Breaking - Al Franken wins Minn. Senatorial election

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Bearack

 

I may use that as an avatar.

Have to remember Bearack that Frankin is a comedian which makes him ideally suited to be one of the clowns in Washington.

So... Who's ready for some great social programs? How about Education? Won't that be nice? Maybe we can get a generation of kids through school that can read.

I have to agree that our education system is absolutely retched, but that leads to another question. Isn't our current educational system a socialist system and hasn't that failed, miserably? A voucher system would add competition. Privately run schools still have a much greater academic success rate public schools. Why not allow those tax dollars to go with the child for a person who can't afford private school?

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by DDay

 

He would not concede and looked like an ass as a result.

Apparently, only to some. It wasn't clear on, or after, election day who won. In fact, the victor changed a few times! I know that if I was running, and then, on election day, and then subsequent recounts, my opponent was demanding that votes not be counted, I wouldn't take that lightly either.

Actually Coleman was ahead by 250-300 votes and he called for Franken to be a man and step aside gracefully and spare Minnesotans tax money. Then it turned out that Franken was a head. That was 8 monthes ago of tax payers money out the window, thanks to Coleman not "steping aside like a man". Coleman was one of the most corrupt senators, he accepted 100's of thousands in bribes to vote certain ways and that is well documented. I am glad that Franken beat him because Coleman is NOT the man I want representing me in senate.

reply to post by jsobecky


I see, so Democrats forced people to buy houses they couldn't possibly afford? I looked at one of those sub prime mortgages a couple years ago. At first it looked great, till I actually read what it was and thought, who in their right mind would fall for this crap?

Well again, that's education in America. Some people for some god knows reason actually thought an interest only loan was a good idea too.

reply to post by whatukno


Stop using the word "forced" and start using the word "chumped", or "conned". You know it's true; if you dangle something in front of somebody that they want, and have no reasonable way of getting under their current circumstance, you will get a high percentage of them biting.

Add to that the phrase "You deserve it", and they will be angry enough to believe anything you say.

The Dem's preyed upon their weaknesses. They caused this disaster to happen.

I wouldn't necessarily call him a sore loser. The important thing that came out of this is bringing to the forefront how precarious the absentee voting is becoming. That maybe having mailed in voting is not such a good idea, and people who are participating in absentee voting are not having their votes counted.

reply to post by Bearack


It is wretched thanks to No child left behind.

And no, it is not a socialist system. The people who participate in their school district determine the quality of their school.With some economic factors tossed in. (poorer working parents don't have time to participate)

But with no child left behind, all teachers are too busy teaching to the test.

reply to post by nixie_nox


The biggest argument for absentee ballots is the men and women in our military; they make up the majority of absentee ballots.

But you are correct - there should be a way to electronically count those votes instead of mailing them in.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Bearack

 

It is wretched thanks to No child left behind.

And no, it is not a socialist system. The people who participate in their school district determine the quality of their school.With some economic factors tossed in. (poorer working parents don't have time to participate)

But with no child left behind, all teachers are too busy teaching to the test.

No child left behind was meant to make the school and teachers accountable and also afforded parents to move their tax dollars to another public school with better academics. Before, a parent was forced to leave their child in that district.

I'm curious then, how do you classify socialism if you do not consider public schools a form of socialism?

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


While franken is a comedian, he graduated alpha mater from Harvard University. He is highly intelligent and has alway been very serious and studious when it comes to politics.

He had a lot of fans follow his radio program and was always described as being highly intelligent, intuitive, thoughtful, and serious when it comes to important matters.

Many people think comedians are the class clowns that couldnt' do well in school. In some cases that may be so.

But many people are comedians because they do think, see things outside fo the box, and have a quick wit.

reply to post by Bearack


I was just gonna ask you what you thought socialism is. LOL

If we go by the popular and not totally accurate definition where all wealth is distributed evenly. Though in this case lets say that all taxes generated, no matter what the person's contribution or wealth maybe, are taken and spread to each school evenly.

So even if county A generates 4 mil and county B generates 20000, it would be distributed to all schools evenly.

but that is not the case. Schools are based on the involvement of local areas only, donations, and the involvement of parents. If it was truley socialist, then all schools would be equal. And that is one thing they are not.

I live in a very affluent county, even then, the schools vary, and you can tlel which areas have the money.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Bearack

 

I was just gonna ask you what you thought socialism is. LOL

If we go by the popular and not totally accurate definition where all wealth is distributed evenly. Though in this case lets say that all taxes generated, no matter what the person's contribution or wealth maybe, are taken and spread to each school evenly.

So even if county A generates 4 mil and county B generates 20000, it would be distributed to all schools evenly.

but that is not the case. Schools are based on the involvement of local areas only, donations, and the involvement of parents. If it was truley socialist, then all schools would be equal. And that is one thing they are not.

I live in a very affluent county, even then, the schools vary, and you can tlel which areas have the money.

Your correct is some regards, but wrong in other. Tax allotments are equal across the board, of course unless they are in violation of the no child left behind act. They lose a certain amount of funding until their academic scores rise. If they do not meet a certain criteria, the school is then closed and a new one is built with replaced administration. Schools can fund raise to compenstate for a shortfall in revenue, but their tax contribution is the same from Detriot proper, to Belair

Now, a comparison of the Amercian public shools versus other socialist schools.

1. In socialist countries, schools and their property are owned by the government. In America, public schools are also government property, controlled by local government officials.

2. socialistic societies taxed all their subjects to pay for their schools. Here, all taxpayers pay compulsory school taxes to support public schools, whether or not the homeowner has children or thinks the schools are incompetent.

3. In the socialist states, all teachers were government employees, and these officials controlled and managed the schools. In America, teachers, principals, administrators, and school janitors are also government employees, paid, trained, and pensioned through government taxes.

4. In the Soviet Union or other socialist style government, most government employees could not be fired they had a “right” to their jobs. Public-school employees in America also believe they have an alleged right to their jobs, enforced through tenure laws. As we will see later, in America, it's almost impossible to fire tenured teachers.

5. In communist Russia and other socialist governments, competence and working hard didn't matter very much — the government paid most workers regardless of their performance on the job. In America, public-school teachers’ salaries depend on length of service competence is irrelevant.

reply to post by Bearack


By your definition yes. well said btw.

But are these other programs national or local? And, do you have a choice of where your child goes to school?

Interesting thought on the money going with the voucher child.

the problem with vouchers is then it takes money away from failing schools. If they schools are failing, the last thing they need is too lose more money, and then you can't move all kids to a private school. We would be creating a more expensive problem. When it should just be used to fix the school.

I don't think the problem is with money. There are plenty of failing school systems that have money. It is management. And just basically how the school year is setup. Kids are just taught a lot of inane dribble. Recess and gym is needed but there needs to be far less spending and priority on sports.

I am on the fence on vouchers btw. I have never been able to make my mind up about them.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by nixie_nox]

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Bearack

 

By your definition yes. well said btw.

But are these other programs national or local? And, do you have a choice of where your child goes to school?

Academics, for the most part are national to meet SAT standards (which I disagree with mind you).

With the no child left nehind act, there is now an option to move to another public school, but only if the academic standards a low so there is a certain criteria that must be met before transfering to another public school. Now, Charter schools on the other hand are a different story which, as far as I know, the transfer of funds for the student are easily tranferable.

reply to post by jsobecky

Stop using the word "forced" and start using the word "chumped", or "conned".

Even so, no one forced these people to buy into these stupid loans. They dangled one of these in front of my face but I wasn't dumb enough to swallow it.

The Dem's preyed upon their weaknesses. They caused this disaster to happen.

Dems didn't do it, Banks did. Who do you think lobbied to have regulations removed? It wasn't the democrats, it was the same banks Bernakie and Paulson pushed to bail out.

It was a snow job. A snow job brought on by the very lenders we taxpayers were forced to bail out.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Bearack

 

Interesting thought on the money going with the voucher child.

the problem with vouchers is then it takes money away from failing schools. If they schools are failing, the last thing they need is too lose more money, and then you can't move all kids to a private school. We would be creating a more expensive problem. When it should just be used to fix the school.

I don't think the problem is with money. There are plenty of failing school systems that have money. It is management. And just basically how the school year is setup. Kids are just taught a lot of inane dribble. Recess and gym is needed but there needs to be far less spending and priority on sports.

I am on the fence on vouchers btw. I have never been able to make my mind up about them.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by nixie_nox]

Think of vouchers as no different from a competitive market stand point such as a grocery chain. Stores that are not able to compete with pricing, have poor customer service and carry poor product selection will not last closing their doors with better stores taking the majority of the business. What many stores do to ensure their solvency in the market is change what they carry, lower their profit margin, remodel their stores and higher the best people possible so that they can compete with the other stores, giving them any competitive edge they can get.

If a school has a poor history, then a parent should be able to to move their child to a more desirable school. This would benefit not only the students, but teachers as well. Schools, in order to stay competitive would try and get the best teachers possible. This would generate compensation battle. The better teachers would be offered more money to go to the better schools or, the schools trying to improve would offer such teachers higher compensation to help better their own school, to bring more students to their school.

Think of it like have a franchise player for a football team. Teams will pay butt load of money to get a great franchise player, but of course, one franchise player doesn't improve your team but what it does do is show that management wants to win so other players tend to migrate to such teams versus say the Oakland Raiders........

Sorry, kind of went all over the board on this response.

Dems didn't do it, Banks did. Who do you think lobbied to have regulations removed? It wasn't the democrats, it was the same banks Bernakie and Paulson pushed to bail out.

It was a snow job. A snow job brought on by the very lenders we taxpayers were forced to bail out.

Actually, it all started with the Fannie and Freddie Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 which forced lenders to take higher risk loans. Lobbyist fought this tooth and nail because of the risk of returns. Clinton in 1994 made legislative changes to this act to even further strip the red tape and regulatory standards.

[edit on 2-7-2009 by Bearack]