Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The tax we have to pay for it makes it much harder to afford a good private school. It ends up making private schools more expensive, and ironically more exclusive and even better than they would be otherwise! People who would have a choice in education no longer have a choice. The government steals their money and forces them to go to crap public schools. Of course, the rich can afford private school anyway.

This only hurts the middle class. The only people who benefit are poor people who couldn't afford an education even if they weren't forced to pay for public schools. Politicians tax the middle class to appease the poor people, who they use to get elected. The rich always win in the end, the middle class gets screwed, and the stupid ass poor people are happy with their useless schools.

When will people figure out that rich people pay less taxes than they do? They invest in tax free government bonds! They control the government because they are the ones who loan money to the government. It's the middle class, basically anyone with a college degree and minor investments, that ends up paying for useless amenities like public schools that don't teach shit.

If Kerry gets elected, he will do to healthcare what previous stupid Democrats did to education. He will ruin it by making it available to stupid poor people who will abuse it and the middle class will pay for it. Just another reason to vote BUSH.

HA, personally that's just another reason for me to NOT vote.  I don't personally give one rats ass about people who bitch about others that don't vote.  First off your voice doesn't matter.  If it did Al Gore would have been elected president.  Second either way, regardless of the president, we lose.  It's inevitable.  Kerry nor Bush can do any better for the United States.  It's all downhill from here.  :peace: I AM NOT A CROOK

Are you a Christian ? If so I guess you just forgot about jesus teachings ...
Why not eradicate the poors ?  ::)
I won't even bother to answer about healthcare and education. I guess we don't live in the same world and it's for the best ...  :P

Haha now that I think about this, what about all the people that abuse the healthcare system now haha.  Do you know how many people in the US are committing Social Security Income fraud by nursing fake or minor disabilities?  I know about 20 off hand in a small town.  Regardless of anything, us Americans have always found a way to undermine the system and take advantage of it for all the wrong reasons.  

I'm an American, and things are different here. Yes, it's like 2 worlds. In the outside world, poor people are poor because they aren't given a chance at all. They are truly exploited by the rich. These people I do feel for.

Here in America, poor people are poor because they buy lotto tickets, beer, cigs, drugs, and abuse credit cards. They are not poor because they are being taken advantage of. They are a unique type of poor people who are poor because they choose to be poor. Only in America...

We have public libraries. That's enough, I believe. They could simply study there, take their GED tests, and get the equivalent of a high school education. There are scholarships available if they want to go to college. They are not that hard to get here in the US. I got a 50% scholarship with only a 1380 SAT! I have average intelligence, if even that. I just studied, that's it.

Being lazy=being poor. It has nothing to do with being exploited. That's how it is here in America. I say we stick to having libraries, forget schools. Why should someone have a teacher teach him if he is capable of learning himself, in his own way and own pace, in a library? Why should he be slowed down if he is the smartest in his class, and the teacher has to teach slower for the lazy students who don't study? If people taught themselves we would be much better off.

That just may have been the most idiotic thing I've ever read on the internet or even a magazine for that matter.   You totally ignore the constraints placed upon the lower class by the government such as employment.  You bring up libraries as being enough.  Well Freud, do you know how many neighborhoods and cities don't have libraries?  They closed the one down in my town because there was not enough state funding.  WOW but in 2 years I'll have my bachelors of science from college.  And without a library, that's amazing.  I personally suggest you go to your magic library that magically educates poor people and search for a Sociology textbook and start reading.  

Well there are 3 libraries in my town, and no one ever goes there but old people and Asian students. I just think it's a shame they are not being used. Maybe it's different where you live.

Also, public schools are unfair to tradition minded families who just don't believe in education. Amish people don't care about biology and physics and stuff, but they don't have to. They are industrious in their own way. Maybe they would be content to have the choice of a trade oriented school instead of being forced to learn about evolution or something they don't believe in? Public schools take away choice!

Oh man you're hilarious.  So now you're praising the Amish?  I live in the most oriented Amish state in the country and believe me they have schools that offer courses similar to ours.  Sure they train their group differently for farming and shit but that doesn't mean they ignore it all together.  And in the argument that they might want the choice to attend a public school system they would have be required to pay state and federal tax which is something the Amish community is highly against.  :rofl: sheesh man you bitch about public education so much it may be useful if you actually consume a little bit of it.

Well you're proud of not voting, so you're in a little more trouble that I am.  ;)

And as much as the Amish hate taxes, they have to pay them, just like everyone else. Hell, there was an Amish guy fined for drunk driving in his mule cart!  :hihi: They aren't above the law. The law should be changed to give exceptions to people like that.

What about vouchers? If public schools are kept up, but people want an alternative, shouldn't they be refunded what they pay for public schools they don't use? And, if public schools are truly in dire financial straits, why do they have sports teams and plays and art programs and other stuff? They have more money than private schools and do not do as well! The teachers are paid more and do worse. I might see how people can be pro public schools, but come on, how can anyone be against vouchers?

What kinda of % of people there go to private as opposed to public?

Hey buddy I dont' know what state you're in but here the Amish are exempt from paying state and federal tax.  And yes even though they don't pay taxes they do fall under the normal code of justice of the United States.  Just like native americans and priests.  
Anyhow you talk of me being in trouble because I dont' vote haha so what?  I've told you Einstein that the popular vote doesn't account for jack shit.  All you are doing is going to a damned voting booth and clicking a little box for a candidate and going home and feeling important about selecting the next jackass to set in the oval office.   But if voting makes you happy and proud, more power to you.

I live in New York State which has some of the best schools in the country.  Yes, we pay high taxes, but the education is good.  In the South, the taxes are very low and everyone that I know sends their kids to private schools.  So, in a way, they are getting a refund to be used towards private schooling.

On the other hand, elderly people and people without children are paying these high taxes and get no advantage out of it.

And you think Bush is going to solve the above problem?  He's too busy fighting wars to worry about what happens at home.  For that matter, Kerry wouldnt solve it either.  It's a state issue and each state has to design its own method for better education. What works for California will not work for Iowa.

Look, I am aware of the horrible state of many public schools.  But your proposal to eradicate them does not qualify as a solution.  Think about what you're doing - you're taking away education from the majority of the population!  Bad idea Walk!

And your comment about libraries - they are publicly funded as well.  They are public houses of learning except without teachers or mentors.   Some people are self-taught, but most need an instructor to guide them.

Frankly, I'm not really sure how to improve public schools...  I would get the parents more involved in their child's education.  I would ensure that the teachers are well-trained and make their class environment productive.  I would remove a lot of the bureaucracy that eats up the federal money.  I would try damn hard to make people understand that learning is fun... I sound like a big fucking nerd, dont I?


Gunner, I dont know the exact %'s, but I think it's would be something like 20% Private, 80% Public.  A lot of the private schools are also religious schools so they mainly cater to their own kind.

Well, the majority would attend superior private schools if public schools were abolished: they would no longer pay taxes to support public schools. Those who don't want their kids to go to school shouldn't be forced to send them there. It's their responsibility to raise kids the way they see fit, not the government's.

Republicans stand for personal liberty, limited government, and state's rights. The reason they don't succeed to put all this in place is because Democrats get in their way. Democrats want big government and welfare.

My vote is as good as anyone else's. No one cares about your opinion because you don't voice it!

Funny!

So if the parents decide their kids should just go to work at age seven instead of going to school, they should be allowed to do that?

 :no:


/jarmo

Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean that they're stupid. A lot of these "poor" people, work their asses off for what little they have. Not all poor people abuse grants and financial loans. That's such a prejudice notion.

I agree with you about the middle class being burdened with the majority of taxes. I think that should definitely change. But, I don't think President Bush is the answer to that problem.

Um yeah they wouldn't have to pay public school tax, but not aware if you know this or not.....private schools charge this thing called "tuition" which is far greater than any public tax imposed.  Hell my college tuition is 24,000 a year.  I'd love to just pay 10 bucks a month to the government and go for free, but it doesn't work like that.

Yeah, I'd like to pay 10 bucks a month for my kid to go to KINDERGARTEN - I could easily send both of my sons to a private grade school if I didn't have to pay the school taxes.  Hell, I could send the neighbors kids too... :-\

I don't think you've met my mother... she's a single mom, going to college FULLTIME- providing for FOUR of her own children, a friend, her grandchild, and anyone else in anyway she can by being a fucking teacher's aide! And does she get paid to go to school? No fucking way. With the little amount of child support my Dad does send, she still only makes 15,000 a year (let me remind you that the 15000 she makes pays rent, buys food, and trys to pay bills for SEVEN people). Oh yes... the POVERTY level is 16,700 a year where we live- so by any standards, we are "poor." Not a single one of us are lazy or helpless, we don't buy beer or lotto tickets or go to the races every weekend. We are trying our fucking hardest, but at this rate, it feels damn near impossible. There are people who can't do a damn thing about it.

In reply to the topic, there is nothing wrong with public schools- they provide more jobs, and you'll end up being exposed to whatever eventually. Sure the teachers may suck, but honestly, school is what you make of it.

I only it was so easy.  Im not huge on the welfare state myself, but if we dont educate people society will get far worse than it already is.  That doesnt mean that there isnt changes that need to be made.
By the way, 1380 is not average intelligence.  It will get you into many many good schools.  I know people that study their asses off that dont break 1000

Im pretty conservative and pro-voucher to some extent.  But there is a reason that private schools do better, its not rocket science.  The privat schools get to pick and choose what students they take, where the public schools are forced to educate all.  Thats why they do so much better.  If they had the same crop of students from the same ghetto neighborhoods then they would probably be pretty close.

Many will argue with vouchers the same thing will happen.  The private schools will keep the same "high level" kids that they are already taking, and the poor "not so bright" kids will be left out to dry because the private school wont let them in.  Then public schools that need more money because they have the problem kids and the kids with the learning disabilities will have less funds because the private school kids that "most" already had the money to pay for private school anyway will get money in their pocket, while that funding will be diverted from public schools.  yes it is a form of social welfare, but a justified one if there is one.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Thats the biggest problem with education today is the parenting.  It is not so much bad teachers, wrong textbooks, funding, etc.  It is parenting.  Take for instance Asian students.  There are many that come over here dirt poor.  They live in bad neighborhoods etc and encounter all of the other problems as anyone else.  But in their culture they see hte importance of education, and parents spend their entire life working hard so they can send their kids to school and get them an education.  That is why they suceed despite the odds and excuses that everyone else uses.
Parents flat out dont spend the time encourage and push their kids anymore.  Usually nowadays either both parents work 12 hour days, or they are in one parent families.  In California and many of the states on the border the numbers are so bad because half of the students are Mexican students whose parents dont speak english and have no clue how to help their kids with various subjects.  SOme of these parents want the most for their children, but they arent able to help them.  
Parenting has been the big thing that has changed.  Parents make excuses for their kids etc and their lack of supervision by blaming teachers etc.  When these kids come home they have no supervision, and instead of doing homework they go and screw off.

I'll second that.  You wont believe how much money I earn from tutoring Asian students.  :D
And I notice that they always work ahead of whatever they're learning in class at the moment.  So when the class learns it for the first time, it appears as if they are geniuses, when in reality they have just been exposed to the material earlier.  It's sneaky but clever.


CA is in a conundrum.  Sometimes I feel we shouldnt educate illegal immigrants because they arent paying for it when everybody else is!  But I realize that if we dont educate them, they are more likely to become criminals and we will pay for them anyway when they are in prison.  :-\

Therefore I think CA and other states with immigrant problems should receive extra federal funding because it's not fair to our education systems.  


I totally agree.  But this exits the realm of government and enters the realm of culture.  Some Conservatives feel that government should try to regulate popular culture (i.e. Prohibition, FCC regulations, banning gay marriage, etc), but the laws tend to exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it.   Should the government pass laws to encourage parents to be proper parents?  I dont know.  Maybe there should be an IQ test (or something similar) to pass in order to become a parent.

Great - only the intelligent can procreate.   :D

Only in election years.

Personal liberty-- what do you have to say about the FCC again?  Do I smell a bit of hypocrisy here?  Or do you only stand for personal liberty in certain circumstances?  Please define this further for me.

Limited government-- the department of Homeland Security certainly helped limit the government.  Last time I checked, we had a department dedicated to keeping the homeland safe.  It was called the Department of Defense.

State's rights-- the only part I agree that the Republicans stand for.  But once again, how do you justify the FCC, as in the other thread?  You can't have it both ways.

I have very little faith in the public school system. I seen the difference between private and public schools firsthand because I attended both types of schools. I even was sent to an alternative school for a year (a school for kids on probation) and even that was school was better than the public schools.

The difference between public and private (Catholic) school is like night and day. I went to a private school from kindergarden through 6th grade. I had a ton of friends in public schools so I begged to be transferred to one. I thought private school was lame and I detested having to wear a uniform. My parents finally let me transfer, but my happiness didn't last too long.

I transferred at the last minute so the school hadn't received my records yet. They stuck me in the last track classes (the kids who just barely pass each grade), which was only supposed to be temporary, but my homeroom teacher held me there the whole year. The first thing I noticed was that public schools are behind private schools. I was learning things in 7th grade that I had already learned in 5th and 6th grade in private school. The other thing I immediately noticed was the poor reading and comprehension skills public school kids had compared to kids in private school. Many of the last track kids seemed to be on a 4th grade reading level while I was already on a high school level.

The sad part is, no one seemed to care about these kids.  It's not like they were special ed (I hate to see what their classes were like) because all they needed was someone to take the time out to teach them but no one ever did. They spent more time causing trouble or being suspended than they did learning.

That is the other major difference between public and private schools. Public school discipline is a lot more relaxed and inconsistant than private school. The Catholic school I wasn't even that bad. I mean it wasn't the stereotypical school where nuns beat you with rulers. In fact, we hardly had any nuns and the few we had were old enough to be your great-grandmother but that's another story. I've seen public school kids get away with so much shit that private school kids wouldn't even dare to attempt, at least not in the presence of adults.  I've seen kids curse and talk back to teachers, I've seen them threaten them, I've seen them make one cry and treat her like shit, I've seen numerous of physical fights, I knew 2 kids who had sex in the auditorium. I could go on and on.

Oh and another thing, private school has stricter requirements to be passed to the next grade and yet I've seen way more kids in public school fail than I did in private school.

Public schools are just way too large and it's entirely too easy for children to slip through the cracks.

By the way, I did eventually get put in the right classes (the advanced class) and it was a lot better than the last track classes, but there was still much difference between them and private school.

My future children will never attend a public school. I will do whatever it takes to make sure of that.  I am not a religious person in the least, but I would rather my children be stuck in religious school and get the best education possible than be in the horrid public school system.

I dont like alot of things about the public school system, i dont know what the answer is but something needs to be done.

this is totally ridiculous, so rich people don't smoke, drink or do drugs? Only lazy people are poor? That's not entirely true, some of the hardest jobs in the country are jobs that aren't gonna get you rich. Ever heard of blue collar work? And you probably can get rich if you want to, but i think it would be easier if you have very low moral standards, hell pornstars make a ton of cash. Do you think they work harder than a construction worker or someone who works in a mine? Your not gonna get rich just by working hard, a little luck is involved too.

I've looked into being a porn star. It's not as great as it's made out to be. It's simply torture if you're a girl! It's actually hard work, if you can believe it.

And "blue collar" jobs pay damn well. Steel and auto workers can make $30+ an hour in pay and benefits, easily. Construction also pays well. Mining jobs are the exception to the rule of good pay for hard work. Reason being: Irish immigrants worked cheap in the mines in the 19th century, and wages still haven't caught up!  :hihi: Most industry jobs pay well.

Public schools can crack down on problem students just as hard as private schools can. They are put on Ritalin or sent to alternative schools or special ed classes. They have no excuse for poor performance.

There are so many jobs that do not require the skills taught in school. What's wrong with sending a 7 year old off as an apprentice in a trade? That's how things used to be in the good old days. If I don't want my kids going to school I shouldn't be forced to send them.

As for us Republicans, well, we believe security comes before freedom. We don't need airplanes ramming buildings or commies on the radio trying to poison our childrens' minds. Public school is bad enough! ;) Sometimes, you have to have restrictions on freedom to protect what freedom you have left. I believe people realize this as they get older.

If we had to keep them, my solution to public schools is to only promote important classes. No EC activities. No art or music. Nothing but math, science, American and European history, and grammar.

No literature or plays, that's entertainment and not the business of schools. Students who learn the basics of English can do what they want with it. They shouldn't be forced to read what they don't want. That turns too many students away from reading.

I say blaming the parents just doesn't work. They don't want their kids in the schools, the kids don't want to be in the schools, and even the teachers don't want to teach the disruptive brats! If they don't want to go to school, then they shouldn't have to.

I belive they still do it in some countries, it's called child labor.

To me it sounds like you want to go back to the stone age...... Maybe that's what being "conservative" means?  :hihi:



/jarmo

Republican smut - oh yeah baby!!!   :hihi: :hihi:  sorry - I couldnt resist.


We might go back to the stone age if it ever comes to all out nuclear warfare.  I had a discussion about that with my friends the other day.  Just think, we would return to a pre-Industrial era because our knowledge is not widely spread.  What percentage of people know how a transistor works?  A simple textbook on applied physics would look like a book of Dark Arts & Black Magic.

Therefore, we need to strengthen public education so that the knowledge of the civilized world is not so concentrated in the minds of a few.

Maybe some of you have seen this: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html (http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html)
It's MIT's open courseware site where the highly motivated can teach themselves differential equations!   :D  

Child labor has too much of a negative connotation in the Western world. It helps build character, motivation, and respect for authority. Not all child labor involves 14 hour workdays and dangerous working conditions. Too many revisionists compare it to slavery. This simply isn't true.

These days, traditional values do seem to be part of the "stone age." In many ways, living a conservative lifestyle is much better. Sheiks, for example, do not have to worry about their wives or kids nagging them. They don't have to worry about who will take care of them when they're old. They don't have to worry about what's for dinner, it's already on the table when they get home. Kinda like America in 1954.

So, would you rather live like a shiek, or go home to a soap opera watching bitch, lazy kids, and a frozen tv dinner? I know I would like being the shiek more.  : ok:

Wait a minute.  Security comes before freedom?  And yet, we're making ourselves out to be the defenders of the free world by going out and bombing a bunch of sovereign nations full of brown people, and restricting rights at home.  With "freedom" like this, who needs security?

"Those who give up freedom for a little extra security deserve neither freedom nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Child labor has a negative connotation?  God, you conservatives are just as bad as liberals wanting to change the name of something just because you don't like the way it sounds.  Can't call them cripples anymore, they're differently abled.  Not homosexual, but same-sex oriented.  Can't call the blind blind, they're visually impared.  Can't call Michael Moore fat, he's gravitationally disadvantaged.  No more old people, they're geriontologically advanced.  Soldiers con't get shell shock anymore, they have post-traumatic stress disorder.  Bullshit, no matter what spin you put on it, it's child labor.

And as for your conservative lifestyle, what happens when the wife doesn't have the dinner on the table?  Apparently the solution to your problem is to enslave all the women to be completely subservient to mens' desires.  Last time I checked, women were people too.  Maybe you could try doing everything around the house for a few weeks while still holding a job to help pay for your kids' private schools.  I don't think you'd do it, and frankly I don't blame any woman who won't do it either.

As for respect for authority, this country was founded on fighting back against authority.  You conservatives seem to love talking about the values our country was founded on, yet also love to try to get people to shut up every time they question any form of authority.  Unless that authority is a Middle Eastern guy who you think has chemical weapons.  Like I've said before, you can't have it both ways.

Conservative values just reek of hypocrisy.

So you'd like being a sheik?  You want your woman to be completely subservient to everything you want?  Good, the middle east is waiting for you to come home.

Walk's just trying to get a rise out of us - and he's doing a good job at that.

So he wants to be Al Bundy and have a hot daughter to come home to.  That appears to be his idea of 'American sheikh'.


Now if Benjamin were alive today, what political party would he belong to?  I'm betting on Libertarian  :yes:

The true core of the Republican Party is supposed to be akin to Libertarianism(i.e. a small government that places priority on personal freedom, and delegates most of the work to the individual states - such as public education).

But then it got overrun by people who like to mention God, Bush, America, and government all in the same breath.  So much for separation of Church and State.  :no:

Let me just put it this way. It's hard to improve security without making a sacrifice. But sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the good of the country. The national interest comes before personal objections. I can do without a few civil liberties if it means protecting myself from terrorists.

Benjamin Franklin was one of those DEISTS who thought the average American should decide everything. He was also a rich diplomat to FRANCE. He is actually very similar to Kerry. And he never became president. He never understood what the job is all about.

Also, Ben lived in a primitive time when technology was not very advanced. He didn't know about nuclear weapons. He thought it was fine for public militias to have the same weapons as a professional army! Things were different then.

The Constitution is a flexible document that can be changed to reflect changing times. For example, in this time of moral decadence, we need a new amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage. Older amendments can be discarded if it serves the public good. Right now, Americans don't care about the first amendment as much as surviving a day at work!

I'm an average, middle class American and I'm not paid for my opinions. Bush is an Ivy league grad and a professional. Most of all, he's a Christian. He knows what he's doing. I think he can be trusted more than flip flop Kerry. He knows stuff we don't know.

Kerry would be even worse than Bush. Between the two, Bush is the best way to go. So if you hate conservatives so much, have you even thought about how the alternative would be?

Libertarians think drugs should be legalized. I think that says a lot about their agenda. ;) Not to mention prostitution, no immigration or trade regulations, and environmental beliefs that would make Bush look like a Green weenie!  :rofl:

Ah well, voting Libertarian is the same as voting for Kerry.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with drug legalization and prostitution legalization?  Keeping it all illegal is just another way for the government to intrude on us, and letting them decide for us what's right.  You are so opposed to the government telling us what to do with our children in terms of education, but you find it alright for them to tell us what we can and can't do behind closed doors?

For the record I'm a libertarian.  I do not use drugs (I don't even drink or smoke), I would never even visit a legal prostitute, I believe people should be permitted to live and visit where they want, and that free trade is best for our economy.  Any impediments to this are just another part of this big government interference you claim conservatives are so opposed to.

If conservatives truly favor the rights of the individual over a big government, why don't they show it?

Also as for the security thing, when did the Department of Defense become something other than for keeping the country safe?  Apparently it did, since we now have this Department of Homeland Security.  Any answer there, chief?

Let me get this straight.  According to the previous post, since Bush is a Christian, he's more qualified than we are to make decisions?  How so?  Are Christian values so much higher than Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, or moderate Islamic values that we absolutely must have a Christian in charge?

And yes, Franklin was a deist.  Why does that matter?  And yes, he believed that the average American should have rights to make decisions.  What's wrong with that?

And yes, the founding fathers believed that militias deserve the same weapons as the government's military.  So Mr. Good Conservative, are you saying you don't toe the party line and favor a more open second amendment?  How can we truly have control over our government if we can't have the same things as the governors?  Conservatives claim to believe in the Bill of Rights and personal responsibility.  Apparently not on matters of drugs, sex, sexual equality, weapons possession, and the freedom of speech.

Kerry knows stuff we don't?  Again, on what grounds do you claim this?  Doesn't every corrupt politician?  Are you claiming Bush only knows what we know?  If so, why is he in charge of one of the world's most powerful countries?

And frankly, if voting Libertarian is the same as voting Kerry, I will GLADLY punch my ballot for Michael Badnarik.  The only thing the conservatives give us is more control over our money.  Democrats want to give increased freedom over our lives.  Either way, they find a way to control us.  I can live my life much better if I can make my own choices regarding my life rather than my money, if I had to choose between the two.  Though I will always vote Libertarian first, give me a Democrat over a Republican ANY day.

*Edited for typos*

You're definitely wrong on the Homeland Security department. It's actually several agencies working closer together than ever, more efficiently and effectively. It's not so much a new entity but a stronger unity between existing programs. It is better organized and better funded than what we had before.

Secondly, if prostitution and all drugs were legal, AIDS and other diseases would be horribly widespread. Then, medicare and other health care costs would increase. Legalizing vices would end up making government even bigger when everyone gets sick and needs medical care! My belief in keeping it illegal is actually cheaper and saves the middle class more taxpayer dollars.

There is no easy answer to these issues. Tearing down every government program in sight is not going to solve them. Libertarians are too extreme to be taken seriously.

Historically, 3rd parties tend to do well when America is in trouble. Just before the Civil War, 3rd parties like the Whigs and Free Soil and other abolitionist parties did well. In the early 20th century, when Communism was spreading, 3rd parties like the Progressives and Socialists were doing well.

These days, America is strong and more united than ever. Libertarian membership is down since pre 9/11 days. This is a sign things are getting better under the Bush administration: 3rd parties are getting weaker.

And finally, don't lie: you know you would vote Bush if Badnarik wasn't running. ;) What you're doing now is indirectly voting for Kerry.

Better funded?  Our Defense Department (read: military) is already finded better than that of any other country by a large margin.  Not my fault the government would rather spend that money on offense than defense.

Would AIDS be more widespread?  Only if people all decide to engage in unprotected sex with people with AIDS and share their needles.  and how would it cost the government in health care if we cut government funding of health care, another Libertarian principle?  

So if taking down an ineffective government isn't the way to solve problems, what is?  Give the people more ineffective government?  Keep the same ineffective government?  And who decides what programs get cut if we cut them?


And those presidential polls sure show it  ::)

And even if Badnarik wasn't running, there is no way in hell I would ever vote for anyone named Bush.  George 1, George 2, Jeb, or Neil.  Or even grand-daddy Prescott for that matter.  If it were a two-party-only system, I'd rather live somewhere with a choice.

Well, doctors have to be paid. If they aren't, then they can't treat the sick. It would be embarassing for America to have people dying on the street. Public health care is for improving the national image. It can't really be abused, though, as heavily as European health care. It isn't encouraged.

Our health care system is good. It's not an absolute free market, but it isn't a free for all buffet either. I'm conservative, but I don't think people should just die on the streets. I'm a compassionate conservative.  :beer:

When comparing GDP to military spending, America isn't really that militaristic of a country. A lot of military spending goes to research that can lead to private market technology. A lot of this technology saves lives, like aerial reconaissance drones. When military spending is cut, it usually hurts the grunt soldier the most.

Doctors would still be paid, and people wouldnt all die on the street.  Like you say earlier in this thread, with no taxes from nothing to spend money on, people would have more money, and would be able to afford hospital bills on their own.  Well, unless they were too busy paying for education to care about the price of their health.  ;D

For those who still couldn't afford health care, I'm certain someone out there would start a charity to help out the less fortunate.  If you want to argue that some people wouldn't be able to afford health care and die in the streets, then you would have to agree that not everyone would be able to afford private education, and would be forced to go without schooling.

The NATO average for military spending in terms of GDP is 2%.  In 2003, the US was at 3.7%, almost double the NATO average.  Even in 2000 before the war on terror, we were spending 3%, or 1.5 times the NATO average.  And as I previously stated, most of this was spent on offense (weaponry, and pointless weaponry, I might add... what really did the MOAB's accomplish in a country trhat already consists of a lot of rubble?  Still no sign of bin Laden...) rather than defense.

Forgot to add that in 2003, military spending was 49% of the US's discretionary spending.

The difference is, going without public education is a good thing! You can't get shot or beat up or brainwashed if you stay away from those liberal concentration camps.

Offence is greater than defence, this is a no duh statement. "National Defence" is such a stupid statement because offence is preferable to defence. It's more expensive, of course, but it's better. NATO actually wastes money on their military because they don't use it! We, however, have liberated 2 countries in a single presidential term.

OK, so eliminating public education will also eliminate mind control (which is more a conservative phenomenon than liberal; find the declassified documents on MK-ULTRA from the CIA) and violence?  How so?

So it's better to be going out and attacking random third-world countries full of brown people who might have something against us (and also happen to have a lot of oil) than to be paying attention to defending outselves?  Unprovoked attacks like this are no different than a terrorist attacking a target.

What in the hell does this have to do with public education? Other than your spelling?

Publicly funded education is probably the best use of your tax dollars. ?If you were to look at some of the other things you are paying for you'd be more disappointed. ?I think I'd pass on an elitist system where only the rich could get an education - I think we moved away from that a very very long time ago for good reason. ?As a teacher, I chose to work in the underfunded schools in the public system as opposed to working in the private sector. ?I believe in the public system and it would be catastrophic to society if it were to be abolished. ?Then again I guess I have been brainwashing kids with the "liberal" evils of Mathematics, Physical Education and AIDS Awareness for all these years.........

I think it is a BAD idea... Some families cannot afford private schools!!  I know I go to a private school.  But lots of friends of mine go to public schools because they cannot afford a private education as it is quiet expensive to say the least.

Public Education should NOT be abolished, but what needs to be changed, is the Government behavior concerned with the manegement of Taxes -- Money --   Remember, not everybody can afford education, it has to have a price even if its a small one, to create some kind of conciensce and in the students so they care more about the study, now it costs something and they give them the apropiate value.... 
lets give everybody a chance, even if it goes, against  Nietzsche thoughts about life...

In reality, the money the US spends on public education has little to do with performance.  The US spends in the top 3 I believe in the world in terms of GDP percentage on Education.  Yet we are somwhere in the middle of the pack in terms of performance.  However, some schools here (like where I live in Wisconsin) do really well, while some (like in Washington DC) do absolutely horrible.  While the schools in DC receive some of the highest funding per student in the world.

It all really comes down to parenting and having 2 parents in the household.  That is our biggest problem.  Parents are not reinforcing the knowledge that kids are getting in school.   Asian Americans have proven time and time again in this country that being poor doesn't have to be a hindrance in terms of academic performance.

True dhat.

While family, discipline and integrity have everything to do with it.

I've always said that we need to stop using schools, especially past grammer school, as "prisons" and/or "free day care".? Unfortunately, that's exactly what we do, and mostly by govt mandate.

The kids who don't want to learn aren't going to be forced to.? And they just provide a distraction to those that do. REQUIRING a child to be in school, or be home schooled, to a certain age is actually counterproductive to the education process, IMHO.? Offering the opportunity is enough, I think.

The opportunity for education should be a right, but it should come with more than a bit of personal (and parental) responsibility.  The current system ducks all of that by not making it a right, but a requirement.....and the over-regulation of it dilutes it's effectiveness.

I definately agree; that is why my kids are going to attend private schools.? For the most part, parents that are willing to pay the money care more about their child's education.? I agree that 95% of them will never go anywhere.? That is why it is so important to separate within each grade level those kids that need to be pushed more and those kids that need more help.? Placing them all together in the same classroom only hinders the kids that need to be pushed harder.? The teacher's time is directed at babysitting those kids that can't sit still in their seats.

This I am not so sure of.? I understand that you can't force anyone into learning; however, I do believe that some of these children would be absolutely lost without school.? If it wasn't required certain parents would care less if their children attended school, many of which would not provide their children with the opportunity to attend school.? I think there are too many parents that don't care, which would lead to a greater gap between those that have and those that have nothing.? Call it paternalism, but I actually think it is necessary.? Without education there is no hope for these kids.? Of course, once they reach high school I would probably agree.? Of course, I would probably require that kids show proof that they are working during the day in order not to attend school.? I don't think it is to any city's advantage to have youth between 14 and 18 running wild during the day.

I actually started out in a private school..and was one of those kids who couldn't sit still....because I was bored to tears.  We had homogonized classes (this was in the early to mid 80's, remember).  I was usually the first one done and would then get in trouble for talking to fellow classmates or things of that nature.  I remember my frustration at not having anything to do and at the fact the teacher didn't move fast enough.  So I can see where you're coming from....


Actually, you don't disagree, really.? When I noted "especially after grammer school", I meant that to qualify the following opinion.? Sorry, I know I wasn't clear.

For our neck of the woods, grammer school ends at grade 6.? That means, most kids are between 11 and 12 before heading into 7th grade.? At this point, our "disagreement" is tantamount to just a couple of years.

7th grade, from the studies I've read, is where the real "break point" starts to set in.? Part of it, I'm sure, is puberty setting in in earnest and all the hormones raging.? But a good part of it is, by that point, the child is more or less capable of a conscious decision on just how involved they want to be in the educational process.? I think, for those that make the choice that the educational process isn't for them, there could be other alternatives provided.....which would be less expensive, and less burdensome on the taxpayer.? In turn, those that DO choose education would choose benefit from smaller class sizes, increased focus by the teachers, and a reduction in the "distractions" from other students who are only there because "they have to be".
That would not only benefit those that excel, but it would benefit those who need extra help or have "special needs", as well (provided they chose to stay within the system).?

I'm sure there will be some arguments that this sets up a "have/have not" caste system, and, to some extent, I agree.? But, then again, we already do.?

Again, all JMHO.

Adopting the German idea of splitting up the "thinkers" and "doers" would be the best thing to happen to public education in this country.  Why have a kid who is going into the trades be bogged down with stuff he doesn't need (for the most part) in high school.

We actually have a Technical School near us that is offered as an option to all the high school bound (or age, for that matter)surrounding students.? They do just that.? 50% Academics and 50% Trade training.? ?The acedemics aren't "dumbed down", either.? But they leave some of the more "college bound" classes (Trig, different lit classes, etc) out of the curriculum.? It works wonders for those inclined toward that area.

they leave out trig?


intresting, wonder how you would find the displacement between 2 points in a vector quanity....

I think they teach trig within the math curriculum, but don't have a whole "class" devoted to it.  I'll ask my cousin (who attended).

cool cause im in a tech school myself.... leaning heavily on the eng. side ..... heavy course load..... but really good, and we dont have a course fully devoted to trig, however that being said, we do use trig in physics and math rather heavily (can do it in my sleep). It jsut so happens we were discussing some different cirrclium approaches today from the US and canada vs newfoundland wehre im to, and one place we were looking at was indinia and how they have somewhat of the same thing that you are talking about aswell as a degree granting tech school.

I talked to him last night and he said pretty much what I assumed.  They cover trig in math class, but they do not do a full year course on it.  The trig they cover is more "practical application" type stuff...no proofs and such.

This is sort of related:

Leading by example

The Swedish government is proposing to start pupils at school according to their ability - not age. Is this a policy that we could soon see being introduced in British schools? Gwladys Fouch? reports

Wednesday October 5, 2005

 
While British youngsters start school at around five years old, their Scandinavian cousins tend to begin at seven
 
Pupils should start school according to ability, not age. This is what the Swedish government is proposing, in an attempt to make the system adapt better to children's needs.
While British youngsters take the plunge at around five years old, their Scandinavian cousins tend to begin at seven. The Swedish schools minister, Ibrahim Baylan, now wants to allow parents the option to send little Sven and Lena either at six, seven or eight.

"Children develop at different rates," explained Mr Baylan. "We want the system to have more flexibility so that it fits individual kids better."

In August, 92,000 Swedish youngsters went to class for the first time. Most attended one year of preschool before that. The vast majority - 95% - were seven, with the remainder either starting at six or eight years old. Parents currently need permission from their local authority if they want their child to start at eight. Under the new rules, they would no longer have to ask.

Mr Baylan says it should be up to families to decide when is the most appropriate time to start school, because parents are the ones who know their children best. "This would benefit those born late in the year and kids who have recently come to Sweden with their families," he says.

The proposal has broadly been welcomed for adding a degree of flexibility to a bureaucratic system. The head of the Swedish parents' association, Bo Sundb?ck, said: "It is generally a good idea. Kids develop differently, so some seven-year-olds have the maturity of 10-year-olds, and vice-versa."

However, he and other education professionals warn of potential pitfalls, not least the risk of parents pushing their precious one too early, in order for them to become the next Einstein. "There could be more pressure on the parents to make the kids start earlier, even if they are not ready," Mr Sundb?ck explained.

"Parents want the best for their children, they want them to be the cleverest, the most mature," agreed Lena Nyberg, the children's ombudsman, whose job involves promoting the interests of youngsters in public debate. "So many of them would probably want an early school start as a sign of status, when it could be too early for them to leave the playground."

Another thorny issue is the question of what happens on the other side of the system. "School is compulsory until 16. So what happens when a kid finishes at 15?" asked Metta Fjelkner, the president of the National Union of Teachers. "Both ends need to be considered."

On the other hand, many believe that there should be even more flexibility in the system, with intakes happening in spring as well as in the beginning of the school year. "Even a half-year is an ocean of time in the life of a six-year-old," argued commentator PJ Anders Linder in the conservative daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet. "To begin a year early is a big decision. But half a year is a little less dramatic and it also applies to an even higher degree if you choose to wait [with going to school]."

Others even suggest that intakes could be done on a monthly basis. "Children could start in August, September, October or any other month in the year," believes the head of the Swedish Teachers' Union, Eva-Lis Priesz. "We need to look at the strengths, weaknesses and needs of each child and see what would be best."

In a similar move, one British secondary school is for the first time this year teaching mixed-age classes. At Bridgemary community school in Gosport, Hampshire, some 12-year-olds are currently learning GCSE courses alongside pupils a couple of years older, at level two. The argument, like in the Nordic country, is that kids have different levels of development and the school system should reflect this. Or as Bridgemary's headmaster, Cheryl Heron, puts it: "Why hold a child back if he or she is clearly ready for something more challenging?"

Many other education professionals favour this flexible approach. "The Swedish initiative is a good idea," reckons Alan Smithers, the director of Buckingham's Centre for Education and Employment Research. "We rush ahead to teach kids writing and arithmetic when some of them have not yet the skills to hold a pen. Some children end up left behind."

Professor Smithers is pushing for a system in which children aged between three and six will attend a 'foundation' course, and the age at which they start will depend on how mature or advanced they are. "If a child is behind because of, say, an illness, he or she will be able to catch up. If a child is gifted, then he or she could be moved up earlier."

Then, from six till 14, pupils would attend a 'compulsory' phase, with all the general subjects on the curriculum. Specialisation would only come from age 14.

So, will we see more age-flexible policies across Britain's schools?

"Colleges commonly have mixed-age classes and I think more and more schools will be experimenting with mixed-age classes," said John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, earlier this month.

"Our education system is too age-related," he added, "and this is reflected in the way the league tables are about the performance of 16-year-olds and fail to reflect good results by pupils a year later. Moving away from an age-related system can have benefits."

---

Seems like the school system is becoming more and more flexible compared to when I went to school. We had classes and that was it. It wasn't until 7th grade that we could choose if we wanted to study German, French or something else and also if we wanted to take the regular maths course or the more advanced one.



/jarmo

I am very happy with the public schools that my sons attend, but if I lived in another state, I would have a different opinion.  I live in upstate NY, but if I lived in Georgia, I wouldn't be happy.  I have noticed that the schools are getting tougher each year.  What my 5th grader is doing, I wasn't taught until high school.  Obviously the kids are capable as he gets straight A's.

Didn't I read somewhere that it's easier to grasp new concepts the younger you are while your brain is still growing and developing?

The age thing you posted, jarmo, is surprising to me.  In the US, most kids go to kindergarten at age 5.  My one son went at 5 and the other at 4.  I really debated about the 4 year old, but he was bored to death in preschool so I told him he could give it a shot and if it didn't work, then I could keep him in kindergarten again the following year.  He did fantastic. 

The biggest negative thing that I see with people having options is social.  My son was 4 and there were kids 6 years old in his class.  He was fine given that he has an older brother and normally plays with older boys in the neighborhood, but I can see that being an issue at some point.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents!  :D

What should be abolished is No Child Left Behind and all these tests needed for grade promotion and graduation.  What is happening is that students are being taught how to take these tests and they are not getting a well rounded education.  For example, the teachers in the district in which I teach do not focus on spelling because there is not a spelling component to the test.  These tests determine govt. funding so it's easy to see why good scores are important to schools but at what cost to the students.  Aren't all the tests through out the year that a student regularly takes in history, science, etc. a good indicator of whether a child has learned?

Well, you don't abolish the test then, you simply change it to cover more things.  I think teaching to the test is the whole purpose.  There are certain things that you are supposed to learn in these grades, which is supposedly what they are testing.  Thus, if kids are taught to the test they are learning what they are supposed to learn.

This should be changed then.  Of course, it will probably take sometime to get it perfect.

That has been how education has worked for years, and it is no longer working.  Not all teachers are great teachers, and there is no way to determine it otherwise.