Bush I sent 8 million below the poverty line.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Also, despite the problems in with "teaching the test", the education system (run by a democratic governor, Mark Warner) in Virginia is relatively outstanding. No school has lost their accreditation since the program was instituted, and most schools performed rather highly on the tests.

[Guest Some Guy]

Teaching the test means that they put out standards for the... standardized test... beforehand. The teachers teach what is going to be on the test and nothing beyond.

Bullshit. If they didn't teach anything more than waht's on the test than no one would have better than a 9th grade education. The teachers should be teaching what is going to be on the test. Once they haev taught everything that's on teh test, after 9th grade, tehn tehy go onto teach harder thins. All the shit that's on teh test is important to know. Like absic English skills, Math up to Algebra 1, a basic knoweldge of social studies, and science.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Bullshit. If they didn't teach anything more than waht's on the test than no one would have better than a 9th grade education. The teachers should be teaching what is going to be on the test. Once they haev taught everything that's on teh test, after 9th grade, tehn tehy go onto teach harder thins. All the shit that's on teh test is important to know. Like absic English skills, Math up to Algebra 1, a basic knoweldge of social studies, and science

 

Until you've been in a situation where this technique has been used, I don't think you have the qualifications to speak about it.

[Guest Some Guy]

What technique? It makes no sense! The teacher in theory shouldn't have to change one single thign about there class to have their kids pass. EVERTTHIGN THAT'S ON THOSE TEST SHOULD BE KNOWN BY KIDS WHO ARE GOING TO GADUATE HIGH SCHOOL. I FUCKING TOOK IT. I AM QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS!.

 

If a teacher has to change their teaching in order to get their students to pass the test then they weren't doing their job right in teh first place.

 

If you can explain to me why they would have to change their teaching of the subject they ae paid to teach, that is covered in it's most basic forms on the tests and that they were properly doing their job before hand then I might agree with you.

 

Want to know why Dem Pols don't like this shit, because the teachers don't. So they feed this "teaching to the test" horseshit out there and you guys buy it for some unkown reason.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

What technique? It makes no sense! The teacher in theory shouldn't have to change one single thign about there class to have their kids pass. EVERTTHIGN THAT'S ON THOSE TEST SHOULD BE KNOWN BY KIDS WHO ARE GOING TO GADUATE HIGH SCHOOL. I FUCKING TOOK IT. I AM QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS!.

 

You're wrong, but I don't blame you for your ignorance.

 

In VA and other states, these tests are taken halfway through the year. There isn't enough time to teach everything that will be on the test and still go to learn other things. The tests don't cover everything important that happens, either. Thus, teachers who would normally go by a different program to teach their information are forced to teach certain things which, while they may be important as well, do not make up all of the information which is important in a subject. It IS a problem, whether you'd like to admit it exists or not.

 

If a teacher has to change their teaching in order to get their students to pass the test then they weren't doing their job right in teh first place.

 

Completely wrong, and rather ignorant comment.

 

Want to know why Dem Pols don't like this shit, because the teachers don't. So they feed this "teaching to the test" horseshit out there and you guys buy it for some unkown reason.

 

Wow, I used to think you were an intelligent debater, but you've turned into a bitter anti-liberal.

[Guest Some Guy]

What technique? It makes no sense! The teacher in theory shouldn't have to change one single thign about there class to have their kids pass. EVERTTHIGN THAT'S ON THOSE TEST SHOULD BE KNOWN BY KIDS WHO ARE GOING TO GADUATE HIGH SCHOOL. I FUCKING TOOK IT. I AM QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS!.

 

You're wrong, but I don't blame you for your ignorance.

 

In VA and other states, these tests are taken halfway through the year. There isn't enough time to teach everything that will be on the test and still go to learn other things. The tests don't cover everything important that happens, either. Thus, teachers who would normally go by a different program to teach their information are forced to teach certain things which, while they may be important as well, do not make up all of the information which is important in a subject. It IS a problem, whether you'd like to admit it exists or not.

 

If a teacher has to change their teaching in order to get their students to pass the test then they weren't doing their job right in teh first place.

 

Completely wrong, and rather ignorant comment.

 

I took the MCAS test (in late 1996 or early 97, half-way through 10th grade, before you needed it to graduate) There was not a single thing on that test that I was not taught prior to 10th grade. Nothing. And I'm sure the test has gotten easier after several kids (especailly minorities in the citeis failed it), because the typical buerwucratic way to fix this would be to make the test easier rather than the teaching better. I still think this teaching to the test is a bulshit cop out. The kids have a ton of chances to pass throughout Sophmore, Junior, and Sneior years. The teachers, if they are teaching their subject properly should have to change nothing. If a kid hasn't kept up, for whatever reason then they still have several other chances to pass.

 

 

Want to know why Dem Pols don't like this shit, because the teachers don't. So they feed this "teaching to the test" horseshit out there and you guys buy it for some unkown reason.

 

Wow, I used to think you were an intelligent debater, but you've turned into a bitter anti-liberal.

 

Not so at all. Think about this for a minute. Teacher Unions=Democrats, Demcrats like votes. Democrats do things that teacher Unions don't like they don't get their votes. Unions don't like teacher testing and MCAS type testing because if enough students of a particular teacher fails the MCAS or teachers fail the teacher tests they might get fired and the union would be powerless to stop it because the teacher failed to perform and there is proof, in balck and white on paper. It's a union buster and they hate that so they want no accountability or it'll fuck up their racket.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I took the MCAS test (in late 1996 or early 97, half-way through 10th grade, before you needed it to graduate) There was not a single thing on that test that I was not taught prior to 10th grade. Nothing. And I'm sure the test has gotten easier after several kids (especailly minorities in the citeis failed it), because the typical buerwucratic way to fix this would be to make the test easier rather than the teaching better. I still think this teaching to the test is a bulshit cop out. The kids have a ton of chances to pass throughout Sophmore, Junior, and Sneior years. The teachers, if they are teaching their subject properly should have to change nothing. If a kid hasn't kept up, for whatever reason then they still have several other chances to pass.

 

Actually, when a student fails in the VA system, the blame goes onto the teacher. You're being rather cynical and... well, stupid, by saying that it's the DAMN LIBERALS' FAULT FOR CORRUPTING THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND MAKING IT EASY when it's simply not true in half of the states which employ this system. Perhaps the test you took didn't require teaching to the test, but the tests which test a specific CLASS require teaching to the test.

 

Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "NUH UH THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN" doesn't make it true.

 

Not so at all. Think about this for a minute. Teacher Unions=Democrats, Demcrats like votes. Democrats do things that teacher Unions don't like they don't get their votes. Unions don't like teacher testing and MCAS type testing because if enough students of a particular teacher fails the MCAS or teachers fail the teacher tests they might get fired and the union would be powerless to stop it because the teacher failed to perform and there is proof, in balck and white on paper. It's a union buster and they hate that so they want no accountability or it'll fuck up their racket.

 

Your utter lack of faith in the human race is disturbing.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Democratic "Machines"? What is that supposed to mean?

Up until about the 1980's, Democratic parties in places like Chicago and NYC had so much power that they could GUARANTEE that ANY Democratic candidate would win. Election fraud was RAMPANT --- dogs voted, the dead voted, etc.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

1960's would be a more accurate date.

[Guest Some Guy]

I took the MCAS test (in late 1996 or early 97, half-way through 10th grade, before you needed it to graduate) There was not a single thing on that test that I was not taught prior to 10th grade. Nothing. And I'm sure the test has gotten easier after several kids (especailly minorities in the citeis failed it), because the typical buerwucratic way to fix this would be to make the test easier rather than the teaching better. I still think this teaching to the test is a bulshit cop out. The kids have a ton of chances to pass throughout Sophmore, Junior, and Sneior years. The teachers, if they are teaching their subject properly should have to change nothing. If a kid hasn't kept up, for whatever reason then they still have several other chances to pass.

 

Actually, when a student fails in the VA system, the blame goes onto the teacher. You're being rather cynical and... well, stupid, by saying that it's the DAMN LIBERALS' FAULT FOR CORRUPTING THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND MAKING IT EASY when it's simply not true in half of the states which employ this system. Perhaps the test you took didn't require teaching to the test, but the tests which test a specific CLASS require teaching to the test.

 

Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "NUH UH THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN" doesn't make it true.

 

No they dont' they require teaching the subject they are supposed to be teaching. Part of the graduation test is math, a math teacher's job is to teach math. If a student doesn't learn math in that class it is either the teacher's fault or it is the student's fault. It is not the test's fault. As I have said at least twice and you don't seem to read it. I took the uckign test. There was nothing on it that was beyond a 9th grade education. There is no "teaching to the test" because the kids should have learned the shit on the test before 10th grade which is the first timet they take it, andf if they fail tehy can take in 11th grade, by which time they may have learned it, and if they fail again they can take it in 12th grade. Why can't you grasp this concept? Is it really that hard? Test in 10th grade, nothing on the test beyond 9th grade=no "tesching to the test". Did you take on of these in high school? Did it require this "teaching to the test"? and if so did this "teaching to the test" in anyway negatively affect your education?

 

Not so at all. Think about this for a minute. Teacher Unions=Democrats, Demcrats like votes. Democrats do things that teacher Unions don't like they don't get their votes. Unions don't like teacher testing and MCAS type testing because if enough students of a particular teacher fails the MCAS or teachers fail the teacher tests they might get fired and the union would be powerless to stop it because the teacher failed to perform and there is proof, in balck and white on paper. It's a union buster and they hate that so they want no accountability or it'll fuck up their racket.

 

Your utter lack of faith in the human race is disturbing.

 

No, I have a utter lack of faith in liberal politicians (maybe beign lied to for 8 years jaded me a little) and unions though.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

You're still arguing an entirely DIFFERENT TEST.

 

I'm talking about tests that pertain to a specific class on a specific level, such as sophomore year US History between 1930-2003. In that class, they will pick certain aspects of it to put on the tests, and it seems almost like trivia in a lot of cases. Again, regardless of the fact that YOUR TEST didn't constitute that, doesn't change the fact that it happens in other places. I'VE BEEN IN CLASSES LIKE THAT.

 

No, I have a utter lack of faith in liberal politicians (maybe beign lied to for 8 years jaded me a little) and unions though.

 

How can you say that and pledge allegance to a president who engaged in insider trading and a vice president who did shady and borderline illegal business with one of the worst dictators in the 20th century?

[Guest Powerplay]

You're still arguing an entirely DIFFERENT TEST.

 

I'm talking about tests that pertain to a specific class on a specific level, such as sophomore year US History between 1930-2003. In that class, they will pick certain aspects of it to put on the tests, and it seems almost like trivia in a lot of cases. Again, regardless of the fact that YOUR TEST didn't constitute that, doesn't change the fact that it happens in other places. I'VE BEEN IN CLASSES LIKE THAT.

Agreed. Same here with U.S. History, and English is the same way sometimes. Standardized testing isn't the end-all be-all for schools. I mean, Texas is prided as being a shining example of Standardized Testing, with many schools continually doing better on the tests, but their SAT scores have flatlined for a long time. As well, an out of state tester went in and did tests, and many kids failed to pass it even though they may have passed the TAT. The test wasn't incredibly hard and went over what they were supposed to be taught in schools. This raises many questions in my minds.

[Guest Some Guy]

You're still arguing an entirely DIFFERENT TEST.

 

I'm talking about tests that pertain to a specific class on a specific level, such as sophomore year US History between 1930-2003. In that class, they will pick certain aspects of it to put on the tests, and it seems almost like trivia in a lot of cases. Again, regardless of the fact that YOUR TEST didn't constitute that, doesn't change the fact that it happens in other places. I'VE BEEN IN CLASSES LIKE THAT.

My test wasn't like what you are saying, I took my test in Winchester, Mass, why do I hear Winchester High School teacher bitching about this ficticious "teaching to the test" stuff?

Every class is is prety much a trivia thing anyway. A teacher lectures on something, he/she then asks you about them, and then tests you on them.

How should a class be? Sitting around and talking about everything not related to the subject? I've had classes like that and they are nice for a diversion from a heavy schedule but are a waste of time in the long run. I've had High School teachers and college Profs more interested in teaching theri politics than the class and that's wrong, no matter what they believe. Right wing, left wing, whatever. They should teach the fucking class, no social commentary necessary.

 

No, I have a utter lack of faith in liberal politicians (maybe beign lied to for 8 years jaded me a little) and unions though.

 

How can you say that and pledge allegance to a president who engaged in insider trading and a vice president who did shady and borderline illegal business with one of the worst dictators in the 20th century?

 

When did Bush engage in insider trading?

 

What exactly were these shady and borderline illegal business deals that Cheney may have years before he became VP. And when did I pledeg allegence to any politician? I support this Pres, because I sgree with most of his politics and think that he is a pretty straight forward guy. I disagreed with much of the last President's policies and thought he was a fucking liar and a scumbag. I don't really care too muich for Bush (41) as a Pres, and I really like Reagan and the job he did. I don't pledge allegane, it's not "my Pres right or wrong".

 

I';m off to watch Raw. Later.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

When did Bush engage in insider trading?

 

In the early 1990's, when Harken Energies was going under, President Bush II traded off all his shares in the company about two months prior. He failed to notify the SEC of his trades, and the SEC had the following to say about it.

 

"With respect to Harken, Bush has filed a timely Form 3 and four late Forms 4 reporting seperate transactions totaling $1,028,953. Bush's Forms 4 were filed from 15 to 34 weeks late."

 

The SEC, under his father, did not investigate these instances. However, the assistant director of the SEC at the time has been quoted as saying that this in no way means Bush was exonerated of the charges.

 

What exactly were these shady and borderline illegal business deals that Cheney may have years before he became VP.

 

Halliburton. Been discussed to death.

 

I disagreed with much of the last President's policies and thought he was a fucking liar and a scumbag.

 

I guess it comes down to which is worse, screwing an intern, or screwing a few million investors.

[Guest DrTom]

Yea Poverty, exactly. Noone that is poor would vote for a republican in their right mind because they know they are/will be screwed. 

Yes, because throwing money at the poverty and homelessness problems has done SO much for those people.

 

NYC used to have a program (about 20 years ago) wherein they paid homeless men to assist in newspaper delivery, typically by unloading bundles of papers off the news trucks. Good idea, right? It gives these people a job and a sense of responsibility, two things they need. Well, the Democrats pooh-poohed the whole thing, saying it exploited the homless and showed no compassion for them. And here I thought trying to get someone back into the workforce and on his way to being a productive member of society again was compassionate.

 

I guess more money and faceless government agencies is what's needed...

[Guest DrTom]

QUOTE 

Throwing money at a problema dn expecting it to be magically fixed doesn't work.

 

Then why throw money at defense?

Because money for defense actually buys things. It allows more military personnel to be hired, trained, and promoted; more weapons to be developed, tested, and manufactured, more vehicles to be built, etc. Defense is an investment that shows returns when we need it to.

 

Throwing money at poverty on the other hand, has been shown not to work. Good intentions, which I believe everyone has when dealing with the issue, simply aren't enough. A real plan is needed, as well as a way to reverse societal apathy, the expectation of something for nothing, and the damaging effects of generations on welfare.

 

Building bombs is a lot easier.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

as well as a way to reverse societal apathy

 

That's the problem... one doesn't exist.

 

If you give them money, they won't search for a job. If you don't give them money, they'll sit out on the streetcorners and look for people to give them money.

[Guest DrTom]

That's the problem... one doesn't exist.

Actually, it does. Or at least, it might.

 

You have to reach people early, before they've become burned out on the system that they feel is shitting all over them. Good teachers, who can actually reach the students to teach them, as well as make learning seem like something less than a chore, are needed in the public schools. Of course, since teachers make dick, they don't have much reason to be enthusiastic (kudos to the ones who are, in spite of that). Start paying them what they're worth, turn them loose in the classrooms, and let's see what happens.

 

It won't do anything for people who are already mired in apathy. But maybe it will prevent another generation from falling into the same bottomless trap.

[Guest Vyce]

Also, despite the problems in with "teaching the test", the education system (run by a democratic governor, Mark Warner) in Virginia is relatively outstanding. No school has lost their accreditation since the program was instituted, and most schools performed rather highly on the tests.

I don't know if I'd go and give him ALL the credit, Tyler, seeing as I live in Northern Virginia, and the majority of schools have been doing "relatively outstanding" before Warner and his programs were instituted.

 

But hey, maybe you're talking about the hicks in the southern part of the state.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Whoa, where in NoVa do you live?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Also, I can't give Gilmore any credit, since even though he instituted the SOL system, he also skullfucked the budget to the point of cutting teacher salaries and budgets, at least in my old high school.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

That's the problem... one doesn't exist.

Actually, it does. Or at least, it might.

 

You have to reach people early, before they've become burned out on the system that they feel is shitting all over them. Good teachers, who can actually reach the students to teach them, as well as make learning seem like something less than a chore, are needed in the public schools. Of course, since teachers make dick, they don't have much reason to be enthusiastic (kudos to the ones who are, in spite of that). Start paying them what they're worth, turn them loose in the classrooms, and let's see what happens.

 

It won't do anything for people who are already mired in apathy. But maybe it will prevent another generation from falling into the same bottomless trap.

Agreed, actually.

 

However, cutting education budgets won't help to make teaching a more desirable job...

[Guest NoCalMike]

Teaching to the test is a rather bad method, IMO. Why do you think there are so many out there that breezed through highschool with pretty good grades, but still don't have ANY TYPE of insight into anything. Most of my teachers wanted their students to graduate from school with much more than a grade on a test. They wanted to concentrate on teaching in a way that would strive to make you actually care and remember things you have learned. I also had teachers that simply went over the basic material on a test, then gave out the multiple choice test, and all you really had to do was remember key words and phrases the teacher used during class and fill in the bubble. Keep in mind, these classes are the ones I literally remember the least about, it was so robotic and impersonal. Of course it also depends on the subject at hand. I mean with history/government/economics type classes the teacher has more freedom to impliment his/her own style, however with something like math, it is only natural that a more straight foward system would be used.