Off Topic USA 2012 Elections Thread

[vagymmomma]

Whoah, somehow I missed this.



I would LOVE to be that "not rich." And if I ever get that "not rich," I will go on record right now saying that I will not complain one bit about having to pay a larger portion of my "not rich"-ness back to the country that made me so "not rich."

Because, you see, people who get this "not rich" don't do it in a vacuum. Most of them started out with an education that we all pay for. They and their employees get to and from work on roads that we all pay for. They are secure in their homes and businesses because of a police force, a fire-fighting force, a legal system, and a military that we all pay for.

So, yes, I DO think that all those "not rich" people making over $250,000/year owe it to the rest of us to pay a big chunk of that forward.

Okay, I guess it's time to join the discussion since I'm one of the so-called "rich" (although not by much). My parents were both immigrants. Never went to college. Never were given much of anything. My father didn't speak any English till he started school and he was forced to join the Army to keep him out trouble. I wore hand me down clothes from my brothers and cherished the one Barbie doll that my mother found one day.

I was taught early on the importance of an education and I took it to heart. I went to public schools and earned academic scholarships. I worked in the dorms as an RA to pay for my room and board. When I went to grad school where I worked 2 jobs (7 days a week) while attending school full time. I tell my kids how I used to stop by the local market to buy a baked potato and a can of diet coke for less than a dollar. I lived on that for nearly 2 years. There were literally days I couldn't scrape together enough pennies to ride the bus so I walked to work.

That's how I was raised. I live in a modest home with a modest 5 year old car (a hybrid). I give a lot to charity. And I pay a lot of taxes. The 35% tax rate is such an over simplication because it doesn't count the deductions I lose for being "rich", or the AMT I've paid since before I had kids, or the self employment tax I pay. My health insurance is ridiculous as a self employed person (and the health legislation is designed to "tax" me more). I'm responsible for keeping 7 people employed and I take that responsibility to heart. Any one who works for me would tell you that no one works harder than I do.

Tax investment income - I have very little). Tax the Kardashian types with their extravagant lifestyles. But don't tell me that I'm "entitled" and I owe it to those poorer because I wasn't the one drinking behind the gym in high school. I was the one who hit the library every weekend to find new books.

I believe in gay marriage. I'm a strong proponent of green initiatives. But I also strongly feel that much of the current welfare structure is not designed to pull people out of their situation -- if anything it binds them to it. Take care of the young, the handicapped and the elderly, but let's change things so those who can work, work for what they're getting from the government. Train them. Give them responsibilities. But stop with all the handouts without any long term plan to help them out.

Stepping off soap box now.

 

[gymgal]

Skibumgymmom---I respectfully disagree with your statement that "Welfare Queens living off the government buck.... just isn't true."

I just had a few in my office today and will probably see a few dozen more this week. I serve them fairly and compassionately. I am disturbed by the increasing numbers of Medicaid recipients who feel compelled to reveal how they "hide" money from Uncle Sam and are "deservin'" of this "free" medical treatment. All the while my employees and I are thinking how we are playing by the rules... paying our taxes- working hard everyday-- and paying for our own health insurance.
I am self employed and pay well over $1300 per month for a very healthy family of 5. To get that 'low' premium- we have a 10K deductible.

Frustrated? Tell me about it.

BTW... I am compensated for the "free" treatment that I provide. However--- it often costs me more to provide it than what I receive from Medicaid. Apparently, that makes sense to our government.

right there with you Anderson - I run across similar everyday...

And my $1k premium also comes with a $10k deductible and I gladly pay it because it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure my family has good health care.

 

[gymgal]

great post, vagymmomma -

This country was built on immigrant families who had much harder times in their homeland and didn't dare complain about the struggles they were enduring here. These families vowed to make sure they build a better life for themselves and for their children and that each generation would move up the social/economic ladder. It might be fast or slow, but it would come. I don't know what happened, but it is severely lacking in today's society. When someone is down financially, the automatic answer appears to be - "it's because the rich are taking from us" and "why can't government provide {another entitlement} for us as well?", instead of asking "what can I do differently to change my course?"

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

great post, vagymmomma -

This country was built on immigrant families who had much harder times in their homeland and didn't dare complain about the struggles they were enduring here. These families vowed to make sure they build a better life for themselves and for their children and that each generation would move up the social/economic ladder. It might be fast or slow, but it would come. I don't know what happened, but it is severely lacking in today's society. When someone is down financially, the automatic answer appears to be - "it's because the rich are taking from us" and "why can't government provide {another entitlement} for us as well?", instead of asking "what can I do differently to change my course?"

I'm sorry if it came across as "the Republicans are taking money from us and making us poor". I meant it in terms of opportunity. It starts at birth, with lack of access to proper pre-natal care, then later nutrition and continues into poor public schools. This puts children at a disadvantage from the get go. Add to that unsafe neighborhoods and a lack of opportunity in many areas of this country and it's hard to just work harder to reach the top.

It's an idea from a bygone era in my opinion. But it's not the 19th century anymore, or even the early 20th century. We live in a different era and the income disparity between the rich and the poor is growing astronomically in this country. There are different policies in place, different laws, different tax codes, different jobs. There are very few well paying jobs for people without an education like they were up through the 60s. Corporations were not considered people under the Constitution. What worked for people's grandparents (including my own who immigrated to Canada from Ireland and France) just doesn't apply exactly today.

From here on out I want to differentiate "welfare" (anything providing direct cash, aka. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or unemployment, both of which are temporary programs. Yes I know many will say how many people they see abuse them, but your own experience doesn't validate the entire country's program, and if it's abuse that's the problem, that should be addressed, they shouldn't be eliminated) from other government social programs.

I don't think giving people from lower socio-economic groups "handouts" or "entitlements" is the answer, my problem is how opportunity is being striped from them. Head Start (low income early childhood ed) is known as one of the most successful federal programs, yet the GOP wants to slash it. Nutrition and education programs for mothers and young children. Bringing up the quality of education in impoverished areas so children can continue onto college or another trade to work hard and become successful, something that is out of reach for many in this country.

Those are the sorts of programs I support and the reason I don't believe in many of the Republicans policies. They claim to be against welfare and say if people just work harder they'll be better off, but then eliminate many of the programs that provide opportunities that allow people to elevate themselves.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

Skibumgymmom, thanks for your post. Your story is exactly why we have public assistance, to give families a leg up when they are in need - as they try to work through the bad times and elevate their situation. Republicans (and conservatives) are not against this. the are against free loading, which happens all too often in this country. I know - I see it everyday and there is nothing I can do about it because they are not doing anything illegal.

Not a problem. Like I said it's generally not something I share, we've been through very hard times and I worked very, very hard to get to the middle class situation we're in today. But I won't sit here and pretend it was my hard work alone that allowed me to get here. I will acknowledge the help I had, both from family and the government. I mentioned in my other response if the problem is benefit abuse, the answer should be to stop that, not to stop the programs. It's like saying some countries dope and put underage athletes in the Olympics so instead of addressing that, let's just cancel the Olympics.

Let me just say that we just have very different ways of looking at situations and different ways of solving problems. I am a small business owner. I pay for my own insurance. I have significant medical needs that place me in the highest tier for premiums. I shell out a little under $1k a month just for premiums for my family. Is it expensive? you bet it is, but I made the choice that health care insurance is a necessity in my family - and it is the 2nd bill I pay every month, after our housing.

I don't think we have entirely different views on solving problems. I do not depend nor expect the government to cover all my family's health care bills. And trust me, health care (outside food and shelter) is the number one priority in my family. My oldest daughter is Deaf and has had numerous ear surgeries, has hearing aids and had spinal cord surgery from a gymnastics injury. My youngest daughter has had numerous health problems, stemming from a very traumatic childhood event and my partner is a paraplegic of 16 years who has recently been hospitalized on and off for pneumonia and a minor stroke. I have state government insurance as a public school district employee. I also work three jobs to pay the premiums and excess (many of those things are not covered by our plan) and have even purchased extra private insurance and still sometimes fall short. My partner uses Medicaid. He is a small business owner, and prior to his accident, was also a professional kayaker. He was covered when he was "on the job" at kayaking events and the like as a healthy 35 year old with no wife or children, didn't have his own plan through his business. He had over $200,000 in medical bills the year following his accident and over $20,000 a year since, just from his injury. He has since been back to work but was unable to find any insurance company willing to insure him with his quite obvious "pre-existing condition".

We moved from a very expensive area of the country to a very inexpensive area with more work opportunities for jobs so that we could live more comfortably.

I can honestly say that we have been there, done that several times in our life and we did look in the mirror and tell ourselves that we needed to work harder, or think more intelligently so that we could find a way to improve our situation. It took years, but we finally have a better lot in life. We live comfortably now. And we have our own safety net that we have built.

As far as where we live, and moving to a less expensive area.... We did the opposite. We used to live in Aurora, Colorado, specifically in the less affluent area. My husband's background (he had a degree in hydrology/geology) didn't allow for great employment there and I could only find work as an hourly paid interpreter at the local school district, which has had budget crises for years. My husband's friend wanted to open a ski/bike/outdoors shop in a mountain community about two hours away with his sponsorship money and my husband became co-owner and manager. The local school district, which is more affluent than the city one I formerly worked in, also had an opening for a specialist in special education, a job which I got. Generally, in our state, the cheaper the cost of living (the eastern plains where farms are going under, or the Western slope where the only industry in natural gas mining) the less opportunities. Cost of living where we are is something we deal with. Because of this, I finally have built up a bit of a safety net. It's not much but it's enough to get by.

Many people do not have the means to move to a different area for better jobs or a lower cost of living. Many people live in areas with a low cost of living but then have no true job opportunities beyond basic minimum wage, unsecured employment. It's a huge catch 22.

How exactly are the Republicans trying to keep the poor-poor? I just never understand this argument. it's like people think that there is only so much money available in the country - like a pie that has to get divided amongst everyone. So the rich get a huge amount and it leaves only a small amount for the rest of us. That's not how the economy works. There is no pie that gets divided. just because the rich makes more money doesn't mean that you make any less. In fact, it is just the opposite, as they make more money, they are able to give more to their employees - this might not be as fast or to the percentage we all might want, but it happens all the same.

I answered this in that short response I posted prior to this. It's not just money, it's opportunity and the means to obtain that.

And Ski - I would love to open up an education debate... Public education is a mess right now and it is the fault of both sides of the aisle. Personally, I think we need affordable competition in education for things to get better.

I worked my way up through the public school system as an hourly paid paraprofessional with no benefits to a salaried specialist (and I still don't make that much). I think we need to cut a bit of administrative power and give it back to teachers, paying them better. We need to eliminate NCLB and the ridiculous standardized tests that make teachers teach to the test and not actually teach. We need... a lot of things. I'll let you start that one though and I'd be more than happy to respond! My thoughts are all frazzled this morning, I go back to work tomorrow and school starts Monday

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

Also a complete side note I forgot, I moved here when I was 13 knowing barely any English and was in ELA classes with mostly Vietnamese, Spanish and Russian speakers. No French speakers. So I'm familiar with learning English to better yourself, not as easy as people think.

 

[gymgal]

I'm sorry if it came across as "the Republicans are taking money from us and making us poor". I meant it in terms of opportunity. It starts at birth, with lack of access to proper pre-natal care, then later nutrition and continues into poor public schools. This puts children at a disadvantage from the get go. Add to that unsafe neighborhoods and a lack of opportunity in many areas of this country and it's hard to just work harder to reach the top.

It has always been hard. It always will be and there are lots of reasons why some people make it and some don't, but a major component is believing in yourself and doing whatever it takes to get where you want to be. Opportunity is what you make of it. There are thousands of kids in affluent families with plenty of opportunity who don't "make it". And there are just as many in the poorest areas who rebel against the challenges and find those opportunities.

If what you say is true, then this should be a non-issue, because the poorest among us get free health care, food, shelter, early education, etc. What puts kids at a disadvantage is their home life and whether they are raised to believe in themselves.

It's an idea from a bygone era in my opinion. But it's not the 19th century anymore, or even the early 20th century. We live in a different era and the income disparity between the rich and the poor is growing astronomically in this country. There are different policies in place, different laws, different tax codes, different jobs.

This is only true if you accept it to be true. Do you really think there were no people who believed this in the 18th-20th century? Of course there were. What was the difference? There was very little in the way of "safety net" from the government. Any aid came from the community (churches, usually). If a person was going to survive, he had change his lot. There are not different policies, laws, tax codes, jobs for the rich. they are there for everyone. How do you think the rich got to be where they are? Were they always rich? of course not - the vast majority of millionaires today were self-made, not generations of family money. Many of these people came from very humble beginnings.

Is it harder from children from disadvantaged homes to climb up? You bet - They have to have a family that stands behind them, pushing them to do well in school while their friends are hanging out, skipping class, doing drugs, joining gangs, having babies, etc. The family has to instill a belief that it can and will get better for the next generation. The children have to want it for themselves. Stay in school and do well, prepare yourself for college or a trade school. Gain independence from the government and then go back to school to improve your situation even more - that's how it works.

There are very few well paying jobs for people without an education like they were up through the 60s. Corporations were not considered people under the Constitution. What worked for people's grandparents (including my own who immigrated to Canada from Ireland and France) just doesn't apply exactly today.

There were never good paying jobs without an education. That's a falsity. In general, you have always needed an education, or start your own business to make good money. Corporations still are not considered people under the Constitution - not sure what that even means...

From here on out I want to differentiate "welfare" (anything providing direct cash, aka. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or unemployment, both of which are temporary programs. Yes I know many will say how many people they see abuse them, but your own experience doesn't validate the entire country's program, and if it's abuse that's the problem, that should be addressed, they shouldn't be eliminated) from other government social programs.

totally agree with this - these programs should not be eliminated. And the Republicans do not believe this either. Anyone who believes this about the Republicans are just listening to the left and not listening to what the right is saying/doing.

I don't think giving people from lower socio-economic groups "handouts" or "entitlements" is the answer, my problem is how opportunity is being striped from them. Head Start (low income early childhood ed) is known as one of the most successful federal programs, yet the GOP wants to slash it.

Hogwash - study after study shows that children who go to Head Start have no better outcomes than children who didn't go. Look, I happen to like HeadStart and I think it's an important program because it gives these children some stability and caring people in their lives, which unfortunately far too many lack. But in terms of future life success, it is a waste of millions of tax payers dollars because it does not change the children's outcomes educationally - which is what it was designed to do.

Nutrition and education programs for mothers and young children. Bringing up the quality of education in impoverished areas so children can continue onto college or another trade to work hard and become successful, something that is out of reach for many in this country.

There is nothing wrong with the quality of education in impoverished areas. These areas routinely get way more money per student than other districts. So it's not the money either. It's the home life. And until that changes, these schools will never succeed. Do I hear Charter schools again? Ah yes, in the areas that have set up charters for very low income families, where parent involvement is requires, these kids do significantly better across the board than their traditionally schooled peers.

Those are the sorts of programs I support and the reason I don't believe in many of the Republicans policies. They claim to be against welfare and say if people just work harder they'll be better off, but then eliminate many of the programs that provide opportunities that allow people to elevate themselves.

Republicans have never said they were against welfare. they only are against what it has become with all its abuse - which sounds very similar to what you have written as your views as well. It was designed as a safety net and yet, it is being used as a way of life for millions of families. And the Republicans also believe their are better ways to improve the outcomes that don't include government involvement. Republicans are not heartless folk who want to keep all their money for themselves. they are smart folks who want to know that their money is being used to better our society and frankly, right now, the way the assistance programs are set up, it is not....

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

It has always been hard. It always will be and there are lots of reasons why some people make it and some don't, but a major component is believing in yourself and doing whatever it takes to get where you want to be. Opportunity is what you make of it. There are thousands of kids in affluent families with plenty of opportunity who don't "make it". And there are just as many in the poorest areas who rebel against the challenges and find those opportunities.

If what you say is true, then this should be a non-issue, because the poorest among us get free health care, food, shelter, early education, etc. What puts kids at a disadvantage is their home life and whether they are raised to believe in themselves.

Living off EBT, NFTA and HUD is not a glamorous life. Even if it is "free", it's usually in a crime ridden area with poor schools. EBT (food stamps) can barely cover basic groceries in many areas and are so political that you can buy chips and Coke but not fresh vegetables (thanks food industry lobbyists! Once again another issue for another debate ) Even with CHIP (the low income health care coverage for children in our state) only basics are covered. When my son was 6 he shattered his arm climbing a tree. We went without a phone that month so I could pay the extra for his surgery. I'm sure there's a small portion of people who are okay with living like this, but the attitude that everyone is getting a free ride that's so comfy they have no desire to change isn't entire true.

This is only true if you accept it to be true. Do you really think there were no people who believed this in the 18th-20th century? Of course there were. What was the difference? There was very little in the way of "safety net" from the government. Any aid came from the community (churches, usually). If a person was going to survive, he had change his lot. There are not different policies, laws, tax codes, jobs for the rich. they are there for everyone. How do you think the rich got to be where they are? Were they always rich? of course not - the vast majority of millionaires today were self-made, not generations of family money. Many of these people came from very humble beginnings.

Is it harder from children from disadvantaged homes to climb up? You bet - They have to have a family that stands behind them, pushing them to do well in school while their friends are hanging out, skipping class, doing drugs, joining gangs, having babies, etc. The family has to instill a belief that it can and will get better for the next generation. The children have to want it for themselves. Stay in school and do well, prepare yourself for college or a trade school. Gain independence from the government and then go back to school to improve your situation even more - that's how it works.

I completely agree family involvement can make or break it. But where do we stop the cycle? How do we do it? By cutting education budgets, programs for teen parents to go to school, contraceptives and health care? Won't that just perpetuate the cycle of people being dependent on the government?

There were never good paying jobs without an education. That's a falsity. In general, you have always needed an education, or start your own business to make good money. Corporations still are not considered people under the Constitution - not sure what that even means...

I don't know what your background is (your parents, and theirs, as far as employment) but I know in the 50s and 60s it was possible to work a decent job at a factory or some other form of manual labor (construction) and support a family. You could have a house, both parents weren't working, etc. My own father did that, until layoffs started in the early 70s. We tried moving to where there were more jobs in an emerging oil and gas industry in the US, but they fizzled up too. Many of those jobs have been outsourced to places like Mexico to save corporations money (the rich getting richer) leaving Americans without a formal post-secondary school education very little options, mostly minimum wage service industry (retail, food industry, etc.). It's impossible to support a family off a minimum wage job in this country and those are becoming the only options for many. (the poor getting poorer).

That might not be making a decent living in your standards, but I suppose it's relative. Opening a successful business is a way to generally have a higher standard of living than former decent paying manual labor jobs (as I mentioned my husband started a small business that we still are part of, so I understand where you're coming from there).

And I was referring to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that says Corporations are protected under the First Amendment, which in essence recognizes them as citizens under the Constitution, which prior to that had only been given to people. Sorry for not clarifying.

totally agree with this - these programs should not be eliminated. And the Republicans do not believe this either. Anyone who believes this about the Republicans are just listening to the left and not listening to what the right is saying/doing.

Hogwash - study after study shows that children who go to Head Start have no better outcomes than children who didn't go. Look, I happen to like HeadStart and I think it's an important program because it gives these children some stability and caring people in their lives, which unfortunately far too many lack. But in terms of future life success, it is a waste of millions of tax payers dollars because it does not change the children's outcomes educationally - which is what it was designed to do.

You can find information from HSA in support, things from the Heritage association saying it's failing. I don't like to use either. But here's a non partisan, extensive, academic source says otherwise:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/NYAS-LudwigPhillips-HeadStart-2008.pdf

This one is government, but has very extensive research and statistics:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_finds/first_yr_finds.pdf

There is nothing wrong with the quality of education in impoverished areas. These areas routinely get way more money per student than other districts. So it's not the money either. It's the home life. And until that changes, these schools will never succeed. Do I hear Charter schools again? Ah yes, in the areas that have set up charters for very low income families, where parent involvement is requires, these kids do significantly better across the board than their traditionally schooled peers.

Where do you send your children to school? What impoverished schools have you worked in? Would you send your child to a public school in SE Washington DC? Inner city Detroit? The Bronx? Denver even? (The high school my son went to had stabbings in the cafeteria, the middle school near by where I worked had gang violence). If there's nothing wrong with the quality of education in these places... Denver Public Schools has some schools that use biology books from the 80s. One high school charged kids to make copies of worksheets or they had to hand write them. My son also went to public school in DC and had to share desks. It was the mid 90s and there was one computer in the school. There was no funding for electives, so there was no art or music.

In some respects I'm okay with charter schools as long as they aren't used as a way to funnel public money and taxes into religious schools. But our education system is broken. I agree, throwing money at it won't fix it. But taking money away and pretending there's no problems won't. And making teachers accountable based on standardized testing as an answer is absurd. I knew a woman who taught ELA, had her masters and was working in an inner city Denver school where 95% of the children came from Spanish speaking homes and 100% were on free/reduced lunch. She raised their English reading and writing levels two grade levels (from K to 2nd). But they were 5th graders and because they didn't do well enough on the CSAP (our state standardized tests) she was fired. Yes there are some ineffective tenured teachers, but NCLB and the subsequent ways to test and eliminate teachers are not answers. [/QUOTE]

Republicans have never said they were against welfare. they only are against what it has become with all its abuse - which sounds very similar to what you have written as your views as well. It was designed as a safety net and yet, it is being used as a way of life for millions of families. And the Republicans also believe their are better ways to improve the outcomes that don't include government involvement. Republicans are not heartless folk who want to keep all their money for themselves. they are smart folks who want to know that their money is being used to better our society and frankly, right now, the way the assistance programs are set up, it is not....

I shouldn't say all Republicans, that's a gross generalization. I know many very moderate Republicans who don't want to eliminate all programs, who don't vote based on gay marriage and abortion. There's nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative. I'm mostly referring to the current candidates and other policies being brought up at the national level by certain politicians. That's what I cannot agree with.

 

[gymgal]

Also a complete side note I forgot, I moved here when I was 13 knowing barely any English and was in ELA classes with mostly Vietnamese, Spanish and Russian speakers. No French speakers. So I'm familiar with learning English to better yourself, not as easy as people think.

I was always under the impression that all Canadian schools taught English/French (depending on your native language) from the beginning. I learn something new everyday. And you're right, learning a new language is never easy but definitely necessary to be successful in a new country.

 

[bogwoppit]

I was always under the impression that all Canadian schools taught English/French (depending on your native language) from the beginning. I learn something new everyday. And you're right, learning a new language is never easy but definitely necessary to be successful in a new country.

No. Schools for Francophones teach very little English, five hours a week I believe, often taught by French native speakers. They taught even less when Skibumgymmom lived here.

Immigrants and Francophones have no rights to English education, or access to the English school system in Quebec. Only English speakers educated in Quebec English schools can send their kids to English schools. Most English schools in Quebec have bilingual programs.

Many, many Francophones do not speak any English at all, we have many laws to protect the French language, especially in the education system.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

Sorry I just caught this and had to respond.

LOL... silly, not the only country but name me a country that comes even remotely close in percentage and numbers.... modern past or present.... can't? thought so..

13% of the US population in foreign born from the 2010 census. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf) Britain is 11.3% 19% in Canada is as of 2001 and I know it's gone up. 22% of people in Australia are foreign born. (Britain is from wiki but verified the source from their government, it's just a PDF form. The other two are MPI | Data Hub | Country and Comparative Data)

Those countries seem to be doing pretty well eh?

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

No. Schools for Francophones teach very little English, five hours a week I believe, often taught by French native speakers. They taught even less when Skibumgymmom lived here.

Immigrants and Francophones have no rights to English education, or access to the English school system in Quebec. Only English speakers educated in Quebec English schools can send their kids to English schools. Most English schools in Quebec have bilingual programs.

Many, many Francophones do not speak any English at all, we have many laws to protect the French language, especially in the education system.

Thanks bog. (For those who don't know bog lives very close to where I grew up, which is a VERY rural area of Quebec)

I grew up in Quebec during the height of the separatist movement (the Quiet Revolution). When all the separatist political parties emerged and which accumulated in the October Crisis, when the Montreal Stock Exchange was bombed in '69. The Bilingualism Act was also passed in '69. Quebecois were angry that the new Canadian flag was only red and white even! (Ridiculous I know, but people I knew were actually quite upset)

It wasn't until the late 70s after this (as a response to the Anglo-Franco animosity) to introduce bilingualism into schools. Most Canadians in Anglo areas (particularly) Mantioba was strictly English until the mid 80s. Most Anglos in regular schools, especially the west, take French because they have to but are not fluent. (How many people become fluent off their high school language courses? lol)

Some Anglos attend bilingual French schools and are fluent. But those aren't the typical public schools. In Montreal the majority of Quebecois speak English. Outside, many are not. In the modern era, bilingualism (at least in Quebec) is becoming a bit stronger, compared to when I was a child.

Of my immediate family, only myself and one brother speak English. Even after living in the States with my parents. My dad speaks passable English and my mother doesn't speak it at all. My nieces and nephews up there generally don't speak English, except for one who goes to Uni in Montreal and another who is teaching herself.

Bog is right you have to have English speaking parents to qualify for English speaking education subsidization in Francophone areas (the school I went to and that my extended family in the area still goes to in French only). In Anglo Canada, same applies, you need at least one French speaking parent for a full French education.

Totally separate issue from the OP, so I'll stop. But just a little info for those who aren't aware and want to compare Canada with the US.

 

[wandrewsjr]

I don't know what your background is (your parents, and theirs, as far as employment) but I know in the 50s and 60s it was possible to work a decent job at a factory or some other form of manual labor (construction) and support a family. You could have a house, both parents weren't working, etc. My own father did that, until layoffs started in the early 70s. We tried moving to where there were more jobs in an emerging oil and gas industry in the US, but they fizzled up too. Many of those jobs have been outsourced to places like Mexico to save corporations money (the rich getting richer) leaving Americans without a formal post-secondary school education very little options, mostly minimum wage service industry (retail, food industry, etc.). It's impossible to support a family off a minimum wage job in this country and those are becoming the only options for many. (the poor getting poorer).

This is so true, and is a fundamental shift in our economy that we are going to have to address as a nation. The vast majority of my family, in the generations before me, did not receive any education beyond high school(some not even that). They worked in manufacturing, construction, sales, farming and all were "good paying" jobs. They were home owners and car owners and lived comfortably by my standards. The numbers of these working class, lower middle class jobs have shrunk in this country, and we haven't addressed as a nation what we should do about it.

 

[wandrewsjr]

I know we are not supposed to attack each other personally, but hope it is ok if I compliment a poster personally. I wanted to thank you, skibumgymmom, for sharing your story, and for your thoughtful responses to others addressing issues you have experienced personally. You have a very reasoned, calm approach which I admire(and am still, at 40 years old,hoping I can grow up to be more like). And you also happen to have my current favorite screen name!

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

I know we are not supposed to attack each other personally, but hope it is ok if I compliment a poster personally. I wanted to thank you, skibumgymmom, for sharing your story, and for your thoughtful responses to others addressing issues you have experienced personally. You have a very reasoned, calm approach which I admire(and am still, at 40 years old,hoping I can grow up to be more like). And you also happen to have my current favorite screen name!

Thank you so much! You're far too kind. I can't always say I was this reasonable or calm, some of that led me into the situations I found myself in. It took over 30 years, 3 kids, a grandchild, a lot of heartbreak and a lot of just life to get to this point. Now I'm just happy to have my family, wake up in the mountains every morning and be a ski bum. (I figure even when I retire from teaching public school, a long way off, I'll still be teaching ski school! If my body holds up ;-) )

 

[gymkat]

There is nothing wrong with the quality of education in impoverished areas. These areas routinely get way more money per student than other districts. So it's not the money either. It's the home life. And until that changes, these schools will never succeed. Do I hear Charter schools again? Ah yes, in the areas that have set up charters for very low income families, where parent involvement is requires, these kids do significantly better across the board than their traditionally schooled peers.

Hi! I'm a teacher at a Title 1 school. This year, I have 184 students in five classes. We don't have enough money for aides; we only get 5 reams of paper per quarter due to budget constraints. I pay for all other classroom supplies out of pocket (including pencils and notebooks for students who can't afford to buy their own supplies).

Across the board, charters do not outperform public schools. There are a handful of charters with strong test scores, but they're the exception, not the rule, and many counsel out students who are underperforming or who are disruptive.

 

[gymgal]

And I was referring to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that says Corporations are protected under the First Amendment, which in essence recognizes them as citizens under the Constitution, which prior to that had only been given to people. Sorry for not clarifying.

OK, I admit that i had to do a little research on this.... This ruling upheld almost two centuries of rulings that clearly gave corporations some individual rights, and the 14th amendment has also been used to uphold this. In essence, corporations are group of individuals coming together for a central goal. In that, they are afforded certain rights as individuals if they are acting together, as was the case that sparked this ruling. I am not sure how I feel about it because I really don't like the ridiculous campaign spending, much of which are corporate funding. BUT I believe that a nation must tread very carefully when considering limiting individual freedoms. I'm just not sure how far this should go in terms of corporations...

But here's a non partisan, extensive, academic source says otherwise: {head start}

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/NYAS-LudwigPhillips-HeadStart-2008.pdf

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_finds/first_yr_finds.pdf

OK, first, academic sources reporting on an educational program is far from non-partisan and 2nd, this report is a joke with the extensive amount of :"may", "perhaps", "might", "likely" 's used. It's all fluff. It basically acknowledges the that there are no objective, positive findings and then goes on to say why it's still a good program. The second is the actual report but it's from 2005. The more recent one from 2010 done by the DHHS clearly stated that there is no significant difference between participants and controls by the end of 1st grade (except "perhaps" improved parent relationships). As I stated earlier, I am not against early detection, intervention and parent training. But i don't like to see 6 billion dollars go to a program that is being sold to the American public as giving disadvantaged youth "a leg-up" educationally when the results of the experiment clearly show it is not. The amount of bureaucracy found in Federal programs like HS is atrocious. There are better ways to spend this money - the most effectively would be parent / caregiver training for this population.

Where do you send your children to school? What impoverished schools have you worked in? Would you send your child to a public school in SE Washington DC? Inner city Detroit? The Bronx? Denver even? (The high school my son went to had stabbings in the cafeteria, the middle school near by where I worked had gang violence). If there's nothing wrong with the quality of education in these places... Denver Public Schools has some schools that use biology books from the 80s. One high school charged kids to make copies of worksheets or they had to hand write them. My son also went to public school in DC and had to share desks. It was the mid 90s and there was one computer in the school. There was no funding for electives, so there was no art or music.

I thought I was being clear, but apparently I wasn't. There is nothing wrong with the TEACHING in these schools (for the most part). What is wrong is exactly as you described- the discipline issues. And I'm not buying that there is not enough money for textbooks or other supplies. On average, national per-pupil expenditure is $10,000. In NC, we spend about $7000. Chicago spends at least $7000 and upwards of $15000 depending on the school. DC spends something like $20,000. If we take the low end of $7,000 in a school of 700 kids, that's almost $5 million dollars for the school! Obviously, larger schools (middle/high) would get a lot more. How exactly is that not enough money? How could spending more help the situation when the real issue is coming from the home? No - it's not that there's not enough money. It's that it's not spent properly. And as for the arts, music, electives - that's an entirely different issue, one I will broach another day....

And making teachers accountable based on standardized testing as an answer is absurd.

agreed. NCLB was a HUGE mistake. Not enough forethought was given to it. Too much regulation always is a bad thing...

I shouldn't say all Republicans, that's a gross generalization. I know many very moderate Republicans who don't want to eliminate all programs, who don't vote based on gay marriage and abortion. There's nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative. I'm mostly referring to the current candidates and other policies being brought up at the national level by certain politicians. That's what I cannot agree with.

so you think the extreme republicans want to eliminate all programs? The current candidates do NOT want to eliminate. Far from it. They just want our country to live on a budget, like the average household needs to. When the numbers don't add up, you have to cut your spending. You shouldn't be going to borrow more money (or take from the rich, in the case of the government). And Democrats love to go for the big "gotchas", saying that this program will be cut, premiums will rise so much percent, when in fact, a lot of it is streamlining the programs so there is less overlap, not refilling positions once people retire. And yes, sometimes people have to take a pay cut. I did when the government slashed reimbursement rates for health care. Our nation has lived outside comfortable means (in terms of budget/debt/deficit) for far too long and it needs to be reigned back in. Yes, we could always take more from the rich but if we don't fix our errors, it won't solve the problem because whenever the government gets more, it spends even more.

 

[gymgal]

Sorry I just caught this and had to respond. {talking about gymgals post on how the US has the largest number of immigrants}

13% of the US population in foreign born from the 2010 census. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf) Britain is 11.3% 19% in Canada is as of 2001 and I know it's gone up. 22% of people in Australia are foreign born. (Britain is from wiki but verified the source from their government, it's just a PDF form. The other two are MPI | Data Hub | Country and Comparative Data)

Those countries seem to be doing pretty well eh?

SIGH - this is a perfect example of why people use percentages and numbers without context - to paint a more positive picture for their cause... here are the real facts...

13% of 315,000,000 (USA). You all can do the calculations but it comes out to be more than the entire population of either Canada or Australia. case closed...

...But it doesn't really matter because that's the percentage of immigrants currently living in the each country. that means that we have a higher citizenship than these other countries. That's a GOOD thing.

About 750K to 1 million legal immigrants flock to the US each year. In addition an unknown number of illegal immigrants also make it across the border - probably a negligible 30-40,000. In comparison, Canada *allows* only 250,000. But even if they had an open door policy, it would never come close to 1 million. Great Britain - roughly 500,000 but 300,000 emigrate out of the country each year. Wow - that's staggering.... I didn't know that - I wonder why... Australia is roughly 100,000.

My original point still stands. More immigrants continue to come to America than any other country in the world.

 

[SkiBumGymMom]

SIGH - this is a perfect example of why people use percentages and numbers without context - to paint a more positive picture for their cause... here are the real facts...

13% of 315,000,000 (USA). You all can do the calculations but it comes out to be more than the entire population of either Canada or Australia. case closed...

...But it doesn't really matter because that's the percentage of immigrants currently living in the each country. that means that we have a higher citizenship than these other countries. That's a GOOD thing.

About 750K to 1 million legal immigrants flock to the US each year. In addition an unknown number of illegal immigrants also make it across the border - probably a negligible 30-40,000. In comparison, Canada *allows* only 250,000. But even if they had an open door policy, it would never come close to 1 million. Great Britain - roughly 500,000 but 300,000 emigrate out of the country each year. Wow - that's staggering.... I didn't know that - I wonder why... Australia is roughly 100,000.

My original point still stands. More immigrants continue to come to America than any other country in the world.

Statistcally its more valid to compare percentages per population or amount.... Of course the us has more but it has more people and therefore more non immigrants. Canada and Australia have more immigrants per capita.... I'm baffled to explain this. With all do respect have you taken a statistics class? Its not valid to compare sheer numbers with different sample sizes without looking at porportion. Its like saying the US is the best ski country in the world based on how many athletes they produce. Meanwhile austria has a smaller population but a much higher per capita rate of world cup racers. Therefore, one would assume they have a strong program if not more so tham the us.

 

[gymgal]

Hi! I'm a teacher at a Title 1 school. This year, I have 184 students in five classes. We don't have enough money for aides; we only get 5 reams of paper per quarter due to budget constraints. I pay for all other classroom supplies out of pocket (including pencils and notebooks for students who can't afford to buy their own supplies).

Across the board, charters do not outperform public schools. There are a handful of charters with strong test scores, but they're the exception, not the rule, and many counsel out students who are underperforming or who are disruptive.

It is not due to budget constraints - It's due to improper use of funds, too high salaries (not teachers, though in select areas of the country this is true). An exorbitant amount of school funds go to central offices, sports programs, arts/music, unnecessary curriculum, state of the art science and computer labs, the list goes on.. Again, throwing more money at the situation doesn't solve anything... It just allows the powers that be to spend and ask for more...

I did not say that charters outperform across the board. I was very specific about the type of charter I was talking about and how those students outperform other disadvantaged students (not necessarily on test scores but in educational success - staying in school, striving for college, etc).

And btw, Did I read that right? You work in a school that has an average of 37 kids per class? What grade range and what area of the country are you in? That is almost unheard of these days. It was common place when I went to school but not now - the average seems to be 25.