From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...nse-full-text/

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.


Ron

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

HeyBub wrote:

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

Sadly, for the last generation or two of total duds produced by the
failing schools this is probably true. These duds can't calculate the
MPG their car gets, don't know how to use a screwdriver, can't balance a
checkbook or produce a budget, etc.

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1.../mitch-daniels
-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but
strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is, Indeed!!
I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't be ways to so
so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear to
be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay gets
cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax was cut,
but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare and in
addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has refused to
pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension funds).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers.

BINGO!!!!!!! Just like most every other business does with employees
who do not perform. (By that I mean those trying to make a profit, and
not those sponsored or supported by a government.)


Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

On Jan 25, 8:03*am, Han wrote:
RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-....

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... *Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. *But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! *I said BOTH!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

That won't cut it. We have a lot of both here.

But we cannot compete with the politics of large, affluent urban
schools who must have professional quality sport programs, theaters
and other amenities that drive their operation costs through the
ceiling. In Kansas we are losing rural education to the whims of a
few KC and Wichita area schools.

RonB

On Jan 25, 5:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"



What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

On 1/25/2012 11:17 AM, Davej wrote:
On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"



What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I kinda think he
did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

On Jan 25, 11:35*am, Norminn wrote:
On 1/25/2012 11:17 AM, Davej wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, *wrote:
*From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us,
we might pick the wrong light bulb!"

What we all need is help from Mitt's tax accountant and Newt's sex
therapist.

Eeeeewwwwhhh! *I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) *I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; *I kinda think he
did them a favor. *Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

nate

"Han" wrote in message
...
RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


Well, that's nice

Now tell us how you go about changing parents who are not "dedicated" into
"dedicated parents" ?

As to the teachers, the great majority of them are "dedicated". Because if
they weren't, they wouldn't go on taking the **** that school boards,
"educators", lazy UN-dedicated parents and students, and ignorant
pontificators spew at then.

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:


What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

I guess that made my mother a good teacher.
She passed away 30+ years after she retired, and still had students of hers
from 30 to 60 years previous, show up at her funeral.
At her funeral, one such graduate of hers, complained that even though she,
her brother and sister, and her 2 daughters were fortunate to be her
students, her granddaughters missed being her students by only a couple of
years.

There is a way to evaluate a teacher's performance
One is to benchmark each student with a standard test at BOTH the start and
end of the "teaching period".
But because there are so many outside factors that come into play, such as
the student's culture and home life, that there will never be a good enough
system to do so properly.

"Ken" wrote in message ...
Doug wrote:
On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mitch-daniels-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the most
effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but strong
rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers.

BINGO!!!!!!! Just like most every other business does with employees who
do not perform. (By that I mean those trying to make a profit, and not
those sponsored or supported by a government.)


So tell me how do you evaluate a teacher's performance when that teacher has
to deals with kids
- whose home life is in shambles ?
- who come to school with clothes that haven't been washed for a few days ?
- who just had a parent incarcerated or murdered ?
- whose parents don't believe that education is worthwhile ?

Teaching success does NOT depend PURELY on the teacher
It also depends on the students, the parents, and even that family's culture
with respect to education.

Even the best teacher will fail if the student is not willing, or able, or
conditioned against studying.

Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1.../mitch-daniels
-...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small, but
strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But it
will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then I
said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much less
property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I thought
maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers but just get
rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.
I think the reward is seeing their student graduate college and come
back to say thank you to that teacher. I realize not many students do
this but maybe we need to teach the students "manners / respect" as
well as academics. Just my 2 cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is, Indeed!!
I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't be ways to so
so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear to
be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay gets
cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax was cut,
but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare and in
addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has refused to
pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.

I don't believe there is a single "flat tax" person advocating that we
should add up all the tax revenue, divide by the number of tax payers,
and make everyone pay that amount. Looking up total federal income tax
http://tinyurl.com/6wm3qfc
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/y...USbn_13bs1n_10
#usgs302:
~1 trillion
Number of individual returns filed
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=380531
130 million
1,000,000,000,000 / 130,000,000 = 1,000,000/ 130 = $7,692

Now how are we going to get that amount from the roughly half of all
filers who now do NOT owe income taxes? Or better, where would they get
that money from?

I really think (and the "socialist" in me agrees) that paying taxes
should be in relation to your ability to contribute. If the income
distribution in the US was much, much more flat, a flat tax (in % of
income, not a set amount) would be defensible, but it isn't.

Before we get to the flat tax, let's eliminate the tax loopholes, and we
should first discuss whether charitable contributions, mortgage interest,
state & local taxes should be deductible. After all that's what brought
my income taxes down to less than 14% of AGI.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

N8N wrote in news:bf5b1758-e71d-4b1f-a561-
:

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

nate


I don't know what the fimmin brought in, but Newft can collect $$.
Probably his official income is but a fraction of what he gets in perks.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On 1/25/2012 1:02 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Pete wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.


Teachers are paid plenty and get good benefits. It used to be teachers
would work summers to supplement their income but now it is one big
vacation.

IMHO, teachers and all other municipal and government unions should be
banned. Parents should have control of the schools, not the educational
establishment.

We keep dumping money into education to end up with an excess of
administrators who demand more money to increase the teacher/student
ratio. We've got a high school here with 4 assistant principals, one of
which is my state representative. What the hell is this?

I think teaching is a great career. Teachers should be appreciated and
well paid. It is the whole school administration that needs reworking.

I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher" that he
means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.

I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, I want BHO goals to fail.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Doug" wrote in message
...

rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to define what "good
and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I think a teacher doing
his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should keep their job instead.

Those are BHO's idea of best teachers. Keep the kids dependant on
government.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Pete C." wrote in message
.com...

Sadly, for the last generation or two of total duds produced by the
failing schools this is probably true. These duds can't calculate the
MPG their car gets, don't know how to use a screwdriver, can't balance a
checkbook or produce a budget, etc.

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

"Doug" wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, Han wrote:

RonB wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, "HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Yes, and yes. Better salaries for teachers brings better teachers into
the teaching profession who otherwise go down other career paths that
pay better.


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.

What happens is that idealistic teachers come out of college, take
teaching jobs and rapidly become disillusioned with the relatively low
pay and the poor schools. The good ones generally leave for better jobs
in the non teaching world in a few years, while the bad ones remain and
get tenure and are protected by the unions. The end result is failing
schools full of bad, tenured, union protected teachers.

Some people view taxes as how to fund the government. Others view taxes as a
way to social justice, what ever that means at the moment.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Pete C." wrote in message
.com...

The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a higher
rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person pay
$0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15 of
every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of anything
but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being fair to
everyone.

On 1/25/2012 12:32 PM, Pete C. wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Pete wrote in
.com:


Han wrote:

wrote in
:

On 25 Jan 2012 14:03:07 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:49abe15e-ccf3-4bc0-bb20-
:

On Jan 25, 5:00 am, wrote:


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...544/mitch-dani
els -...

Yep. The government is slowly but steadily eliminating one of the
most effective educational systems in our country..... Small,
but strong rural schools.

Ours survived a serious school battle about five years ago. But
it will probably be gone within ten.

What's needed is dedicated teachers and involved parents.
BOTH! I said BOTH!!


I only watched a portion of the pep talk but when he said the best
teachers should be rewarded, I asked myself define "best" and then
I said with what. I mean some people can't afford their homes much
less property tax increases of which help pay for the teachers. I
thought maybe a better way was not to reward the "best" teachers
but just get rid of the bad teachers. Of course then we have to
define what "good and bad" is but aside from the definitions, I
think a teacher doing his/her job shouldn't get rewarded but should
keep their job instead. I think the reward is seeing their student
graduate college and come back to say thank you to that teacher. I
realize not many students do this but maybe we need to teach the
students "manners / respect" as well as academics. Just my 2
cents worth...

It is difficult to define and measure what a good teacher is,
Indeed!! I am not saying it would be easy, nor that there shouldn't
be ways to so so. But ...

Both my daughter and son-in-law are high school teachers in less than
privileged districts. While it is very rewarding for them to see
students succeed, especially those they get when they at first appear
to be "losers", it isn't helpful to them when their net take home pay
gets cut significantly, as happened in NJ when the millionairs' tax
was cut, but teachers were told to pay much more for their healthcare
and in addition had their pension funds reduced once again (NJ has
refused to pay the contractually arrived at amounts into the pension
funds).

Everyone wants to pay good teachers more (and get rid of bad ones) but
nobody wants to pay for it. The thing is, what legal, constitutional,
moral, etc. justification do you have for taxing some people at a
higher rate just because they have deep pockets? Why should one person
pay $0.50 of every dollar they earn while someone else only pays $0.15
of every dollar they earn? No rational person can be in favor of
anything but a single flat tax on all income from all sources as being
fair to everyone.


Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in kids
passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for entering
the real world of employment? No and no.

Yes, and yes. Better salaries for teachers brings better teachers into
the teaching profession who otherwise go down other career paths that
pay better.


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted the
job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career. Perhaps they
should only teach for a few years,and then move on to some better paying
job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like their salaries.

What happens is that idealistic teachers come out of college, take
teaching jobs and rapidly become disillusioned with the relatively low
pay and the poor schools. The good ones generally leave for better jobs
in the non teaching world in a few years, while the bad ones remain and
get tenure and are protected by the unions. The end result is failing
schools full of bad, tenured, union protected teachers.

I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It seems
that the EEOC may now take action against employers who refuse to hire
anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's employment
discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a high school
diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as such when applying
for a job. o_O

TDD

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:

snip

From what you said and I snipped, a flat tax is almost the same as what we
have now, except there are no loopholes or deductions And, if you have a
"poverty" cutoff, then in essence you have a graduated, progressive tax
structure - income more than $XX.XX requires a higher tax (unequal to
zero). Having a few more graduations wouldn't be bad, then, IMO.

As intimated, I agree about getting rid of loopholes.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:

snip

From what you said and I snipped, a flat tax is almost the same as what we
have now, except there are no loopholes or deductions And, if you have a
"poverty" cutoff, then in essence you have a graduated, progressive tax
structure - income more than $XX.XX requires a higher tax (unequal to
zero). Having a few more graduations wouldn't be bad, then, IMO.

As intimated, I agree about getting rid of loopholes.

It's not "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist), if it is the same rate for
everyone and only has a poverty cutoff.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

"In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot
handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent
protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the
wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we
might pick the wrong light bulb!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...iels-gop-respo
nse-full-text/

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through those good
xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can make choices about
their bodies or think the world will end if they can't have public displays of
mangers and xmas trees

Jim Yanik wrote in
4:

Does paying teachers(good or bad) more bring about any increase in
kids passing or getting better grades? Does it better prepare kids for
entering the real world of employment? No and no.

I TOTALLY disagree:
It is still a "free market", with supply and demand in a wide open market
place. People may burn out in high pressure, high salary financial
industry, and decide they may be better off ("feeling-wise") as teacher.
That may give us a good teacher, like one I know. If the salary is too
low (see your next paragraph) the potentially very good teacher may opt
for another job. It is weighing a "calling" against a livelihood.

Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted
the job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career.
Perhaps they should only teach for a few years,and then move on to
some better paying job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like
their salaries.

As I said, it is weighing a "calling" against a livelihood. But it isn't
really fair to reduce compensation by imposing new regulations AFTER the
teacher has been hired and contracted. And the latter has happened here
in NJ.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Pete C." wrote:

Han wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in
.com:

snip

From what you said and I snipped, a flat tax is almost the same as what we
have now, except there are no loopholes or deductions And, if you have a
"poverty" cutoff, then in essence you have a graduated, progressive tax
structure - income more than $XX.XX requires a higher tax (unequal to
zero). Having a few more graduations wouldn't be bad, then, IMO.

As intimated, I agree about getting rid of loopholes.

It's not "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist), if it is the same rate for
everyone and only has a poverty cutoff.

To be clear, I firmly believe the person at the McD grill, Bill Gates
and myself should all be paying the same percentage of our income in
taxes. This of course means Bill will pay the most in $, the McD guy the
least and I will be in the middle somewhere.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher" that
he means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.

I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, I want BHO goals to fail.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

You're not enhancing Mitt's chances. And you are not enhancing respect for
the Mormon ideals or faith. And that's a pity.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Pete C." wrote in news:4f205038$0$30349$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

It's not "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist), if it is the same rate for
everyone and only has a poverty cutoff.

as well as:

To be clear, I firmly believe the person at the McD grill, Bill Gates
and myself should all be paying the same percentage of our income in
taxes. This of course means Bill will pay the most in $, the McD guy the
least and I will be in the middle somewhere.

To have 2 scales, a zero scale for the real poor, and a uniform scale for
everyone else is philosophically the same as having multiple, progressive
scales. Flat taxers shoul first focus on getting rid of loopholes.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"N8N" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 11:35 am, Norminn wrote:

stuff snipped

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same sentence
before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why anyone gives
him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I kinda think he
did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda lizardy.

What I wanna know is how such an obvious slimeball has managed to
convince three different women to enter into domestic incarceration
with him. Clearly he needs to educate the rest of us as to how to be
a disgusting human being (although, to be fair, he is quite well
educated and intelligent) and still be attractive to the fairer sex.

A $500K line of credit at Tiffany's has been known to cause some women to
drop their linen. Doesn't every "plain ol' Joe" and "champion of the little
guy" have a Tiffany's credit line?

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:

Jeez, HeyBub. You want your party to lead, but you can't remember to add OT
to an Off Topic post subject line. How's your team going to handle the
"tough" decisions if adding two letters is too hard for them?

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
Han wrote:

"
Now how are we going to get that amount from the roughly half of all
filers who now do NOT owe income taxes? Or better, where would they get
that money from?

Which is one reason why taxes won't solve the problem, even amongst the
rich. You could tax the top 5% at 100% and still not cover the deficit,
especially after SS surplus goes away in a year or two. Although one
interesting thing is that most of the 50% (around 40%) of those who
don't owe taxes actually have a negative tax rate because of the money
the get back in things like earned imcome credit, etc.


I really think (and the "socialist" in me agrees) that paying taxes
should be in relation to your ability to contribute. If the income
distribution in the US was much, much more flat, a flat tax (in % of
income, not a set amount) would be defensible, but it isn't.
But neither is the current system where the top 1% pay twice the %age
of income taxes as they have %age of income (34,3% of taxes versus 16.8%
of income. I find it hard to suggest that rich aren't paying their share
when they pay 34% of taxes and 40% of the worst off actually have a
NEGATIVE tax rate because the credits are more than their taxes.




Before we get to the flat tax, let's eliminate the tax loopholes, and we
should first discuss whether charitable contributions, mortgage interest,
state & local taxes should be deductible. After all that's what brought
my income taxes down to less than 14% of AGI.

Yep. Although I can guarantee that won't happen, especially state and
local taxes since the CongressCritters from New York and other high-tax
states would pitch a major bitch, as would the builders and mortgage
types. BTW: Those in the top brackets already are finding out about that
since deductions for taxes and charitable contributions already fade out
above a certain income.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Han wrote:


Fact is,the teachers knew the teaching salaries before they accepted
the job,and probably before they selected teaching as a career.
Perhaps they should only teach for a few years,and then move on to
some better paying job(if they have the skills...),if they don't like
their salaries.

As I said, it is weighing a "calling" against a livelihood. But it isn't
really fair to reduce compensation by imposing new regulations AFTER the
teacher has been hired and contracted. And the latter has happened here
in NJ.

Those contracts only last a year, always have in school systems.
Everything is (theoretically) up for change every year.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I've long believed that when BHO says "succeed" or "good teacher"
that he means different things than the rest of the people in the USA.


I do not think those words mean what he thinks they mean.

Norminn wrote:

Eeeeewwwwhhh! I haven't seen "Newt" and "sex" used in the same
sentence before....pretty much unimaginable ) I don't know why
anyone gives him a hard time about divorcing his first two wives; I
kinda think he did them a favor. Callista looks like a match, kinda
lizardy.

What's a hoot is his second wife complaining that he did to her what he did
with his first wife with her.

This is kind of a take-off on the advice given to young men: "Laddie, if
your lady says bad things about her former husband or previous beau, someday
she'll be saying the same things about you."

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:42:03 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

I read something that was quite disturbing to me a while back. It seems
that the EEOC may now take action against employers who refuse to hire
anyone who lacks a high school diploma because it's employment
discrimination. The EEOC now considers those without a high school
diploma to be "disabled" and should be considered as such when applying
for a job. o_O

TDD

What could possibly go wrong ... :-/

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

From the rebuttal to the president's State of the Union address, by Mitch
Daniels:
. . .
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...nse-full-text/

CBS calls this a "response." The OP calls it a "rebuttal."
Is this difference supposed to matter?

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

which is of course exactly the same thought process that goes through
those good xians that demand prayer in school, don't think women can
make choices about their bodies or think the world will end if they
can't have public displays of mangers and xmas trees

Public prayer is efficacious. Jesus said "When two or more gather in my
name, I am with them." If two people can't pray together in a public school,
they might as well be praying to the closet. Judaism requires ten or more in
prayer to represent the community. I'm sure Islam has a similar requirement.
By prohibiting public prayer, in my view, the government school is
impermissably interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I think women can make choices about their bodies! But choices have
consequences; if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, she shouldn't be
surprised when she gets pregnant.

But, the government, in its infinite wisdom, asserts the power to protect us
from our wrong choices.

Don't get me wrong. While there are many logical and heart-felt feelings
about abortion on both sides of the issue, I have come down in favor of
abortion on demand. There are two reasons I decided the way I did.

* I don't have a dog in the fight. I'm not pregnant nor will I ever be.
* Abortions cut down on the number of liberals amongst us. The progressives,
in promoting abortion, are doing the equivalent of eating the seed corn.
Look up "The Row Effect" for more information.
http://web.archive.org/web/201001031.../?id=110006913