The Political Discussion Thread

[pookey]

Nah he should have found a cop car to stick it under

[Coco Pops]

Nah he should have found a cop car to stick it under

Oh yeah now that would have been entertaining for the agents.. hehe

[mad_gater]

Well, speaking to cuts in education, I can't speak about where you are, but here, they have been spending more and more on schools with poorer and poorer results for DECADES. I'm going to be vague about the details because I do not want to post my location on an Internet forum, but these are all historical facts regarding one local school district.

Back in late 80's, the teachers' union president convinced the school board to give the teachers a whopping 40% raise, based upon the theory that you need to pay well to get the best talent to go into the teaching field.
20 some odd years later, this particular city is ranked dead last of the 429 districts in the state. The graduation rate of a recent year was a pathetic 43%, and many of that 43% need remedial education before being able to enter college.
The current median salary for this district's teachers is 58.4K/Year Remember, this is for a job with 180 work days / year, summers off, numerous paid breaks. On top of this is a very generous retirement system which is NOT subject to taxation, and many other perks such as tenure. Ever try to fire a teacher?
Yet, these same teachers do everything in their power (which is considerable, this state is pretty much run by its employee unions) to block any sort of accountability or measurement of their performance.
When asked what their solution would be, it's always more funding for education and more money for teachers. And their spokesman is the same union president that negotiated the 40% raise in the eighties!

Yeah, so there are plenty of sound reasons for cutting education spending. In many areas such as where I am that funding benefits no one besides the education unions and their members, at the expense of the taxpayers, who according to some measurements, are the most heavily burdened in the U.S..

Regarding the "fun story", our government has been using post 911 fear to strip us of our rights in many ways.
The US government is completely out of control. If this once great nation is ever to stop her downward spiral, it needs to start adhering to the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, as written by our founding fathers, Including the 10th amendment.

In plain English, that means that if the government is not specifically granted a power or authority by the Constitution, it does not have that power or authority.

The founding fathers of the US were (quite properly) very fearful of government, even the one that they themselves were crafting, and carefully placed limits upon its powers. They understood very well that the type of person who would want to govern other people is not to be trusted.

Those limits have been being ignored at an ever increasing pace for a very long time now, and since 9/11, that pace is accelerating even faster.
If we the voters don't reign our out of control govt. in at the ballot box and soon, the U.S. will join the pile of other once great powers in the dustbin of history.

I know....most public schools here in the USA are way too top-heavy with admin staff, admin staff that puts out asinine rules and regulations that only serve to punish good students and teachers....rules such as those asinine "zero tolerance" rules....for example in a school with "zero tolerance" for violence a kid could get in trouble for using force to defend himself against a bully

[aretood2]

Well, speaking to cuts in education, I can't speak about where you are, but here, they have been spending more and more on schools with poorer and poorer results for DECADES. I'm going to be vague about the details because I do not want to post my location on an Internet forum, but these are all historical facts regarding one local school district.

You're American? Because in the US that I know that's not the case. I mean...you do take into account things like inflation, the market price changes in things like textbooks, computers, power bills etc which have been going up for DECADES. Then there's a little thing called population increase. More kids means more things for each kid. I mean, in the 80's there were less than 200 Million Americans. Now there's over 300 Million Americans. Of course the stinken budget needs to increase every year for decades.

Back in late 80's, the teachers' union president convinced the school board to give the teachers a whopping 40% raise, based upon the theory that you need to pay well to get the best talent to go into the teaching field.
20 some odd years later, this particular city is ranked dead last of the 429 districts in the state. The graduation rate of a recent year was a pathetic 43%, and many of that 43% need remedial education before being able to enter college.
The current median salary for this district's teachers is 58.4K/Year Remember, this is for a job with 180 work days / year, summers off, numerous paid breaks. On top of this is a very generous retirement system which is NOT subject to taxation, and many other perks such as tenure. Ever try to fire a teacher?

From what I hear, it is incredibly easy to fire teachers in my corner of the US. Not sure what you are talking about. In fact, an Administrator can fire an nontenured teacher just because the teacher didn't wear the right tie Okay, that's an exaggeration, but nontenured teachers can indeed be fired without cause.


Actually, I could find articles about teachers fired for as much as having a social life outside of school. Not that I agree with their life choices and said firing is at times justified if you ask me, but if you can be fired for something unrelated to work...then you bet your little touch that you can be easily fired for work related reasons.

Yet, these same teachers do everything in their power (which is considerable, this state is pretty much run by its employee unions) to block any sort of accountability or measurement of their performance.
When asked what their solution would be, it's always more funding for education and more money for teachers. And their spokesman is the same union president that negotiated the 40% raise in the eighties!

[COLOR]
Actually, when they say more funding, they mean more money so that schools can actually buy computers made in the 21st century and keep updated equipment that runs at an optimal speed. But God forbid that kids get the right tools that they need for their education. Also, not starving to death would be great. Those student loans don't pay themselves you know, nor do the constant classes that one must take. As for the 180 day work year? You honestly think teachers only work 40 hours a week? Well...I'd like to know how they pull that off. Yeah, a 1st year teacher shouldn't take in 60,000 a year, but they shouldn't take in 30,000 a year either. Besides, what's wrong with being paid? Since when is teaching such a horrid thing that those who do it shouldn't be compensated for it?[/COLOR]

Also, more things that kids could get with more funding: Up to date textbooks, Educational devices for the classrooms, Support teachers, better facilities, better equipment for science and gym classes, supplies for projects and arts and music classes. More teachers to teach more subjects that kids actually want to learn about (Imagine that, kids actually learning things that they'll use).

Yeah, so there are plenty of sound reasons for cutting education spending. In many areas such as where I am that funding benefits no one besides the education unions and their members, at the expense of the taxpayers, who according to some measurements, are the most heavily burdened in the U.S..

Heaven forbid well funded schools. It's not like the kids will do anything important with all of those tools and equipment.

But what's with the distaste of paying teachers? The European countries that are beating the US in "tests" (ignoring that they aren't testing the same way as we are) pay their teachers quite well actually. Why? Because people over there value education. To them, it's not a burden but an investment. I am not talking about paying teachers enough for them to own high end cars and big houses. But at least stop treating education like if it is a black hole for money that will never yield any returns. America has one of the best education systems in the world. We actually teach all students and test them all. Instead of just keeping the brightest and testing them while sending the others into vocational tracts (Looking at you East Asia and Europe). Our post-secondary system is top notch, and guess who made that possible? The lonely dirt public education system that is such a burden.

As for schools that get paid lots of money but don't preform, what about those that do get paid and do preform? What about the scores of American schools that have high graduation rates, high student achievement levels and high populations of students going into post secondary schools? Yes money isn't everything as some schools have student populations with extreme socioeconomic issues that wont be fixed by fancy equipment and well paid teachers. But that's no reason to punish the schools that do make good use of that funding and do yield positive results.

[Annoyed]

Just who is going to pay for this? Aren't we beyond broke already?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-1-3-trillion/

The lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars, according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.

[Coco Pops]

Just who is going to pay for this? Aren't we beyond broke already?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-1-3-trillion/

Well maybe if governments taxed corporations realistically and the well off instead of allowing loopholes... hmmmmm

[Annoyed]

Well maybe if governments taxed corporations realistically and the well off instead of allowing loopholes... hmmmmm

The point isn't who should be taxed. The point is that why on Earth should ANY U.S. taxpayers have their money forcibly confiscated to provide for people whose first contact with this country is breaking its laws by entering it.
That is what "illegal" means. Their very presence here is a slap in the face to our own citizens, and those who migrated to this country legally over the years.

And as far as benefiting the corporations, why do you think the GOP at the national level is almost as soft as the Democrats on illegal immigration issues? Who do you think benefits from the downward pressure on wages that results from a flood of cheap labor entering the US? Hint: It's not the working class. It's the corporations. Microsoft is even pushing for an increase of H1B visas to allow them to legally import cheap labor, rather than paying the glut of existing workers in the US a living wage.

That is the biggest picture to look at as far as immigration goes. When our own unemployment rate is bouncing around 1% or so, rather than 15 - 20%, and companies in the US have to outbid each other to get employees, maybe we can think about being more open with immigration policy. But until that day, every person in this country illegally should be deported upon detection, and even legal immigration levels should be reduced.
If we don't look after our own workers first and foremost, who will?
Businesses have already managed to move as many jobs as they can offshore to 3rd world backwaters with dirt cheap wages via the various *AFTA's that both parties have enacted over the past 30 years. Now they want to import cheap labor for the jobs they can't outsource.

Being a common working stiff, I rather oppose that.

[jelgate]

I suggest claiming taxes go against your religion.

[Coco Pops]

The point isn't who should be taxed. The point is that why on Earth should ANY U.S. taxpayers have their money forcibly confiscated to provide for people whose first contact with this country is breaking its laws by entering it.
That is what "illegal" means. Their very presence here is a slap in the face to our own citizens, and those who migrated to this country legally over the years.

And as far as benefiting the corporations, why do you think the GOP at the national level is almost as soft as the Democrats on illegal immigration issues? Who do you think benefits from the downward pressure on wages that results from a flood of cheap labor entering the US? Hint: It's not the working class. It's the corporations. Microsoft is even pushing for an increase of H1B visas to allow them to legally import cheap labor, rather than paying the glut of existing workers in the US a living wage.

That is the biggest picture to look at as far as immigration goes. When our own unemployment rate is bouncing around 1% or so, rather than 15 - 20%, and companies in the US have to outbid each other to get employees, maybe we can think about being more open with immigration policy. But until that day, every person in this country illegally should be deported upon detection, and even legal immigration levels should be reduced.
If we don't look after our own workers first and foremost, who will?
Businesses have already managed to move as many jobs as they can offshore to 3rd world backwaters with dirt cheap wages via the various *AFTA's that both parties have enacted over the past 30 years. Now they want to import cheap labor for the jobs they can't outsource.

Being a common working stiff, I rather oppose that.

I wasn't talking about illegal immigrants..... I was talking about tax in general.

[Coco Pops]

A sad day for democracy

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/02/da...abor-gives-in/

Orwell will be proud.

Sad that a first world country is doing this. Ah the politics of FEAR

[Annoyed]

A sad day for democracy

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/02/da...abor-gives-in/

Orwell will be proud.

Sad that a first world country is doing this. Ah the politics of FEAR

The U.S. has been using post 9/11 fearmongering to strip away civil rights for a long time now. Or don't you consider the U.S. a first world country?

[Annoyed]

And speaking of the loss of rights...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ransformative/

Abstension is a vote. I went to the polls in both 2008 and 2012, but abstained from the Presidential race in both cases. (No candidate I supported running) And no doubt, before long he will want to dictate who you vote for.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it "potentially transformative." Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to voter identification laws in a number of states.

[Coco Pops]

The U.S. has been using post 9/11 fearmongering to strip away civil rights for a long time now. Or don't you consider the U.S. a first world country?

The USA is a first world country but this kind of law would never happen. Too many vocal people in the USA and the ACLU, and other groups would not allow this.

At least I hope they wouldn't

[Annoyed]

The USA is a first world country but this kind of law would never happen. Too many vocal people in the USA and the ACLU, and other groups would not allow this.

At least I hope they wouldn't

And that hope would be futile. It is already happening on a massive scale.
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Unpat.../dp/0820476080

That is but one source for information about this, feel free to google it.. The Patriot Act would be a good starting point.

[Coco Pops]

And that hope would be futile. It is already happening on a massive scale.
http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Unpat.../dp/0820476080

That is but one source for information about this, feel free to google it.. The Patriot Act would be a good starting point.

Yeah the Patriot Act has been extended and amended ....... That was a case of bad legislation.

Even more reasons why such legislation is wrong.


https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...s-nsa-targets/

and

http://mobile.itnews.com.au/News/401...worldwide.aspx


Why are democratic countries heading down this path?