"Many of our group told the boys that we were doing it for them and their future, because if the unions were not stopped they would be the ones to pay for their fat pensions and benefits when they were grown up. Bill explained it to them by telling them that if the three of them were taking a test in school and one of them studied really hard and got a 100, another of them studied pretty well and got an 80 and the third boy didn’t study at all and got a 30, how would it be if the teacher said that in order to be fair, each of the boys would receive a 70? None of the boys thought it would a very good idea and one of them chimed up and said, “It would be OK if you were the guy who didn’t study at all.” Another member of our group asked how hard any of them would study for the next test. Another of the boys shook his head and said “I sure wouldn’t.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … distr.html
Lol! That's liberal ideology in a nutshell!
I read your link and tried to see the connection with it and your forum post. You want to help me see the correlation? seriously. I am drawing blanks here.
I'm afraid you are quite woefully misinformed. A more accurate representation would be something like this:
"Toby saw a poster on the school notice board, and it read
'ATTENTION: Essay Competition, big prizes offered!'
Toby liked big prizes, and so he decided to enter.
That night, he struggled with starting the essay. No matter how hard he tried he just couldn't think of an appropriate subject to write about. So he asked his little brother, Stephen, for help.
Stephen was something of a swot, and had no problem suggesting a raft of insightful and interesting essay topics. Toby Thanked him for his help, and set to work. However the same problem occurred - he just couldn't get into the flow of the essay. He went on like this all week.
In the end, he had to ask Stephen for help again. It was the night before the essay was due, and he was far from finished. So he made a deal with Stephen. He said "you write the essay for me, and I'll give you half the prize money if we win." Stephen readily agreed, and set to work.
The next day Toby submitted his prize winning essay, and returned home. He thanked Stephen for all his hard work, and gave him the $10 he was due. Toby kept the other $90."
A "Liberal" would point out that since Stephen did the groundwork and Toby only exploited the work that Stephen had done then Stephen should have been given a fair share of the money.
A "Conservative" would argue that toby should have charged Stephen $10 for being his Publishing agent.
You make the brave assumption that standardized testing is a proper evaluation in determining a person's intelligence and work ethic.
Lady I noticed in 7 months on HubPages, you only have 3 hubs but 2,452 posts. It seems your real purpose here is not to write, but cause political contention.
If you're going to single out LadyLove, then what are you going to say about me?
I've been here 17 months, written 133 hubs and posted 32,680 times? So, please do tell...
Yes, but you have taken time to write compelling content as well! 133 hubs ain't easy. It is obvious that you are here to write and happen to have strong opinions. Nothing wrong with strong opinions! You are not just using HubPages for a political platform.
Really how so? Maybe you can dig deep and come up with a comment worth posting.
I think the illustration is a perfect example of what the liberals want in terms of social justice and a perfect example of the outcome from their policies... don't take my word for it listen to Sharpton!
http://tv.breitbart.com/al-sharpton-we- … dys-house/
LOL... ok a preacher is talking about social equality and how we aren't "there" yet - no reference to education, the supposed topic of your forum - no reference to anything other than "social equality." And moreover, no mention of how to arrive at it - no plans, policies, etc.,etc (based on the video and soundbite.) So what the liberals want, using your video as reference material (loose term here) is "social eqality." And using your reference, you can't really even say "liberals" in the general sense of the word as this was before a "black audience" and was clearly making reference to "black America."
So from a preacher's soundbite about how "we haven't arrived at social equality just because there is a black family in the whitehouse; it needs to be in all black homes..." you have attempted to "construct" an argument about what "liberals really want in the way of education..." That is like me posting one of Norman Rockwell's paintings, "Freedom from Want," and saying liberals really want free turkeys supplied to them by the Federal government.
Lady Love, when I first came on the forums I thought you might be what my grandparents would call "touched." After a while I came to the conclusion that you are either a "plant" paid by Hubpages to whip up the forum crowd or a paid "shadow Democrat" to make the Republicans/Conservatives look like idiots. Whatever it is, I would say "they" got their money's worth...
Hah! Haha! LMAO. "Touched."
Somethin' just ain't right.
The education example was an illustration of the liberals desire for wealth redistrbution. The Sharpton video reveals exactly what liberal democrats are shooting for economic equality.
Do you believe a system where there are ridiculously wealthy people and starving, dying poor people is better than a system where everyone has the same amount of wealth then? I'm talking in completely hypothetical "in a perfect world" terms here, just to be clear.
Genius... the video didn't mention anything about "wealth redistribution." With all the time you apparently have to scour the Net for Repub soundbites, I am certain VERY CERTAIN you could have found something that actually supported your post... this wasn't it.
Um, dude? Obama himself has come out in favor of wealth redistribution. Remember his little exchange with a guy named Joe The Plumber?
Um dude.. didn't say he didn't have ideas about wealth redistribution.... (code language for progressive tax - had it for about, what, 80 years now?) The only I said was this video has nothing to do with education, nothing to do with wealth redistribution - I have listened/watched it about three times thinking I missed something, giving Lady Love the benefit of the doubt - there isn't a mention of anything along those lines in the video. It's like seeing a dog piss in the street and calling Hurricane. This video is Al Sharpton preaching in front of a black congregation - somewhere. It is not Obama preaching, not Harry Reid preaching - it is Al Sharpton. And again, if you can tease anything other than what the dude says out of, well, what the dude says - loll... then you are a mind reader....
What do you think social justice is? What do you think Sharpton meant when he said they wouldn't rest until everybody was equal in everybodys house? You're doing your best but you're falling short... that's liberal ideology staring right at you and you don't like it so you refuse to acknowlege it. I understand... I felt the same way when I discovered the evil of the left.
There was no mention of "social justice" - just social equality. I think he may have just meant what he said.... again I will say it, "Just because there is a black family in the Whitehouse doesn't mean there is social equality in our homes..." Uh I guess that could mean, if I were black, that having a black president doesn't mean that all the problems, real or perceived, by blacks in America are over? And you know... he may have a point. I don't know - I am not black and neither am I a mind reader. I based what I just said on what HE SAID - not what I thought he said or what I wanted to read into what he said to try to support a topic post on education./ liberal bashing. So tell me, does Uncle Al mention anything about education in his video?????? No... he does not. Does he mention Obama? No.. he does not. Does he mention the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, ot the Tea Party? No.. he does not. So who really jumped to conclusions here, you or me?
I could just as easily make an argument, based on your non-existant criteria, that he was talking about clubbing baby seals in his video.
And it is not liberal ideology to look at what someone says, word for word, and come up with the following meaning - what they said is what they meant.
Is that fair? I mean unlike you, I really can't reach into his mind with my Right-Wing Voodoo and "tell you what he really meant..." I have no lost love for Al Sharpton of any celebrity preacher for that matter, but I am not going to put words into his mouth to support a non-existant, lame talking point.
I'd like to see you make the seal clubbing argument. Again you left out the important part of his quote making everyone equal in everyones house ... that was obviously purposeful because you simply do not want to admit that is the goal of the left.
From the start I never said this was about education its obviously not I used a story to illustrate the redistrbutive ideology of the left obviously you missed the point or you find it better to argue over the subject line than the lesson clearly displayed. Misdirection is a favorite liberal tactic and you're employing it well.
So it wasn't about education... the title was "The Liberal's Idea of Education" then you offer proof of your "argument" by quoting a soundbite from Al Sharpton talking about social equality.... and making sure that everyone is equal in everyone's house does not an argument make for whatever the hell your argument started out being. And I never stated that the goal of the left wasn't social equality - in fact I confirmed that in another post response on here. Again, what the hell was your point??? lolll I have no problem admitting that the goal of the Left is to attempt to bring equality to everyone - I can't hink of a more perfect goal for any society. Does that mean the goal of the Right is make certain the opposite occurs? Well or that it remains the status-quo? Cause that's been working out real fine for us...
The goal of the right is individual freedom and opposition to big government oppression... but thanks for confirming the truth about the left imposed equality by the ruling elite.
The Koch brothers have promised the teabaggers individual freedom? No wonder they are so anti-education.
Let us look back to the days of "Celie, a Slave"....
That is where the "right" wishes to return....
Have you read this book Lady? Are you going to?
Are you interested in the actual history of conservative thinking in this nation?
Could you be any more ridiculous??? Yes the right wants to bring back slavery!! Lol!! The right is for freedom and liberty not slavery that was the democrats! Lol
Says she who is opposed to a minimum wage, who thinks people would be better off working for nothing!
The freedom and liberty to starve just as long as her masters aren't inconvenienced!
The fact is in times of prosperity labor is in great demand. At such times salaries are bid up well beyond minimum wage! You know who makes minimum wage? Teenagers and people just starting out in the workforce. Once you have any experience you can command a higher salary.
That may be the case in Lala land but in the real world it doesn't work like that!
There are no age restrictions on the minimum wage.
Don't forget, the underlying unemployed kept there to hold wages down.
Of course unemployment would be lower.if there wasn't a minimum wage lower taxes and less regulation.
I didn't say there was an age limit if you start out in the workplace at 50 you're gonna get minimum wage.
But the really low paid worker pays no tax at all, so how would lower wages and lower taxes actually help anybody?
You haven't really thought this through have you? You must be more careful to avoid conflict of thought.
Lower taxes on business frees up capital for investment and expansion. Less tax taken from pay checks is more money to spend everyone benefits except the leeches that work for the government!
So why was the economy so vibrant when taxes were high, inducing investment in industry rather than lining the pockets of the rich?
Would bankers be so keen to take their multi million bonuses if the government were to take 90% in taxes or might they be more inclined to invest them?
I agree that less tax taken off pay checks would stimulate spending
but when people are being paid so little that they pay no taxes anyway it doesn't really help very much does it?
But think of the negative impact on the economy if you got rid of the leeches that work for government!
I'm going to wade in on this one - "Liberals" are not left wing - they are not even anywhere near left wing. They are, at best, central. In most developed countries, Liberal parties are in fact on the right of the spectrum, because development in economic terms often goes hand in hand with development in intellectual and ethical terms.
How is your quote worth posting? It's erroneous at best, and really can't be qualified by the links you've supplied, which are also erroneous.
Those damned uppity libertardscumpoopyheads!! Using spell-check, rules of grammar an such that was learned them in their commie schools!!!
Never fails. When you can't counter the argument you attack the person who wrote it.
Classic liberal tactics. No wait, they're not liberals......my mistake.....
God bless you for pointing this out. Liberals are the devil's army on Earth. Conservatives are our only hope to vanquish the evil horde.
Mine eyes have see the glory...
Gotta go. Glenn beck is going to tell us how to attack the liberals today. No true American would miss a minute. After that it's the John Birch happy fun hour so I'll sign off for awhile.
Lol! That's the other classic liberal tactic... deny being a liberal!
LaLo, who consistently posts links that don't even support her outlandish premises, grossly misrepresents what she calls "liberal ideology."
And then she wonders why she doesn't get serious replies.
I'd sure be curious to see how you interpret Al Sharpton's remarks....
AL Sharpton's remark were "just because we have a black family in the Whitehouse doesn't mean we have equality in every black home," or something to that effect.
I think it is pretty self-explanatory is you are preaching in front of a black audience. I don't see any reference to education, Lady Love's "topic," in there at all. If it had been a white preacher in front of a white congregation saying, "In the eyes of Jesus Christ, we are all equal and we can't stop until everyone is treated equally, until everyone in our community enjoys the same blessings" would it have been so "offensive" to Lady Love or apparently to other Conservatives?
If Preacher Al had said, "just because we have a recovery on Wall Street doesn't mean we have a recovery on Main Street," would the remark have been any more inflammatory or would it have been just a black man stating what he believes to be the truth concerning the economy?
I mean yeah, I guess it is a liberal view that social equality is the ultimate goal. Then again, I hear Conservatives in and around my community stating the same thing only about the economy, jobs, etc. I have heard it a thousand times out of Conservatives' mouths, "everyone deserves an equal shot at success, at life..." I mean seriously, what does ANY of this have to with education?
Seriously, what is the difference????
I actually started a reply pointing out the things wrong with this strawman representation of what collective bargaining is for, and then I realized that I'd be breaking my resolution not to "rassle with pigs."
This doesn't have anything to do with collective bargaining.
This points out that the worst employee will make as much and receive the same benefits as the best employee.
So why should any of them actually want to do a good job when there is no reward?
Unions are not needed.
Yeah I agree... and Lady Love's "reference" material has NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION.
"This doesn't have anything to do with collective bargaining."
Yes it does.
"This points out that the worst employee will make as much and receive the same benefits as the best employee."
But it overlooks the fact that if the employees negotiate their own compensation packages, the worker who negotiates extremely well but only does an okay job will make more than the one who does a great job but negotiates poorly. Corporations pool the resources of the investors to negotiate better prices for the raw materials they use to make their widgets. Why shouldn't the labor pool also pool its resources to hire the best negotiator they can get to negotiate their compensation packages?
Do unions have their problems? Of course they do. But their absence would be worse than any of their current problems.
Well I am not anti-union - I am "anti-Jim." lol
"Do unions have their problems? Of course they do. But their absence would be worse than any of their current problems."
No, their absence wouldn't be noticed by 88% of the working population.
Unions are not needed, competent employees are.
Wow.. that's funny Jim.. for only 12% of the population being unionized, you and your Conservative buddies are sure making a big stink about it. So which is it? In one breath, unions are leading to the bankrupting of American, and in the other, they are so "insignificant" as to hardly be noticed by 88% of the working population. Have you been taking lessons from Brenda Durham?
See I don't know. The big rash of new Republican governors ran on "jobs creation" platforms. So once in office, they naturally started to concentrate on eliminating abortion rights and dismantling public employee unions. Oddly enough, the Repubs and Tea Partiers in the House are doing basically the same thing. Haven't heard a peep out of the "New Leadership" regarding jobs creation and that was supposed to start on "Day 1." But as a bonus, we did get to hear the Constitution read aloud...
But from the states "WE HAVE BIG DEFICITS!" We must ACT NOW! So in times of big deficits these Conservative Wunderkinds cut taxes instead of leaving them "as-is."
And I wonder Jim as 88% of Americans wouldn't clearly feel a thing in your opinion, if the wealthiest 12% got their taxes jacked would that fit in your plan as it's such a small percentage?
"Wow.. that's funny Jim.. for only 12% of the population being unionized, you and your Conservative buddies are sure making a big stink about it."
We are making a big stink out of funding Public Unions.
We pay their salary and get crap in return.
If business wants to play ball with Unions thats fine.
If you don't know the difference between Public and Private you should look it up.
Hell I pay $9k a year for private health insurance and get crap in return - what's the difference? And by funding, I assume you are talking about the part of a public employee's salary/wage going for union dues, correct?
Well see once the employee "earns" that money, it's theirs - it no longer belongs to the "public." That's the basis of economics - the exchange of goods or services for cash. If that weren't the case then my employer could be said to be responsible for "funding" my drug or gambling habit as the money I spent on these endeavors started out in my employer's hand.
Fallacy of argument Jim.
"Well see once the employee "earns" that money, it's theirs"
Earns is the operative word.
Every dime they take belongs to other Americans and is returned in the form of illiterate children.
They haven't earned anything, except the opportunity to be replaced by competent employees.
And ironically, as that 12% includes both public and private unions, the percentage of public unions is even smaller than 12%...
To begin with, their absence would be felt in a variety of ways.... Prevailing wage jobs....like my brother who is a non-union electrician, would see wages fall, for there would be nothing to compare them to....
Secondly, I wouldn't be proud of the concept that many Americans wouldn't feel the effect of unions disappearing...but, then again, I don't think I am going to see you, Jim, trying to get that "temp" distribution center job....
To equate union members with incompetent employees shows your true lack of knowledge, bigotry against union members, and demonstates why only the similarly adled agree with you...
I don't think I'm going to see you join the ranks of the poorly paid and compensated drayage drivers who service the ports of our nation...who bring to you the cheaply made foreign goods that you enjoy....
The diminishing of unions have not helped the average American worker.....look at the wages to salary ration of ceo's and executives to the hourly worker today and then look over the past 50 years what has transpired.....
As usual Jim, you are perceiving our world through the Bachman lens.....
Lol! What nonsense! Only 12% of the nation are union members and half of them are public service unions! Unions have been dissappearing for years and wages gave not gone down. Of course you don't need union electricians to know what ekectricians get paid across the country... there are trade magazines that keep track of such statistics and publish them yearly!
Yeah.. you make my point. That's right - it is utter nonsense. So why all the complaint? Public service unions make up about 6% of the working population. But that 6% has all of a sudden became the straw that is breaking the backs of America... kind of odd, isn't it?
The problem is most union membership is government workers with automatic COLAs, full retirements, and full medical benefits for life and people are eligible for these after 10 years of service... many leave one position for another in another state for yet more of the same benefits... why work longer than you have to when you can retire early do 80% of your pay? It's not hard to see how this system becomes unsustainable over time for states and local governments. How do you justify such payments and benefits to taxpayers struglung to make ends meet with no hope of ever achieving those kinds of benefits in the private sector? How do you tell the factory worker making 36k a year whose seen his 401k reduced by half who is afraid he may never get his social security money back whose watched his health insurance rise because of government interference that he now has to pay higher taxes to pay for this??? It's unconscienable!!!
You might want to check your facts - they must vary greatly from state to state.. In the state where I live, it's 80% of salary and a portion of healthcare until you reach Medicare eligibility. And that's after 30 years of service - at least for teachers. So at 54-55 years of age, assuming you started teaching right out of college, you get to retire with benefits. So retiring early, yeah... I guess. But it isn't like retiring at 40 by any stretch.
Federal workers have none of those perks fyi - not since 1984. Federal employees have a standard 401k plan that the goverment contributes to dollar-for-dollar up to about 4%.
And without unions we all get equally paid the same as well for the same position. The lazy employee gets paid the same as the hard working employee. Only this time, we all get paid equally less.
That is the funny part. A hate filled thread is started, an attempt is made to back the ridiculous assertions with sources that often point to the opposite conclusion...
How can you NOT make fun of that?
The funny part is you lefties all make the same claims about my posts while attacking me yet can never point out the falsehood. *sigh*
The falsehoods are so blatant as to need no pointing out.
THe point is Lady Love.... you don't have an argument - you have a "talking point." You could find oodles of information on the Net to support your argument - damning words out of the mouths of liberals - but you did not... this time. In fact most of the time you can't "pull it together" . You have all this time (apparently) and all this vitriol and yet you can't seem to join the pieces together into something to support your point or opinion.
That is what most people on here are bitching about -
Your opinions aren't "wrong" per they are just horribly supported by your research.
There exists no liberals or conservatives in America. Only haters and non-haters.
These sorts of arguments would hold more weight if the highest tax rates in American history hadn't coincided exactly with a period remembered (by white people, anyway) as our greatest period of peace and prosperity. In the 1950's, the top tax bracket was paying 90% or more. The stagnation of the American middle classes coincides almost exactly with tax "relief" for the upper tax brackets.
Bear in mind that higher taxes also play on everybody's desire to hand over as little as possible to the government. When income taxes are low, CEOs can afford to give themselves multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, so they do. Great news for yacht manufacturers and polo pony breeders, but not much else! When income taxes are high, it makes more sense to reinvest the money back into the business and get it written off as a business expense. The business grows, the economy grows, and jobs are created. Everybody wins.
The more the very wealthy can undermine confidence in government the fewer impediments there are to their complete dominance of political decision making.
Tax cuts for the very rich give them more power while undermining one of the main institutions through which ordinary people and communities can have a say in their own future.
It really is a war that democracy is losing.
Bingo, and well put. More sustainable long-term as well. Screwing the populace always backfires in the end.
There you go again, using facts and logic. You should know by now that those don't work. It's like trying to play chess with someone who keeps jumping his pawns over your guys and saying, "King me!"
The conservative goal seems to be to push the pay and benefits for college-trained educators down to the level of Wal-Mart greeters, then herald the complete collapse of public school education as an excuse to privatize schools.
In the new system, the education of rich kids will be preserved, poor kids will get the opportunity their parents can afford - no chance at all. In this way, a caste system can be institutionalized that will be as rigid as slavery.
They're trying to take us backwards. I really cannot understand it.
Excellent point Doug. Even now, the education my children receive in our public school system isn't the same that the children in the next town receive, etc.
You can't speak of getting an "Amercian public education" - the amount of variation within the states and individual cities is mind-blowing. Now with the "No Child Left Behind" policy, my kids are really good at taking math and science tests, but have totally lost out when it comes to the "non-essential" curriculum. Our children are now taught to "take tests." And that isn't my words, that is what every educator I have spoken with has said.
My daughter is getting ready to graduate highschool and go to college. She's a real whiz-bang at calculus but her research and writing skills are sub-par. And the reason: the latter is not in the curriculum.
Well, we already have the income inequality level of a third world country. Why not the public services as well?
This is exactly right. There is a war taking place right now: the rich versus the poor.
Yep. And they think it's christians against evil atheists and muslims and our sinful society, or dirty liberals against righteous republicans, or patriotic tea-baggers against all government but their own flavor du jour.
It's the immigrants, the tree-huggers, the poor, the lying scientists advancing their evil agenda, the falsified facts doctored by the devil himself, it's the teachers for christmas's sake, even the friggin' teachers! Education is evil!
No, it's rich people, who want to stay rich, even as we ourselves do in comparison to Somalians or haitians, etc.
People want to get whatever they can get. Our society has taught us that, we're very materialistic, even when we say we aren't. Once you get it, why would you ever want to be a working schmuck again? For the benefit of your fellow-man? Gimme a break.
They're doing everything they can think to do to amass more and more to protect what they don't want to lose. And you'd most likely do the same. It's the natural and unfettered survival instinct.
If someone's kids are gonna get dumped on, I don't want it to be mine, and neither do they. If the future promises struggles, famines, droughts, I want to do the best to make sure my kids are prepared, provided for and protected, and capable of carrying on with it on their own. So do you.
So do they. Rich people aren't any more clever or necessarily educated than poor people, and they are certainly no more noble or honorable. They panic. They're afraid. They're misguided. And they have much, much more to lose.
It's a tough world out here. It's got to be quite pleasant when you can just avoid it entirely. They know what they have, and losing it terrifies them.
Know your enemies. It ain't me.
Why is the greatest nation in the world going backwards?
I'm rambling. I think I'm o/t. I don't even remember what the question was, and I fully confess I didn't bother reading the links.
i TRUST ONLY IDIOTS ACTUALLY ANSWERED THAT PIECE OF DRIVEL.
REPUBLICANS WANT TO TEST PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE FIT FOR THEIR SLAVE LIKE UTOPIA, WHILE NOT ACTUALLY FUNDING THE SYSTEM THAT IS SUPPOSED TO EDUCATE KIDS TO PASS THE TESTS. FOR THE REBUTTLICKERS ITS ALL ABOUT MAKING SURE KIDS GET THEIR OWN EDUCATIONS, CERTAINLY NOT ON THE STATES DIME. THEY ENJOY THE REPORE' WITH OTHER IDIOTS, SO THIS SYSTEM BENEFITS THEM NICELY IN THE LONG RUN. THE REST OF US WHO ARN'T IDIOTS, ARE LEFT WITH A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.
YOU PEOPLE ALSO WANT TO COMPLEATLY REVISE HISTORY TO FIT YOUR POLITICAL VEIWS. FOR INSTSANCE DOWNPLAYING SLAVERY AND CALLING IT THE "ATLANTIC TRIANGULAR TRADE". i'M NOT KIDDING, MILLIONS OF TEXT BOOKS IN TEXAS SAY THIS NOW!!!
Apparently paying for a public servant's pension is evil, but paying for a failed CEO's golden parachute is capitalism and should not be questioned.
Let's look at Tony Hayward, the BP CEO in charge of the company during the Deep Water Horizon catastrophe. Upon retiring, he received one year of salary at $1.6 Million dollar plus a $17 million pension. When you fill up your car, a little bit of that price per gallon goes to pay for that pension. But, that doesn't matter because it was not called a tax. Well, guess what. It acts just like one. Furthermore, I have never seen an educator's pension approach $17 Million. But educators are the greedy ones with "fat" or even "phat" pensions. Check out this link from The Economist on CEO Golden Parachutes.
http://www.economist.com/node/16685706? … d=16685706
I don't thing anyone is in favor of excessive pay. However in thus case it's up to shareholders to make their feelings known and to vote against such compensation packages. At least the share holders have a seat at that table as opposed to the tax payer when it comes to deciding public service pay and benefits.
So, the tax payer does not have a seat. Really???? I'll bet our founding fathers would disagree. We the people have the same seat as the shareholders do when it comes to publicly held companies, we each have a vote. But, here is how it is different. In voting for elected officials how decide your taxes, everyone has one vote. In a public company, the people who have more shares (you know the CEO, Board, etc.) have more than one vote. They get to vote all of their shares and anyone who gives them power of proxy. Furthermore, the mutual fund managers that also own a substantial share of stock will most likely side with their millionaire friends. This is the foxes guarding the chicken house.
I think most often, the little guy just wants a fair fight. We don't mind clawing our way up, we just don't want the elite pushing us back down everytime we try to get up. But, when you have the finest politicians money can buy, what other outcome would you expect. Before you call me communist (that is what usually happens at this point), I don't need or want to make the same as a CEO or football player. I just want a system that allows everyone to play by the same rules.
As far as excessive pay, most people on the right seem to think it is a CEOs right in America to make as much money as possible. When 400 people own just as much wealth as the other 300 million people in America, I think we have a problem.
Yes the public has a seat at the table of public companies even if they don't own shares they can simply refuse to buy the product.
Mutual fund managers don't vote your shares they forward the proxy to you and when you think of a share as a person exercising a vote it suddenly makes more sense though I understand big money with the most shares will always win out, that doesn't mean smaller share holders can't pressure them.
As I said when it comes to public service unions tax payers do not have a seat at the table.
Of course they do, it's called the ballot box, just vote for the candidate who says they will dis-empower the unions!
That is far more power than you have in any corporate body.
First you're assuming they would run on such a platform then you're assuming they would or could do what they say finally you're assuming that union money and mobilization plust the interests of union members to line their own pockets will have no effect on the outcome.
Good post. There's a lot of room to work in between communism and fascism. But pretending we can operate only in extremes makes for better drama I guess.
This an example from corporate American - a real example. Names has been "x'd" out.
Sep 24, 2010 "Mr X" - officer of the company
Officer 37,732 Direct Option Exercise at $6.99 - $9.86 per share. N/A
Sep 24, 2010 "Mr. X: - officer of the company
Officer 37,732 Direct Sale at $21.29 - $21.3 per share
This is the one of the officers of a large American insurance company and this is just one man on one day. Mr. X excercised his "perk" of buying company stock at about the quarter of the actual price that day. He sold it the same day he bought it for 25% over the day's traded value. All guaranteed and approved by the Board.
If Mr. X paid $9.86 per share, the highest price he could given his sweet deal, he spent $372,037.52. Within a matter of hours, and it really didn't matter what the stock was trading at that day because he had a guarantee, he sold it at $21.30 a share - again above market rate for that day. His sales amount was $803,691.60.
So Mr. X grossed, in one day and as a result of a perk he and the Board voted him to have, $431,653.08.
That is for one day... and he "bought" the stock on margin.
This is how corporations take care of their own, this is how the insulated wealthy become wealhier. This is what doesn't figure in to posted salaries.
Mr. X had a reported corporate salary of just $335,000 per year. But Mr. X excersided these sweet deals all throughout the year earning himself close to $10,000,000.00.
So let's bitch some more about unions and how they are sinking the country...
Did you ever apply for a job? How did you determine your pay? Did you apply at several places and get multiple offers? If so did you take the one that offered you the best combination of pay and benefits? Or did you take a cut in pay because the employer said he couldn't pay you more than what he was paying others for the same job?
By nature we negoiate for the highest wages the most perks and benefits and that is what CEOS do... if you happen to be in high demand because of your record of success you'll successfully get potential employers to bid up your pay. I can't think of anything more fair!
All overstating the obvious and all very logical... My one question is how does your response have anything to do with what I wrote?
What I pointed out was chicanery corporate America plays as far as compensation is concerned. This, in turn, was a response to the typical "teacher union bashing" on this forum.
The point is/was the following: The private sector has invented "games" and scams with compensation that the public sector hasn't even thought of. And there is scant mention of this by Conservatives even though clearly "consumers" are "taxed" for this BS via higher prices at the point of purchase. While I am not in favor of "controlling" private sector compensation, I am in very much in favor of public employee bashers seeing the hypocrisy and ridiculous abuse on both sides of the spectrum.
So bitch about a teacher making $50k a year with paid benefits if you have to - I mean it's the Conservative mantra to do so - but realize that the private sector has the "outrageous" factor beat hands down...
Lady, ture story - I own 669 shares of an insurance company's stock. And I get to "vote" via ballot, etc. I don't own 1.2 million shares like the retired CEO and Chairman of the Board of comapny "X" does. I don't own 6 million shares like the mutual funds do. Who really has the power here? I don't get offered, as additional compensation, the option to "purchase" 20,000 shares of preferred stock for $0.00 per share then turn around and sell it a few months later at "market cost" or at a "guaranteed cost" - perhaps above the current market level.
Now, let's bitch about unions a little more.... I actually had lunch with the CEO of a large insurance company ten years or so back. Nice guy - very approachable, etc. He told me flat out right the following words as he was eating his salad: "Greed is the best thing on earth. Once you have made it, you're royalty - everyone else pays your bills..." And I never forgot what he said.
And that is an absolute, un-spun true story.
if you think right-wingers are against education, then you're ... well, you're missing their point completely.
Which is ironic, because you're the one arguing that people should read....
All I have seen from the Conservatives on the forums is education bashing. I worked on an MS in Education twenty-some years ago at OSU. Back then education was in a "crisis of curriculum." Now, you have conservatives trying to dismantle the only thing that made education a half-way desireable career field - benefits and job security. It sure as hell wasn't the salaries that attracted teachers - it still isn't... And no, I did not go into the field though I regret everyday not having done so...
I'm getting my masters in foreign language education here at OSU (was yours Ohio?).
Yeah, R's are cutting government spending on Education, but that doesn't mean that they hate education. It means that they think it can be done better in a private sector, or with spending less money on things.
If you want to cut spending on the war in Iraq, it doesn't mean you think guns should be made illegal.
Evan, yeah - OSU in Ohio and the same major incidently.
This is a philosophical issue with Conservatives - not a money issue. It's the same with NPR funding. It's three days in Iraq for a year's funding. NOTHING in politics, though it's spun to be so, is truly about THE MONEY.
This is the old argument that public schools have become "too liberal" in their teaching, their curriculum. This is about the Conservatives answering to their base Evan. The same way the Dems answered to their base on healthcare reform. The Conservatives in the respective states have "seized" on the wave. Privatizing state prisons in Ohio next? Let's privatize police and fire while we're at it. I think the profit motive should always be thrust into consideration when it's a question of public safety. We still pay - bottom line. And we will likely pay more. The private sector is not the model of efficiency and the bargain everyone thinks it is. The Federal government, since Reagan, has been conducting studies in various agencies to determine if privatization is actual cost savings to the people. In most instances, the private sector couldn't touch the cost of the public sector. This was particularly true to with DOD civilian jobs.
It all looks good on paper Evan or in a text book or in a soundbite from a politician.
Once you are approaching 50 and have been in the work world or the business world for longer than you have likely been alive you may find some of your "faith" in the unrestrained free-market going south. You will "unofficially" in private business have become a "liability." Once you have seen American business grow ultra lean and empoverished at the bottom while at the same time bloated and spilling over with money at the top, you may change your views. Or better yet and I pray this doesn't happen, see your job squeezed out. And philosophically, yes - you are a free agent. You go where you desire for work. But the reality is far from the philosophy.
Don't make your argument "you're too young to understand". Just don't.
Aside form that, yes, sure, the argument can be "playing to the base", but that doesn't mean that they hate education. that simply means that they don't want education to be done in a public setting.
"I hate education" and "I hate government controlled education" are VERY different statements. Don't confuse the two.
... perhaps your old age has made your mind fuzzy? (I'm kidding).
PS - what language?
I won't make the argument you are "too young to understand," but I will make the argument that you may lack a little of the "wisdom" that just comes from having your d1*k kicked in the dirt by the business world a couple of hundred times over the course of a twenty-plus year career.
No amount of philosophizing by anyone can make up for the lessons you, I, everyone learn at the "school of hard knocks" in other words.
Languages were French and German. Night school was a bitch as I worked a full-time job during the day. I will really make you feel young lolll - tutition per quarter was around $800.00, books ran about $150 per quarter. You could actually PAY for your education by working a part-time job. Now my daughter's college tution is $38k a year.
the 'education' they are for is not for the development of an open minded individual who is willing to learn without the constraints of dogma
How much of America's public education is controlled by the book publishers?Constant re-engineering to sell more books.
What was it 30, 50 years ago....and what was the standard of living?
My mother and sister, not to mention several extended family members, are teachers, and part of such a union...
Should they deserve less?
I do agree that abuse is taking place..
If you seek a computer-based job with the Los Angeles Unified School District, your starting pay will be around 90,000 dollars per year.... While for health care workers (special education programs) and teachers receive far less...
But, those drayage drivers, the distribution center workers (who are hired through third party logistics temp agencies), and even independent contractors like myself should have the same freedom to organize ourselves...whether against the trucking associattion, companies like Walmart and Home Depot, even to graduate students who are working as professors in universities across the nation...
While we live in a democracy, many Americans tolerate tyranny in the workplace..... The ability to bargain collectively is a right that has been won over a longer period of struggle than even independence of the United States...
Of course, if our educational systems taught more about the relations between elites and workers, we may have more active minded youth...who may even seek unions of their own...
If the youth were to make demands of their educators and the overall system in order to gain their collective compliance, would we not be better off?
I think so...
Have you checked out "Celie, A Slave" yet Lady?
Small, conservative, "traditional values" America at its finest....
I wonder if you had been the murdered man's wife...and remember, little to no political or social voice for you, dear Lady...
In my school, this book would be required reading...
I keep telling you I have nothing against unions! Certainly you DESERVE what ever an employer is willing to give you. If you want to join a union because you think paying their dues will benefit you fine! However why should I be forced to join a union and pay those dues if I feel differently? Further why should the government be required to hire only union labor or why should private industry be required to do so? That's not freedom!
"However why should I be forced to join a union and pay those dues if I feel differently?"
You shouldn't. But if the labor pool and management have made an agreement that the management would only hire union members, then if you want to work for that employer, you have to join the union. Why should their earlier voluntary agreement be made null and void because of your whim? Especially since there's nothing stopping you from joining a union other than your distaste for them.
I suspect most businesses wouldn't enter into an agreement with a union unless they were compelled to.
Every teacher working at a certain school district that I am investigating (to keep things anonymous) HAS to be a part of the union.
And then, when a teacher goes out and tries to work beyond the contract, the union gets mad at them.
I know this because I've seen it.
"And then, when a teacher goes out and tries to work beyond the contract, the union gets mad at them."
Wait, whaaaat? The teachers' union gets mad at the teachers that stay late, take work home on the weekends, give struggling students extra help, use their own money to buy office supplies, meet with parents on their own time, etc, etc, etc? I know a few public school teachers, and they all do that stuff and the union gives them no grief whatsoever.
Hang on a sec, though. Is there a contract negotiation going on right now? 'Cos one of the tactics that teachers use in contract negotiations, to show they're unified, is to have a "work-to-the-contract" strike. They show up for work and do their jobs as usual except they only do what the current contract requires of them, to remind the administration (and the taxpayers) how much work teachers routinely do for free. This typically lasts only until the new contract gets approved.
Great point Jeff.. though they are union employees, teachers are classified as "exempt" - not able to collect overtime, etc. So those 60-65 hours weeks they put in routinely are uncompensated - at least anything aboe 40 yours. Can you imagine if teachers were classified as "non-exempt" what their pay would be?
here on long island ny teachers get OT, they run to the office if the bus is 10 minutes late.
Well right, and again, everything varies per state, per district, etc. In Ohio, one of the "battleground states," teachers' salaries and benefits don't come close to what they are in parts of the Northeast or in California.
My wife is a substitute teacher. Occasionally she gets a "long term" assignment lasting several weeks or even months subbing for the same teacher, etc. When that occurs, I have seen her work from 7:30am to around 7-8pm working on papers, grading, calling parents, etc. And that is without overtime; that's about a 60 hour week. In business, I rarely put in a 60 hour week....
also taxes and homes and cost of living is much Higher also. Do not forget, NY and California are very big union states that the democrats control! they are also the ones with the biggest deficits and bankrupt. and also teachers are off in the summer and spring break and winter recess etc... My wife use to be a teacher they do very well.
Yes. A certain teacher that I've worked closely with told me that this happened to her.
She organized an extra lesson that she would teach at a middle school. The union got mad at her.
Sorry, but it's true. She taught more, and was ostracized.
It is true, a person should have the freedom to choose to work for free.....
Am employer should have the freedom to pay as little as possible...
Lady, the farse is to believe that slavery ended.
It evolved and has expanded globally....
I also urge you to read "The Confessions of an Economic Hitman", as well as "Getting the Goods: Ports, Labor, and the Logistics Revolution."
Slavery has always existed and will always as long as there are women and children to be exploited.
Oh and of course people prepared to exploit them.
I am a teacher and I have heard (because I have been employed in two right to work states) that you have the option in several states and maybe all states to go full union or union light. In the union light, you still have to pay union dues, but not as much as full union dues. If you do not feel the union serves your best interests, that is your choice and you can opt out. However, you are still going to pay the union light dues. Why? Because as a teacher, your salary is negotiated for you. Your benefits are negotiated for you. Your sick days, your retirement, your total compensation. That small part that you pay is the thank you for someone doing that on your behalf. And if you are going to say I could do that on my own, well you especially as a female will probably find that you will not make as much money out on your own. In some areas, it is as little as $10 per month. You would be out more than that on your own.
I've always done well for myself. I solicit multiple offers and I know what the market is for my skills. Right now I'm at the top of my pay grade in my industry nation wide by every measure, age, experience, and education... needless to say if im going to earn more im going to need a career change... or a tax cut! Lol!
But why should there be a cap on your wages?
A lefty idea? I think not.
More likely your bosses imposing a maximum wage on you
There is no maximum on my pay... if I can find someone that will give me more than ill make more ... the problem is there are many more people with comparable experience that would be willing to work for less than I'm making and yet it could be more than they are making... that's the free market in action!
You wouldn't have a society without the "leeches that work for the government!" Try the wild west.
The NEA is a Communist organization, they are teaching our children to hate America and coddling everyone for being substandard. Education is now about making the kids feel good about themselves and not about producing intelligent children. All this does is creates a generation of super egoes, and they are alraedy begining to enter the work force with the thought that they are the future leaders of America and they want the benifites now, instantly.
It no longer has anything to do with working hard to better yourself.
And your message does not teach hate. I have been an NEA member and never taught a child to hate in my life. Furthermore, all of the NEA members I know also care very much for children and are only there to better them. Yes, sometimes we sugar coat the truth. If you were reading two grade levels below your peers because your parents never read to you, do you think it would help you read better if people constantly reminded you that you were the lowest reader in the class. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Since you have so much love to share, how about some for the Pee Wee soccer leagues that do not keep score, but give everyone a trophy. Is that part of the NEA too?
Finally, here is an idea. Instead of slamming organizations that try to make a difference in the world, help out.
This weekend I am going to coordinate volunteers for a Special Olympics basketball tournament. We have about 70 middle school kids who are going to be helping out just in my school. But, again I must be teaching kids to hate.
I would rather give my children the opportunity to be smart than to make everyone feel equal when they realy are not. We are supposed to give praise to kids who achieve, instead of praising everyone for accomplishing nothing.
Ofcourse I sound like a hatemonger to you, the NEA wants people that disagree with them to be painted up as hate mongers, or racists. Political correctness was a strategy incorporated by Lennin to muffle anyone who wants to exercise their ability to think freely.
How about instead of advocating worthless values like multiculturalism, moral relativism, self esteem ciriculum, or darwinism, we teach them the rewards of excelling, and hard work?
Worthless? I suppose the federal government stepping in to force segregation in the South was also worthless.
Multi-culturalism is part of civics. In a global economy you must know about other cultures. Furthermore, America is a melting pot of cultures and we believe in working together.
By Darwinism (I assume you mean evolution) which is part of biology. I like the idea of intelligent design myself. Because the parts work so well together it must have created by a higher power, but evolution sure seems to have occurred. Intelligent design explains both.
I am not sure if you can teach self-esteem, but I know you can tear apart a child's self-esteem by constantly berating them. If you want to help a child improve, it will be easier when they believe in themselves.
Getting through life is difficult for most people. I guess I just see doing as much good as possible as a way of living. When I can help others get through life with as little strife as possible, I feel good about myself. I guess that is why I teach. I want to leave the world a better place.
As for painting you as a hate monger, I am not sure I can do that because I don't know you. But, when you make comments like the ones above, you do a good job of painting yourself that way.
The opposite of segrigation is intigration, and assimilation. This is a key facit to unity in a socioty. I am 100% for intigration. One of the things that has made America a strong country is the fact that the people who have immigrated to this country became Americans, and embraced their new home country. I my self am of multiple ethnic backgrounds, and I am glad that many people from our country are so diverse. Though my ancesters were English, Irish, Scottish, Russian, Canadian, German, French, and Cherokee, I am a citizen of the greatest country in the world, America.
There is no proof that Evolution (which is contradictory to theological assertations,) is a fact, and therefore should not be imposed on our future generations as a fact when it is only a theory. plenty of students have been publicly ridiculed for disagreeing. Kids do not want to be humiliated in front of other kids. This we know. They teach our children that they are primordial slime and nothing more. This is quite a contrast from the Biblical truth that our children are the very Image of God.
I'm affraid to inform you that self esteem cirriculum is a real thing that is happening in our schools. Tpo quote my buddy James Watkins;
" Competition and achievement is frowned upon and if prizes are awarded, they must be given to all kids in a group. Honors classes, designed so the brighter students could learn more, have been discontinued at most schools because the vast majority of the kids who qualified for them were white. We can't have that. We'd rather have them bored to tears in remedial classes with everybody else. Constructive criticism has been replaced with undeserved praise. This underrates the importance of effort. 200 studies have shown that the Self Esteem Movement in education has yielded zero positive results. In fact, the opposite is true. It has spawned a generation of narcissists who face every choice with "it's my life!" If they fail in life it must be because "society" is oppressive. What should be taught is personal responsibility. "
This by no means hatefull, it is the way things are supposed to be. The most qualified person is supposed to get the job, but that's just not fair to the others who can't cut the mustard. people want the best job with the least ammount of effort or knowledge, and they already get it through so-called equal opportunity hiring, and nepotism.
I am not exactly sure where you or your kids went/go to school, but even in college, no one ever presented evolution as anything "other than a theory." I am certain there are those who do, but if they do, they are not practicing good science. But the virtue it is called a "theory" indicates that it has not yet been proven. That's just how science works.
Faith is not science - it can't be. I don't criticize your faith, but you can't seriously teach faith as a science. You can't prove anything concerning religion because, again, it's faith and faith can't be proved or disproved.
I went to school in Washington state, and I can tell you that I have seen science teachers who belittled their students for disagreeing with their evolution theory. And I agree that religion should not be taught in public schools especially with the kind of diversity which is afluent in our socioty.
I can see the following scenario - and remember hearing it myself in biology class in junior high school. The science teacher is teaching about the theory and showing examples, evidence to support the theory and a kid pipes us as says, "That can't be right - it's against God's law..."
Well that may be - I can't argue that, but again it's a science class - not a religion class.
When Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Conner broke the mold of the previous 150 - 200 years of being a Supreme Court justice, they were qualified, but maybe not the most qualified. However, what they could do is provide insight into the mind of non-white males that had been missing. This was equal opportunity. A person should not receive a job without being qualified. Qualified is usually easy to verify, but best qualified is subjective. Recently I had applied for an assistant principal job in my building. The principal and assistant principal were both male. In a middle school, it is a good idea to have a female administrator too. I was upset that I was not given the chance, but I also understand that the needs of the school sometimes require diverse views, backgrounds, ethnicities, and when feasible both males and females.
I teach middle school math. I have 7th grade students who are in math 7 and algebra students who are two grade levels. There is also a group of students who are between them. We have competitions in which only the winner receives the prize. So, I guess I do not agree with your premise.
In America, we have freedom of religion which allows for Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Shinto, etc. points of view. I do not know how all of these religions believe man came to be, but I am not sure it is the job of public education which is there for the entire public to promote a Judeo-Christian only belief.
Let me ask you what does it mean to embrace being American? In other words, if someone has just legally immigrated this country, what should they do to show that they embrace America as their new home?
Well to start, they need to learn to cook hot dogs and hamburgers by the fourth of July, or face imediate deportation............
Seriously though, they should learn to speak English, get a job, and apply for citizenship.
Also again I am not saying that the schools need to teach religion in place of evolution, the people need to decide for themselves weather they believe in one or the other, or both if they feel it is possible and not be discriminated by teachers in a classroom situation.
You are trying to debate with a philosophy that is really antithetical to education. Don't teach the theory of evolution in the context of a biological class - instead teach creationism.
Don't teach children there are other people, other languages, other cultures in the world - instead teach them a romanticized, third-grade version of American History and leave it at that.
Don't teach kids that some questions in life have more than one possible answer - instead teach them that everything in life is black and white and let them self-destruct the first time they face a situation, say at work, where there is no "right answer" just answers of varying degrees of bad.
In other words, train/teach our kids to be good factory workers incapable or unwilling to make tough decisions. Kind of sounds like 19th utilitarian education to me. Of course, it's no longer the 19th Century and the people, globally, we are competing with make us look like idiots as far as education is concerned.
I will tell you another thing about Lenin. The old Soviet education system, even the current Russian education system is anything but "an attempt to make everyone appear equal." Most European education systems still tract students; if you don't have the intelligence and the grades, you don't advance to the same schools - you often find yourself in vocational schools, etc. In other words, our system, like it or not, is one of the few in the world that give kids, regardless of their inate intelligence, an equal shot.
And this is just an FYI - NOTHING in the current American education system is remotely similar to what the communists had or what those "evil socialists" in Europe currently have. It just isn't.
"... make everyone feel equal when they realy are not. ... praising everyone for accomplishing nothing....the NEA wants people that disagree with them to be painted up as hate mongers, or racists. Political correctness was a strategy incorporated by Lennin to muffle anyone who wants to exercise their ability to think freely.... worthless values like multiculturalism, moral relativism, self esteem ciriculum, or darwinism, ..."
Wow, do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter?
What's the matter? You don't like my sources? So instead of refuting my assertations you choose the easy road and attack my character.
No, I'm just pointing out that you're spouting partisan rhetoric without even bothering to put it into your own words.
When someone does that, it's generally an indication that they don't really understand what they're talking about (which is why essay questions often begin with, "In your own words, explain...").
So, do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter, or do you expect your boilerplate to be given the same value as someone else's original ideas? I mean, since it's a bad idea "to make everyone feel equal when they realy [sic] are not."
Do the work; don't copy off your neighbor.
Sorry, didn't see that sentance anywhere on the google search.
And knitpicking my sources shows you don't know what I'm talking about.
"Education is now about making the kids feel good about themselves and not about producing intelligent children. "
You sound like a resentful product of such an education. Too bad that this "feel-good" education policy is merely a chimaera conjured by the right.
vettergt understands that constructive encouragement helps kids to improve while constant berating doesn't.
Education ought to be about teaching kids to learn on their own and to think for themselves, but lately (thanks to the efforts of those who would demonize our teachers and our school system) it's been about teaching kids how to score well on a standardized test. The people imposing tests to try to "fix the problem" are a big part of the problem.
I think everyone that complains about teachers should work in a school for 1 week as a substitute teacher, assistant,hall monitor or cafeteria help.
they would get an eye full!
I have a better idea... let's open up employment to non union teachers. Let's get rid of tenure and let's be able to fire teachers that aren't producing results.
Get rid of tenure? That's saying get rid of those who have seniority and standing. Usually, people who have been in a position for an extended period of time, were doing the job right to begin with. If they hadn't then they shouldn't have tenure.
The teaching profession everywhere is open to non-union teachers at private schools. I agree that in any school system where over 50% of the teachers want to be non-union, participation in the union should be optional and teachers should be free to negotiate individually for pay and benefits.
When you buy gas, a portion goes to taxes which pay for roads. You are forced to pay 'dues' whether you approve or not. How would roads be maintained if these 'dues' were optional? If you don't like this system, you don't have to buy gas.
The benefits extended to all public school teachers are negotiated for and protected by the union. Those benefits should be paid for by all teachers.
If we fired every teacher because they didn't get results one year we would have no teachers left. Have you ever been a teacher? Sometimes even when you've spent hours devising a lesson plan, hours poring over homework, hours studying the methods of teaching that seem to work best, it still doesn't get the results the parents want for their little darlings. Kids, unfortunately, are individuals, not machines. It's not always a question of just trying hard enough: sometimes you get a kid who just doesn't care. Should his teacher be punished?
Suddenly you believe in individual responsibility! Of course you're correct, ultimately success in education is up to the individual's desire to learn which is greatly dependent upon the parents ability to convey the importance of getting a good education. Somehow this message doesn't seem to get through when one is not directly responsible for the cost or the consequences. Eliminate public education and welfare and watch how much more successful teachers become!
Spreading more misinformation I can see.
These two things you mentioned are not mutually exclusive. I can understand the elimination of "welfare", but not public education. Public education can be funded and handled at State level and has no need for Federal involvement.
Why is tha misinformation, because you say it is? Its common sense when money comes directly out of your pocket you're naturally more concerned with how it's spent and whether you're getting what you paid for!
Naturally public school spending is supposed to be local so what's more local than an individual responsibility?
You know, you apparently love to dig yourself into a hole, then try to climb out. Public education is a societal thing, not so much an individual responsibility, as it was when black folks were slaves.
Forcing someone to pay for the education, other than it is right now, would only create many more illiterate people, simply because an education is need to make money, which is why you sad argument fails.
I've nothing wrong with individual responsibility, but what you are suggesting is only going to separate people more than bring them together.
As for my saying what you are doing is spreading misinformation...I am only pointing out the obvious, which happens to most of the time, escape those who are looking directly at it.
Lady, you claim to have nothing against unions?
What a load you are trying to shovel this time.......
You have done nothing but slander and degrade unions and "those liberal leftist/socialist" at every turn....
As I have said before...
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds....
And if you can't see any of this, your cognitive dissonance denial system is on overdrive.....
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by rachellrobinson6 years ago
I came across this article when I was researching whether Liberalism was the symptom of the problem or the disease and I thought I would share it and see what others thought. Liberalism: a toxic philosophyKlaus...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … rupts.htmlThis is an excellent that articulates precisely why liberals behave as they do, what they want, and why they want it. Read this and you will understand why I...
by crankalicious4 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.