Slashdot Mirror
Discuss the US Presidential Election & Education
In 24 hours, many of you will be able to vote. So as we come down to the wire, this is really our last chance to talk about the issues. We've already discussed Health Care, the War, and the Economy. Today I'm opening up the floor to discuss education. Perhaps no other issue will matter more in 50 years. Which candidate will make the next generation smarter?
Twas my understandin' them yeller folks done not needin' thems fancy educatin'.
Get rid of the Teacher's Union. Their only purpose in life is to enrich themselves at the expense of the students, local governments and the teachers that they're supposed to be representing.
Unless you happen to believe in creationism (like many do in the USA) then this is the trigger to vote for McCain/Palin.
Let's be honest here. Unless Palin is actually teaching the class her outlook on evolution has zero to do with her relation to education. Infact, keeping her in as a governor is probably more likely to get creationism pushed on more students than her being a vice president. On the federal level all she's going to do is go on and on about budgets. That's it.
I disagree. Modern presidents and vice presidents are basically salesmen with veto power. If we elect a 72 year old man with a history of skin cancer, then there is a distinct possibility that Palin will become president, so we must ask for either candidate, "would we vote for their running mate?"
In the case of Palin, she could, either as President or as VP, support so-called academic freedom bills. Once a republican administration starts spending time and money convincing people that creationist indoctrination is a first Amendment right, the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world would fall in line, hitting that drum much harder and more often.
It may take time, and it may not be guaranteed, but a President can influence much more than just laws.
Neither Palin nor McCain has ever expressed a desire to force either you or your children to follow their religious choices.
Apart from when she tried to ban books in her local library, and have the librarian fired.
Obama graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard Law so he was in the top 10% of his class. That is enough for me to go on. Does it matter what his Columbia grades were?
Well if he got into Harvard, he should have graduated with a high GPA, at or near the top of his class in Columbia, right? So what's his GPA? It must have been high enough to get into Harvard Law, so why hasn't it been released, like it has for every other candidate?
What's the harm in knowing? Why is he hiding it? My Bayesian inference-meter is off the charts on this one...
I believe that we are all talking about these generic platitudes about bigger government, more intrusion, etc. when in reality there are specific issues we cannot deny.
1. Iraq. People are dying needlessly. Americans and Iraqis. If anything, you can make your vote a referendum on the war. John McCain's supports a longer timeframe in Iraq than even George W. Bush. If you believe we should get out of Iraq, you have a very good reason to support Barack Obama.
2. Taxation. While many of us oppose the idea of increased taxation, I do not oppose the idea of fairer taxation. A simple look at the numbers over the last 2 decades, as highlighted by Warren Buffet's famous $1 million dollar wager for Fortune 500 CEO's to prove their tax burden is higher than their secretary's, reveals that the tax burden has shifted heavily onto middle, working-class Americans. While I would love to see taxes as a whole go down, I have seen both sides of this coin personally and am willing to accept that 3% tax increase. If you think taxes are unfairly balanced against the middle class, you have a good reason to vote for Obama.
3. Intelligence. In previous elections, people have joked about how Bush and Gore were C+ students, and that McCain graduated last in his class. I do want to think that my president is an intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful individual. Barack Obama is unassailable in this department - Editor of the Harvard Law Review, Constitutional Law Scholar and Lecturer, etc. If having an extremely intelligent president matters to you, you have a good reason to vote for Obama.
4. Influence. If you believe that politicians are bought and sold, you should take a look at Obama's campaign. Obama has only $1270 in PAC contributions, McCain has $1,400,000. Obama has a higher full disclosure rate. Obama's biggest donor - University of California employees. McCains? Merrill Lynch.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
Barack came into office and launched USASpending.gov, where you can see exactly how your money is doled out. While McCain was responsible in part for McCain Feingold, I consider this a wash when pitted against his role in the Keating 5 Savings and Loan crisis.
If you believe in accountability and want an elected official who is financially trustworthy both in perception and reality, you have a good reason to vote for Obama.
I guess this big question is this - how close does a candidate have to be to your issues to garner your vote. Is your measure set in a way that would cause you to almost never vote?
"is really wealth redistribution from the working middle class to the lazy bums"
so how can you vote republican, when what they do is wealth redistribution from everybody else to the richest 1%? Thankfully for you, you have other choices!
It's a DEMOCRATIC republic, and one that operates (nominally) to enforce the will of the people. Such language is enshrined in the declaration of independence.
This would be a compelling argument, if Bush was acting all on his own, yelling "WILDCARD, BITCHES!" He hasn't been. Last minute distancing on the part of McCain doesn't change the fact that Bush, for most of his terms, had a large and controlling majority of the GOP solidly behind him.
Bullshit. Ever heard of a veto? Also, Congress only controls funding for this particular war, and I can see not wanting to risk pulling the funding out, only to have Bush leave the troops in, or have Iraq collapse like a house of cards on top of them. Also, is "not fixing a wrong" just as bad as "perpetrating new wrongs consistently and purposefully?" I don't think so.
This would be a fine argument if a socialist was running. As it is, it's showing that people are still susceptible to panic at the thought of any words attached to Soviet Russia, decades after the McCarthy era.
Seriously; the welfare queen never existed. And currently, the system is set up to draw the wealth OF the middle class and use it to subsidize business, the revenue of which is entirely focused at the top end of the companies. CEOs are making hundreds and thousands of times what the low-level employees are making. This is not normal; as recently as ten or twenty years ago, the gaps were much lower.
We've re-created the Gilded Age. Do we need another Great Depression before we stop this crap?
which is really wealth redistribution from the working middle class to the lazy bums
Read this and then tell me that this is about wealth redistribution from the "working middle" to the lazy bums. You think people earning $600K+ are the "working middle class"? This is about redistribution of wealth from the robber barons that run the country today TO the working middle class. The people that are suffering today aren't the lazy bums who refuse to work - they're the ones who are constantly under threat of losing their jobs because they're being shipped overseas, the ones who are making some $40K to $60K a year. Look at who is going to give the REAL middle class a bigger tax break.
Hint: Obama will be the one giving tax breaks for the middle class - anyone earning less than $110K a year will be getting a bigger tax break than McCain is planning. Redistribution from the middle class to the poor and lazy my ass.
Way to misquote. Richardson said the middle class are the people making less than $120,000. No one said anything about changing Obama's proposals. You are just speculating based on incorrect information.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm a socialist. The Democrats, and especially Obama, aren't. If you think they are, you don't know what socialism means.
Wealth redistribution has already happened. The top 1% took most of the increase in GNP for the last 30 years, and the top 10% took most of the rest, leaving less than 10% for the bottom 90% of us to split.
Money is power. Specifically, it is the power to control other people. It is anti-democratic. Having more money makes making money easier, because you can siphon off the value created by other people, using economic force. Economic force is just as real as political force, as it is backed up by the same 'men with guns.'
All the socialists want is to use collective power to offset the power amassed by capitalist robber barons. It is better for the economy, too. Look at the stock market during Republican presidential terms as opposed to Democratic presidential terms. If you had invested in stock only during Republican presidencies over the last 100 years, you would have made, on average, .4% on your investment. If you had invested only during Democratic terms, you would have made 8.4%.
See, the thing is, when the wealth is shared by all who produce it, the economy works better. The rich still get rich, but they know what to invest in: what people are buying. When the money just goes to the rich, they create crazy pyramid schemes instead of investing in job creation, because they don't have to care about the piddly 10% of wealth that the bottom 90% control.
Face facts: Democrats are better for the economy. Even millionaires and billionaires do better under Democrats. But the gap doesn't widen, and that is all the rich really care about, not their overall wealth level. They would rather have a million dollars when the rest of us have a thousand dollars than have a billion dollars when the rest of us have a million, because absolute wealth levels mean nothing. It is the wealth disparity that lets them control us and profit off of us unreasonably.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I always found it funny that the same people who promote waging hugely expensive wars (even if you don't consider the morality behind it) are the ones saying that universal health care is too expensive, even though it would be far cheaper than sending soldiers overseas, and it would have a direct positive impact in their lives.
To do list for Windows
And you actually believe this? Or haven't you heard the updated figure this past week? $200k, and Biden said $150 (ok, he does speak before he thinks, so maybe that isn't real), and then some other guy (forget the name) started talking about $120k.
Do you watch Fox News? The only place I heard where a "someone who makes $150k a year will see a tax break" necessarily means that someone who makes $150,001 per year will see his taxes increase is Fox News. Everywhere else I've seen has treated it like it is in line with what has always been said. If you make less than $250,000, your taxes will not increase. Ever. Period. That's the big claim. I think they have also set the $200,000 number in stone as the number at which you will see a tax decrease. So, if you make $0-$200,000, you will get a decrease in taxes. If you make $200,000 to $250,000, your taxes might decrease, but will not increase. If you make more than $250,000, your taxes will likely increase.
Despite all the comments to the contrary, there has been no statement I've ever seen that contradicts that. If I state that someone who makes $150,000 will see a decrease, that agrees with the above statements. There was no "only" at the front of the statement. When I saw the reporting on Fox News of it, they implied the "only" and then assaulted them for it.
If you have seen anything that disagrees with what I've stated, at any time in the campaign and especially in the past couple weeks, I'd be interested in hearing it. I haven't seen anything that contradicts it, despite the complaints of Fox News I heard after Biden's comments.
I'm going to vote for my right to be a stingy and keep my money for myself and my own personal enjoyment, and for the right for everyone else to do the same.
I've never understood that. You aren't doing an analysis of the expenses and going with the person that gives you the most for your money, but the one that convinces you that he takes the least (even if grossly wasted, being implied). Spending $100 on education reduces welfare and prison costs by $500 (rough numbers mostly made up, but correct in the pattern). So if McCain said he'd cut education $100 to put more money in your pocket, you'd get $100 more this year, but you'd actually see a $400 loss from that. There are many pieces like that. To just look at the last line on a budget and see who takes the least from you is also absurd because that will always be Republicans. Why? Because they don't even feign an attempt to balance the budget. They tax less, and spend more. They spend your children's money, not yours. And at the interest rates, your children won't be paying back what you borrowed, but a large multiple of it due to the interest we are borrowing money to pay. When you have to borrow to pay the interest on your debt, you are in a downward spiral ending in bankruptcy. The Republicans say they will prevent that, and don't. At least the Democrats increase taxes when they increase spending. Both parties are big-government parties, but only one is responsible enough to pay for it. But yes, if you elect the Republicans, you will have a few more $$$ in your pocket next year (on average, doesn't apply to those that make less than $150,000). But that has nothing to do with who takes the least from you.
How come the public school system, for double to triple the cost, can't provide as good of an education as the bulk of the private schools? (I'm talking the smaller ones, not the elite ones like Obama uses.)
The costs in the public education system are almost always lower than private schools. No Child Left Behind is a horrible act that, as far as I can tell, was purposefully designed to look like a good effort while trying to cause failure of the public education system. Yes, I'm stating that I think the Republicans are purposefully harming millions of children in order to push through vouchers for the rich. If anyone has ever thought an unfunded mandate and increased government regulations was a good idea, they aren't Republican (except dealing with schools). I'm still at a loss how dumbing down schools is a benefit.
Learn to love Alaska
Non-selfish? You sound like a socialist. Everyone knows the good christian thing to do is horde your money and become greatly offended if anyone even suggests giving something back to continue the existence of the country that afforded you your wealth in the first place.
/neocon