Slashdot Mirror
Cornell Hosts Third-Party Presidential Debates
clonebarkins writes "Tonight at 8:00, Cornell is hosting the third party presidential debate. Candidates debating are Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walt Brown (Socialist Party), David Cobb (Green Party), and Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party). Unfortunately, I cannot find any information about whether or not it will be broadcast anywhere."
But C-Span is supposed to rebroadcast it at a later time according to badnarik's site
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Seriously. Nader isn't even there with his thunderous 1% support. What a waste of breath.
They could broadcast it on the web, or at least record it, and bittorrent the video.
It appears that the Badnarik site is being /.'d please view the cornel site for more information on the debate until the bandwidth usage subsides.
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
Putting Nader there might give him credibility and hurt Kerry's chances.
This is Cornell, after all.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
In order for this debate to have credibility and in order to raise the profile of this debate, we need a "star" to give the questions to the candidates. Let's ask Bill O'Reilly to be the questioner.
If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then please write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
From the Cornell site: "Independent candidate Ralph Nader declined the Mock Election group's invitation."
Nader turned them down, for whatever reason. No great conspiracy going on here.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I'll go this far, the first two CPD criteria are reasonable. 1. must meet the age and other requirements to BE president 2. Must be on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win. It's #3 that is a catch 22. Must have an average of 15% support in four national polls to be included in the debates. Problem is, polls do not ask about third party candidates because "people havent heard their names", and people can't hear their names, because they are not included in the debates. We went from a non-partisan system under the League of Women Voters to the CPD which is run by the former national committe chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist
Now that I've trolled for your attention, I want to say that there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
.01% of the vote is treated differently from a party that got 1.01%. If a party gets even 2% of the vote, they start to look mainstream. After all, getting 2% might be enough to alter the balance of power between the two major parties.
The election process is about more than just who wins. Sure, the winner is important, but there are other factors that have an impact on the behavior of government. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that one of the two major parties will win in November. Why vote for someone else?
A vote is a statement of your general favor for a given candidate. It's a winner-take-all proposition; you don't get to divide it among three candidates you like. It's assumed that you don't believe the candidate is perfect for you; he was just good enough to get your vote.
Voting for a third party or write-in candidate sends the signal that A) you care enough to vote and B) neither of the two major party clowns was good enough for you. To the extent that your vote matters at all, you have used it to tell the major parties that if their policies were more like the one for whom you voted, they might get your vote.
A vote for a third party encourages that party, and also the other minor parties. They see the number of people who voted for them, and know where their support is.
A vote for a third party lends them authority when they speak out. A press release from a party that got
But, it might be argued, doesn't that split the support for one of the major parties, causing the Most Evil Party to win instead of the Not Quite So Evil Party? Possibly, and that is part of the choice. Unless your tiny party is at one extreme of the spectrum occupied by the two majors, support for it will come proportionately from both of them.
Most people want to vote for a winner. To vote for a third party you have to get past that sense of wanting to be on the winning side and remember to vote your own mind. If you only vote for the candidate you think is going to win, you have effectively allowed someone else to vote for you.
Finally, voting for a third party encourages those who don't want to "waste" their vote that it's not such a waste. Voting is a herd phenomenon. When others see your party's vote total rising from past elections, they'll be more likely to vote that way themselves.
sigs, as if you care.
why they weren't eligable?
Maybe because it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to hit 15% in a preliminary poll unless you happen to be a member of one of the two ruling parties?
Jesse Ventura shows however that in a 3 way race, you can rise from below that staggerringly high marker to win an election. From a good Debate, no less.
Ross Perot was on track to be a serious contender for the presidency when he ran the first time. He would not have met the CPD's criteria either.
15% is way, way, way too high.
AFAICT there are only two fair ways to do debates. 1. if you are on enough ballots to theoretically win the presidency, you are in. 2. widespread polling of who the people want to see in the debate.. not who they would necessarily vote for on Nov 2, but who they would like to see in the debate.
You are happy with a duopoly, apparently. The silent majority of this country who no longer vote because they have realized nothing in this system represents them, and that all they are fed from presidential candidates is bullshit stacked on crap do not agree. At the very least including more candidates in the debates stands a chance of raising voting participation rates.
Saying GEE IF YOU WANT MORE THAN TWO WE HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THEM is simply stupid, simplistic, and shows you have no idea whatsoever what the words "healthy democracy" means, nor do you care. I care. This is not abstract theoretical stuff. It's simple, practical and real; a two party system that shuts out all other voices hurts us all.
Well apparently your choices are spend way too much here at home without making sure the programs work, or spending way too much on bombs and guns and prisons and knowing the programs don't work.
I'd rather see my money go to poor people than rich people, that's for sure.
In the conservative mind, anything that might possibly benefit the Left is evil and hateful and anti-American, whereas any of the well-documented dirty tricks of the Right (e.g., Republicans financing the efforts of Nader, whose beliefs they obviously do not share, to get ballot access in states where he failed to collect enough signatures) are legitimate politics. Hope that clears things up.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I would not at all include polling, so long as you qualiy in enough state to win the election (270 EV's) you should be allowed in the debates. I also think that membership of *any* party should also not be a requirement.
As for wasteful spending at home, I think the bush 40%+ increase in education spending qualifies as does the boondogle of the perscription drug discount card.
Face it the two major party's are *Identical* the last time I remember any difference was Regan / Mondale.
Dnot confuse conservatives and republicans, I think both the Republican push for Nader and the Democratic push to remove him from ballots are both disgusting examples of how the two parties are *identical*
I'm with you. That's why I don't vote major party. I just get tired of people pretending that republican candidates actually believe that rhetoric they toss around about leaving more money in your pocket. They only believe it if you own a weapons and munitions company.
I think something is up with that purpoted "bush education spending increase" though. I have several friends in education in different areas of the country and all their schools are looking at cutbacks. Not scientific of course, just my gut feeling.
I dont know when a republican candidate gets Ted Kennedy, maybe the only man more liberal than Kerry, to vote for an education spending measure it has to pass the mustard. I can not think of a single point in my life when teachers and school boards were not complaining about budget problems (During HS 1992-1995 my teachers went on strike *twice* because of 'poor resources'). I have long become jaded by teachers who cry poor and yet live in the suburbs. That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer makes me realize that no amount of money will stop schools from wasting it.
During the Clinton administration 450 Million dollars was basicall lost by the department of education (they failed three straight audits).
http://www.educationleaders.org/elc/issues/update/ update010407.html
I am not sure how things are any better now..
False, and flamebait.
First, conservative and Republican are not synonymous, any more than liberal and Democrat are.
Second, I'm quite conservative, and it's because of that that I dislike the dirty tricks and cynical electioneering of either side. Why don't the two sides devote themselves to convincing people which philosophy of government is best?
It makes me think they don't really believe what they say, and that makes me want to vote Libertarian. I don't agree with the stance of the LP on some issues, but at least you know what their stance is.
sigs, as if you care.
Okay, I should have said "Republican" rather than "conservative." And believe me, as a "liberaltarian" who generally votes Democratic but has been known to bolt for the Libertarians when the Dems get too statist, I'm glad to see at least some principled conservatives considering alternatives to Bush. I guess the main question I have is, why aren't more of them doing it? How can anyone who believes in the traditional conservative values of small government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent foreign policy still support the guy? I don't mean this as a flame -- I'd really like to get some insight here.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Fair enough -- s/conservative/Republican/, as I said abobe.
I really don't understand anyone who says the parties are identical. Identically dirty? Maybe. But there is a real ideological difference between them; only from the perspective of Us-vs.-Them fanatics do Kerry's and Bush's positions on most issues of the day look the same.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
For a partial answer, see my post on an earlier story.
sigs, as if you care.
"I dont know when a republican candidate gets Ted Kennedy, maybe the only man more liberal than Kerry"
I assume this is in response to accusations about the liberalness factor of Kerry and Edwards voting patterns. This information is purported by those that quote it to be taken from non-partisan statistics.
It is. But the part they selected covers exactly one year - the year that both were absent from many votes while campaigning. It stands to reason that the votes they would be present for would be more contested votes, ones where they would probably come out on the liberal side of things.
While I'm sure that many will tromp over this site, here's a good page showing the total numbers Daily Howler
... will be: Whose party is actually "third"?
The dirty is the most important part (though they are both big government guys). It keeps any real dalog from happening. I nearly fell asleep at the presidential debate, the only thing keeping me up was the depression that one of these jokers is going to be running the nation.
Take a look at the url "MockElection-prezdebate.html". So who are they mocking?
What goes against both Bush and Kerry is they are BOTH from our "aristocratic" families. We claim that we have no king, but eerily enough, we seem to keep having that same families coming back to lead us.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
This is not a 2003 issue the man is one of the most liberal people in the senate... period. As for Edwards its hard to tell seing he has not even finished a term in the senate and was pulling under 40% if he were to try and run for re-election in North Carolina.
Theres not many actual parties out there...If you just kept the two first requirements, I doubt you'd clear six canidates. Certainly that should be a small enough number to permit the traditional "extended discussion" of 30 sec and so on for the few questions asked.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
i dont know specifically about your friends' cases, but in Illinois the school is funded based upon property taxes. one of the schools local to my area might have to shut down because of it. essentially if you live in a poor area the school gets crap for funding. this really hasnt changed with any federal legislation. i also dont think it is quite fair, as it is basically stating that kids from "richer" areas are worth more than kids from "poorer" ones. personally i think that funding should be handed out per student with each student being worth the exact same.
C-SPAN lists the third party debates as one of today's "events": http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan. csp?command=dprogram&record=181858431
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Hmmm. Others' responses to your post in that thread pretty much sum up what I'd have said. Until he let the "assault weapons" ban lapse (don't get me started on the absurdity of that phrase, or the uselessness of the ban itself -- in any case, it would presumably be preaching to the choir) I'd have had to say that Bush hasn't done a single thing right since taking office.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I've heard teachers refer to the "No Child Left Behind" act as the "No Teacher Left Standing" act, as it loads teachers down with more non-academic work.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
To a person on the far left, both Bruce and O'Reilly appear to be rightwing extremists. However, a person on the far left is little different from a Nazi and should be invited to leave the USA.
How would Bruce and O'Reilly be different from the current options? They support using the national guard to protect the borders and deporting foreign nationals. They support strong legislation to protect the environment. They support civil unions and allowing homosexuals to adopt.
I like O'Reilly because he takes deceptive, asinine talk (like that which often appears in this forum) and destroys it by using facts.
I'm going to the debate tonight (my organization is a co-sponsor). As others have already mentioned, Nader won't be there, although he's coming to Ithaca tomorrow night for a campaign stop (8PM, State Theater). C-SPAN is definitely taping the event, but I am not sure when they will air it. After seeing the past two televised debates between the major candidates, I am looking forward to some different political perspectives. There should also be many "interesting" people in attendence (people you can only find at a university). Personally, I am definitely on the left but have yet to decide which third party to support (although I am leaning towards the Green Party based on their platform). I just received my absentee ballot yesterday, so I need someone to write in.
That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer
Either you suck at math, or you have absolutly no idea how much a teacher has to work.
A teacher works about 3/4 of the year, and makes 2/3 of the money. Are you saying that a teacher works less during each day of work than an engineer? Do you realize that they have to do lesson planning and grading?
For the record. I am an engineer.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I live in the San Fransisco bay area. And over here it seems like the exact opposite it the rule. In the liberal mind, anything that might possibly benefit the Right is evil and hateful and anti-American, whereas any of the well-documented dirty tricks of the Left are legitimate politics.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It might be broadcast on Radio 5 Live's Up all night programme. The Presidential and Vice Presidential debates were broadcast at least.
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
Feel free to check out the Ballot Access Status!
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
I agree with you, mostly. The costs for land (and maybe some other things) will be greater in the richer area then the poorer area. So there needs to be a way to compensate for those differences in cost. Otherwise the poor people in the rich areas are going to be SOL.
For the same reson that many are voting for Kerry rather than Nader, because he is better than the alternative..
I also realize that as much as a teacher has to do lesson planning and grading contractually in most states they are given a free period *and* a study hall period. Do you honestly think entry level engineers only work 40 hours a week??
Now that I've trolled for your attention, I want to say that there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
I disagree.
The election process is about more than just who wins.
No, the lobbying, polling, debate, and forum process is about expressing wants. The election process is simply there to choose a president. During polling and so forth, you get to say "I want someone who pushes anti-abortion more strongly than Bush does".
A vote is a statement of your general favor for a given candidate. It's a winner-take-all proposition; you don't get to divide it among three candidates you like. It's assumed that you don't believe the candidate is perfect for you; he was just good enough to get your vote.
Yup. And this is exactly why we need IRV or some similar system instead of the existing first-choice-only. If such a system was adopted, a vote for a third party wouldn't be wasted. Under today's system, however, it is a waste.
Voting for a third party or write-in candidate sends the signal that A) you care enough to vote and B) neither of the two major party clowns was good enough for you. To the extent that your vote matters at all, you have used it to tell the major parties that if their policies were more like the one for whom you voted, they might get your vote.
I don't buy it. Consider what you're trying to say: that if "Party X" had just changed their politics, they would have gotten your vote. Presumably, this is to try and convince "Party X" to adopt your politics for the next election. However, we can demonstrate that this approach doesn't work. The 2000 elections were incredibly close, and the 2004 elections are shaping up to be the same way. This is the *ideal situation* for your claim to be coming true, if it ever was going to do so. If you didn't like, say, the Demms in 2000 and voted against them, but they didn't change to your favored policies in their running for the 2004 election (and they cannot have done so, or you wouldn't be voting against them now), it will *never* happen, as this is the time that they are most likely to need to bend over for your policies.
A vote for a third party encourages that party, and also the other minor parties. They see the number of people who voted for them, and know where their support is.
These parties can run polls if they want public opinion. Voting is there to choose the next President, not to express feelings -- there are better forums for that, where one can give out more detailed information, like *why* one prefers a different candidate.
But, it might be argued, doesn't that split the support for one of the major parties, causing the Most Evil Party to win instead of the Not Quite So Evil Party? Possibly, and that is part of the choice. Unless your tiny party is at one extreme of the spectrum occupied by the two majors, support for it will come proportionately from both of them.
A vote for a third party is one-half of a vote for your less-liked mainstream party. I hate to say it, but that's how it is. I'd be estatic if IRV or a similar voting reform gets adopted, but that's the only way to fix the system. Trying to come on Slashdot and get a majority of Americans to vote for a third party just isn't going to happen. Vote reform is a prerequisite.
Finally, voting for a third party encourages those who don't want to "waste" their vote that it's not such a waste. Voting is a herd phenomenon. When others see your party's vote total rising from past elections, they'll be more likely to vote that way themselves.
*If* this is actually true, it would simply strengthen your less-liked of the major parties.
May we never see th
Can anyone look at the news today and seriously believe this? While the two parties use similar tactics to get in power (which includes sucking up to the wealthy and big corporations to get money), the agendas they plan on furthering are very, very different. (1) Bush's intent is to push for conservative Christian values- to ban abortion, ban gay marriage, etc. Kerry is against doing that. (2) The Bush administration believes that tax cuts should favor the wealthiest Americans; Kerry believes that the people who can most afford to pay should shoulder more of the burden. (3) On foreign policy, the Bush administration has repeatedly shown that it has little or no interest in working with the international community, instead it is interested in the unilateral use of American military power to further American goals. Kerry is in favor of working with other countries and the United Nations. (4) Kerry wants to stop nuclear proliferation, George Bush wants to develop new nuclear weapons. Just to name a few. There are clear differences between the candidates, just like there were last time around. Can anyone seriously believe that Al Gore would have launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq?
I did vote for Nader in '96. I heard him talk and found his ideas and idealism inspiring. I couldn't vote for him in 2000, however. It was clear that the victory of George Bush would be too high a price to pay for whatever tiny effect the protest votes might have. And this fear turned out to be well founded. George Bush has mishandled the economy, run the nation for the benefit of the millionaires and the Halliburtons , and worked to undo so much of Nader's accomplishments. Nader worked for clean water, and environmental protection, but now the Bush administration has been undoing his accomplishments. Nader's campaign set his agenda back, instead of furthering it. The irony is, Nader's principles were too important for me to actually vote for the guy. Now look at Nader- who will listen to him? He's become a joke among the left. Far from influencing the debate, it seems that many news sources won't even report on the guy anymore. I can't even remember the last time I heard anything about him in the Times or on NPR.
Nader at least has some good points. In my opinion, the Libertarians are just crackpots and loons, though. Unfortunately, they are dangerous crackpots because a lot of their more idiotic ideas have been picked up by the Neocons. Look at the Iraq mess and you see some Libertarian principles put in action. "Hell, we don't need a strong central authority- just let capitalism take care of everything!" Now we have insurrection, beheadings, car bombs in the street because there is no strong central authority in Iraq. Or how about the idea that the private sector can do everything better? That's given us the excesses of Halliburton. Plus you get these mercenaries who are completely unaccountable for any abuses they may commit while they are over there. Libertarians have that same utopian streak which is the Achilles' heel of the Neocons.
Maybe there is a time and a place for third parties. But not this election- too much is at stake. Yeah, I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate I truly believed in deeply. It's unfair that I can't. Well guess what? Life isn't fair. Get over it. We have to make tough decisions between unpleasant choices, and that's life. Given a choice between Bad and Really Bad, I'll choose Bad every time.
move to the Southeast US and its the exact opposite.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
To continue to preserve democracy in the United States, we MUST have at least a 3rd, and hopefully a 4th, 5th, 6th, Xth, party.
HOWEVER, voting for a 3rd party presidential canidate IS a wasted vote and considering how bad the current state of affairs today, IMNSH opinion irresponsible.
There are a lot more offices up for election on Nov 2nd than just the president. If you really want to get 3rd parties in the running vote for the lesser evil for the national offices, but start voting in 3rd party canidates for say, your local alderman, mayor, county clerk, sherriff, treasurer ect. Your decleration of disgust will mean about nothing in a national election - especially with the whole messed up electoral system - but your vote will COUNT in a local election. If only 100 people bother to vote for county clerk and you and 10 buddies vote 3rd party, or write in, then that is a 11% vote for the non duopoly canidate - enough to get them on the ballot next year.
We will not diversify government by only aiming at the big apple on top. Thats just tilting at windmills. It has to been done by a grass-roots effort. Not Grass Roots as in the Buzzword, but as in starting at the bottom and infiltrating and saturating all the small positions to provide a real foundation. Then, Then, you can start climbing the tree.
The big players control the big media and the big rules, but the little stuff is beneath the radar. Take the problems and turn them into solutions.
Civil Engineers are the outliers in engineering salaries, and there is large variation in civil salaries. Most make ~35K, but structural engineers make ~50K, on top of this mechanical, aero, electrical, chemical, and computer engineers all make about 50-60K starting.
I said it at the end of my last post: I am an engineer (mechanical/aero), I know how much engineers work. Mostly 45 hour weeks with ocasional 80 hour weeks has been my experience, and I do believe that this is pretty compairable to what a teacher does for 9 months a year in terms of time worked (the free period and study hall put a dent in the amount of non-class work a teacher has to do, it is by no means sufficient).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Smoke screens, though I will point out that in terms of % income the poor got a muvh larger tax cut that the rich did (the top 50% of American tax payers pay ** 96 ** percent of the taxes..
George Bush has mishandled the economy, run the nation for the benefit of the millionaires and the Halliburtons
9/11 had more to do with the economy going sour (that and a stock market buble bursting 9 mos before he went into office) than anything Bush has done. But I suppose when Clinton bobmed Kosovo and gave Haliburton no bid contracts that was for the children right?
Or how about the idea that the private sector can do everything better? That's given us the excesses of Halliburton.
Having worked for USACE I can tell you the government could not have done anything Haliburton has done any cheaper..
Maybe there is a time and a place for third parties. But not this election- too much is at stake. Yeah, I'd like to be able to vote for a candidate I truly believed in deeply. It's unfair that I can't. Well guess what? Life isn't fair. Get over it. We have to make tough decisions between unpleasant choices, and that's life. Given a choice between Bad and Really Bad, I'll choose Bad every time.
Hey, its your vore to throw away. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I could not stand the thought of a man who considers the internal combustion engine as the most dangerous thing man has invented in the whitehouse. Im not rich but I dont like the class warfare that gore ran on so I voted the other way.
I have seen Bush come in, grow government (46% increase in education spending alone), and ignore his constitutional requirement to get an actual decleration of war. I see Kerry vote for an 'authorization of force' rather than uphold his constitutional responsability to *demand* a declariation of war, support the war until dean caught his footing, then vote against the body armor he now complains bush did not provide.
So Im done, neither party gets my vote this time around. So when Bush or Kerry comes in and continues the aweful groth of the federal government more and more restricting your freedom dont complain because you chose one of them..
None the less civil Engineers *are* Engineers. Yes they and Industiral Engineers fall on the low end of the food chain but Teachers still make more than some Engineers.
Im an EE who worked as a Civil and now as a Systems. And if a teacher cant make use of nearly two hours (25% of their day) for grading and lesson plans they are at fault. I have known many damn fine teachers who left at three and spent the day working in their Garden/Lawn/Car, many teachers lived on my block and none of them were poor..
The typical response to this is "yeah but they have all the money too so they should pay most of the taxes". To put it in perspective you have to say how much of the money the top 50% has. If they have only 82% of the money but pay 96% of the taxes, it's much more clear that "the rich" are disproportionately taxed. So darn right the tax cuts should "favor the rich". You want "fair" let's have a flat tax instead of a progressive one.
Constitutionally Correct
You mean Carter and Clinton country? Byrd and Gore country? Who would have thunk it?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I have known many damn fine teachers who left at three and spent the day working in their Garden/Lawn/Car, many teachers lived on my block and none of them were poor.
Where do you live? Ho wmany of the teachers have working spouses?
One thing to consider is that poor areas don't pay teachers as well as wealthy areas... If you live in the suburbs of a major city, or rural North Dakota makes an enourmous difference. Where I grew up, it was easy to have a family of 4 live on an engineers salary, but a single income family with a teacher was unheard of... Where I lived for the last 3 years, a person who taught in a weathly suburb, but lived further out in a less developed area could do alright, but most teachers could not afford to live in these districts.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
At the time I lived in Buffalo NY and went to a public High School. There were two couples who were both teachers and another whos husband worked for the city.
One thing to consider is that poor areas don't pay teachers as well as wealthy areas...
Buffalo NY is one of the poorer cities in the country.
Where I grew up, it was easy to have a family of 4 live on an engineers salary, but a single income family with a teacher was unheard of... Where I lived for the last 3 years, a person who taught in a weathly suburb, but lived further out in a less developed area could do alright, but most teachers could not afford to live in these districts.
The average teachers salary in the us is 44 thousand dollars (us census) THat puts them ahead of the median salary in the use which is 43 thousand. Is 44K enough to do the single earner family thing? probably (depending on where you live but as you said salaries adjust). My father after working for GM for 10 years did not make enough so my very pregnant mother got her nursing degree. If *anything* has killed the single earner family its taxes, as good as I do before taxes I still have to be tight after them.
My dog will be holding an important press conference in the backyard tomorrow at 3pm. He will discuss his agenda if he's elected President.
The average teachers salary in the us is 44 thousand dollars (us census) THat puts them ahead of the median salary in the use which is 43 thousand.
The average american has no college degree. All teachers have at least one, and many have masters. What is the average salary of college degree holders?
The only stats I could find on short notice indicate that the average college degree holder makes ~75% more than the average high school grad. That puts teachers (corrected for shorter work year) well below the average college grad.
If *anything* has killed the single earner family its taxes, as good as I do before taxes I still have to be tight after them.
I couldn't disagree more. The death of frugality is what has killed the single earner family. Most 2 income families live in a nicer house than they need, and drive nicer cars than they need to, have a bigger tv than they need...
My fiance and I could do just fine on my income if we had to. She is a grad student, and only makes about what I put in in my 403b every year. Ya now how we do it? I drive a used subaru, she drive a honda civic, we use public transportation to get to work, we cook most of our own food, and when we do go out, it isn't to a $15/plate place, we wait until movies come out for rental. In short we live within our means.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Actually about 30% of Americans have a college degree, and the number I gave you was the median not the average (and someone accused me of being bad at math). The average salary according to the census is about 36 thousand, meaning teacher make 20% above the average salary in the US.
That puts teachers (corrected for shorter work year) well below the average college grad.
umm how so, the average teacher maked 44K when corrected for the work year they make fifty five thousand dollars a year.
I couldn't disagree more. The death of frugality is what has killed the single earner family. Most 2 income families live in a nicer house than they need, and drive nicer cars than they need to, have a bigger tv than they need...
The dath of frugality happened *after* people started to have to work two jobs to support a family (for my family it was the mid 70's). I lose close to 15 thousand dollars a year in taxes and that does not include sales, phone, gas, tolls, ....
My fiance and I could do just fine on my income if we had to. She is a grad student, and only makes about what I put in in my 403b every year. Ya now how we do it? I drive a used subaru, she drive a honda civic, we use public transportation to get to work, we cook most of our own food, and when we do go out, it isn't to a $15/plate place, we wait until movies come out for rental. In short we live within our means.
Good for you, my wife and I are the same way, I drive a 'program' (Dodge execs used it for a year first) Neon and my wifes car was built before I started college almost a decade ago. We borrow movies from the library (the MSP system has older movies for free and new dvd's for 1$ a night). We use craigs list and free market excessivly. We both learned this from our parents, and yet both of our parents had to work due to the excessive tax load imposed on people.
Naa Lincon was a 3rd party candidate. http://216.247.222.222/Acs/elec1860/elec1860.htm I think that the idea of polling (while interesting to read) should have nothing to do with what the voters hear..
How can anyone who believes in the traditional conservative values of small government, fiscal responsibility, and prudent foreign policy still support the guy?
Look at the (realistic) alternative.
We spen more per pupil than any other nation on earth and it has little to do with the area the school is in. In Minneapolis (hardly a rich area) they spend 11K per kid per year!
My mistake, I just did the math (based on the stats from the last two posts), and the average teacher (corrected for work year) makes about the same as the average college grad (about 3K more for a teacher).
The dath of frugality happened *after* people started to have to work two jobs to support a family (for my family it was the mid 70's). I lose close to 15 thousand dollars a year in taxes and that does not include sales, phone, gas, tolls,
The need for two jobs is the result of a demand for a higher standard of living, having little to do with taxes. If we were all willing to live as we did before the need for two incomes, we could get by just fine on one now, regardless of taxes. But we demand bigger houses, nicer cars and more electronics, it has nothing to do with how much the government takes.
It doesn't take that much money to live. people choose to live a life style that requires more money. Do you agree with the last sentence?
We could have a conversaton about whether or not we could live better life styles with lower taxes... I don't nessisarily think so. We have both stated that we use tax funded institutions to save money, and the less tangible ways that public spending saves us money are harder to grasp. Personally (I ahve already gathered that your oppinion differs from mine) I am not really disapointed with what I get for my tax dollar, of course I would like more for my dollar, but I don't think eliminating what I do get so I could spend money to obtain the same services privatly would work as well as the current system.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Because at best they work 80% of the year.
The need for two jobs is the result of a demand for a higher standard of living, having little to do with taxes.
So your argument is no matter how much teh government takes one income will do?
It doesn't take that much money to live. people choose to live a life style that requires more money. Do you agree with the last sentence?
Youre in a grey area, do many people live above their means? yes this is true. Am I hurts by losing 40% of my income to taxes? absolutly! if I did not lose 40% of my income it would be as if there were two earners in my family..
Personally (I ahve already gathered that your oppinion differs from mine) I am not really disapointed with what I get for my tax dollar, of course I would like more for my dollar, but I don't think eliminating what I do get so I could spend money to obtain the same services privatly would work as well as the current system.
For nearly 9K per student in the public schools I am very dissapointed for what I am getting per dollar.
I'm an engineer and I make 2x what my ex, a special ed teacher makes. She has more degrees as well.
At my high school, most of the teachers drove older, more beat up cars than the students.
But I think that is beside the point. "Poor resources" does not mean salaries, it means that the teachers need to buy school supplies out of their own pockets. And now, at least in my state, they are trying to make these expenses non-tax-deductable. It would sort of be like my boss giving me a project and expecting me to come up with all the hardware and tools out of my own pocket. "Poor resources" also ties into things like class sizes, up to date textbooks, and building facilities such as AC.
My son is now in third grade, and several times every year teachers send home "wish lists" of supplies they would like for projects. Generally these requests are met. I certainly see the results in the types of projects my son gets to be involved in. But, I wonder what happens in places where the teachers are afraid or ashamed to ask, or the parents are not in the position to meet the requests.
Most teachers I know are not poor. But do you think they should be? You consider salaries which do not leave teachers in poverty "wasteful"? Why shouldn't teachers make more than engineers? In general, they require more education than engineers. And I think that on average, their work is probably more important in terms impact on society than most engineering jobs. And probably, you will find that most teachers value education, and therefore will work really hard to live in the suburbs in order to keep their kids out of inner city schools, because they'll never be able to afford private schools on what they make.
While I'm against government waste was much as anybody, if the DOE only lost $450 million over 8 years, they are doing a much better job than the DOD. It is a tiny fraction of what has been lost in Iraq in a much shorter period of time. Heck, it is even less than half of what we pay corporations EACH YEAR to make "synthetic fuel" by spraying deisel fuel or latex on coal. If you are upset about government waste, education is small potatos.
And, in my view, what is making it harder for the average person to make it is not taxes (these rates have generally not gone up that much if at all in a long time). The main reasons are executive compensation and health care costs. The superintendant of my son's district makes $1 million+, on top of perks such as 24/7 security and transportation. The argument being that CEOs running comprably sized companies make that much. And I work at a corporation where the average employee raise for the last 5 years has been 2%, while executives come and go getting seven figure salaries and bonuses. If you want to understand why things are changing, look at what is changing. I think you will find that both executive compensation and health care costs are both increasing far faster than your tax burden, and have been for some time.
For nearly 9K per student in the public schools I am very dissapointed for what I am getting per dollar.
And you blame teachers salaries? Even if teachers took a 20% pay cut we would still be spending more than $8500 per student.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
You asked if I was happy with what I got for my tax dollars and I pointed out to you that for 9k per kid no I am not happy with what I am getting. A teacher making 50K per year is getting about 2.5K per kid the other 70% is going to administration, and government waste.. If private catholic schools can teach kids for less than the public schools (and they do) we have to ask ourselves what are we doing wrong?
If private catholic schools can teach kids for less than the public schools (and they do) we have to ask ourselves what are we doing wrong?
My personal assesment, and no, I can't back it up with anything, is that private schools seem to wrk better because the results are better. But this ignores the fact that they are not working with the same raw materials as public schools.
The biggest variable in how well a student does is the parent. Parents who are willing to pay for a private school have shown that they care about education. I suspect private school students, on average, spend more time on homework, and have more support from their parents than public school students. And when the campairative results of public schools and private schools is seen, the instant reaction is to throw more money at the problem, causing a tiny improvement in performace at a large increase in cost.
If my assesment of the situation is correct, private schools will always be better/and or more efficient than public schools, until the day that government starts sending people to private schools on the tax payer dime, then the private schools will be just as bad. Because the real problem in our education system is parents who don't care enough about their children's educations.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
While I wasn't able to attend the debate here at Cornell last night (the miniscule number of seats available were long sold out), our campus newspaper, the Cornell Daily Sun, wrote the following summary of the debate last night:
... We need to restore the republic."
... and a minister spoke at my wife's funeral ... Family: I was married for 49 years ... The pledge of Allegiance was written by a Socialist minister in Boston, there goes the republic," Brown said.
... is being able to make your own decisions. I want to emphasize the idea that you are not required to vote for the lesser of two evils."
... we must wean ourselves off the addiction to oil which is what got us into the war on Iraq."
"How many 'thirds' can there be?" was the question posed by Theodore Lowi, the J.L. Senior Professor of American Studies and moderator of last night's debate between third-party candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, David Cobb of the Green Party, Walt Brown of the Socialist Party and Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party discussed issues ranging from abortion to fossil fuel in front of a packed Rockefeller Auditorium.
The debate was televised by both C-SPAN and PBS.
The candidates began by introducing their platforms.
Peroutka identified his governing principles as "God, family and the republic." He urged members of the audience to "repeat the pledge of allegiance and stop at the 16th word; it's not just a distinction, it's a difference
David Cobb presented himself as the candidate from the party that "tells the truth." Cobb said that he is working to take "our country back from the corporate fat-cats who have hijacked it," and that the "media tries to marginalize" the Green Party because "Greens tell the truth."
Walt Brown did not spend his time for opening statements informing the audience of his viewpoints but instead refuted some of the statements that had already been made.
"God, family, republic -- that doesn't separate us. God: I was married by a minister
Michael Badnarik wanted to start by drawing the distinction between Libertarians and liberals.
"We are for liberty. What liberty is
After the audience had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the platforms of the four candidates, the floor was opened for questions. The first question was on the war on terror, specifically, what should be done to win?
Peroutka, a constitutional expert, asserted that because Congress has not declared war, "we have not declared war in Iraq." In fact, he said, "we have not declared war since World War II." Therefore, "the Peroutka presidency -- if God would grant that glory -- would immediately end our involvement in Iraq."
Cobb, Brown and Badnarik did not focus as much as Peroutka did on the legality of entering war but all expressed the opinion that the war was unjust and, if elected, they would remove United States troops from Iraq as soon as possible.
A question asked about fossil fuel gave Cobb and the Green Party platform an opportunity to shine.
"The Green Party is calling for a sustainable alternative energy source. We, the people, don't control this government but
Peroutka said that he "[didn't] see anywhere in Article 1, section 8 anything about constitutional energy policies."
One student brought up whether or not the candidates endorse a living wage by asking, "The living wage for Ithaca is $8.68. I make $7 per hour. I don't need another buck-sixty-eight; I'll just spend it on music and alcohol. Isn't there a better way [to help people]?"
"Minimum wage laws put lots of people out of work -- particularly those people they were made to protect," Badnarik replied.
"Minimum wage is unconstitutional," Peroutka answered.
The polarization of the candidates was seen in their response to the topic of abortion: where Pero
then vote against the body armor he now complains bush did not provide.
Kerry didn't "vote against body armor." He voted against a large bill that had all sorts of riders and no clear funding behind how it was going to be implemented. He was in full support of a previous version of the bill that would have actually provided more money to adequately equip the troops in the field and actually accounted for where the money came from.
Not that I actually like Kerry, but the propaganda about his "flip-flopping" is severely overblown.
Here you go, although I doubt anyone will get a chance to read this: www.factcheck.org's debunking of Kerry being the most liberal senator, etc.
Factcheck.org
Im sorry but I dont take websites from george sorros as being non partisan..
Perhaps you're thinking of www.factcheck.com that Cheney inadvertantly pointed people to during the vice-presidential debates?
factcheck.org is very definitely non-partisan. Go there and look at their "About us" section.