|
|
On October 04 2012 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC just came out that Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney. Obama's problem is that he took to long in his ramblings, consuming time, where Romney could always just get the last word in. It was hard to let Obama counter a couple of times because he had taken so long to make his original point and Romney's short refutation was short enough for Lehrer to end it after Romney.
That and Obama left that $716 billion Medicare cut out there for seniors to hold against him, and also saying their Social Security plans were basically the same. Seniors don't have much reason to fear Romney based on this debate. Bad for Obama.
Yup, I give Romney a B and Obama a C in this debate.
|
On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools
I am just going to jump in this school grading debate here by saying changing schools does not have as large of an impact on how well the student will do compared with the upbringing and socioeconomic status of the parents. Grading schools on whether they are good or bad will not help kids succeed academically. You will not magically improve test scores of a child just by sending them to a "better" school.
Edit: And by grading school, there will be an incentive to cheat the test like what happened with no child left behind. It will not solve anything.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BI0nM.jpg)
Don't let Romney win x.x
|
On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years.
Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ?
|
why did romney just flat out ignore the moderator
|
The problem with vouchers is that "good" schools actually just become a lottery system. Sure, they can expand, but there's no guarantee that the success they have today will be there in 2 years when your kid's wait list time is up. Even then, there's no guarantee the "voucher" would even pay for the cost of sending the kid to school in the first place.
|
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me.
|
Canada11350 Posts
On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:29 MWY wrote:
[quote]
I understood what he wants to do.. but seriously this will never do any good.
Bad schools get no kids? Or just the poor kids? Whos rating how?... The idea behind it is that poorer children can go to more affluent schools if they choose to. It prevents richer neighborhoods from having significantly better schools than poorer neighborhoods and telling those poor kids they can't go to the better school. It allows the poor families choose to send their child to the better school. the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding?
So do they just hire back all those old teachers from the 'bad school' or was it just the building that was 'bad.' All the students switch, so then you need the teachers... probably the same ones because experience is usually preferred to recent graduates.
Besides of which, what is the criteria for a 'good' school and who decides?
For instance, I've been in inner city schools that do terribly on the Fraser Institutes rankings (standardized test), but have awesome food programs and other supports to raise help educate students from very low income families. They are teaching the student where they are at and pushing them forward. The staff is passionate about their role in the community and they are making big impacts on the students lives. But the score poorly on the standardized tests. And a school up in the rich suburbs with parents of doctors and the like. They always score high on the standardized tests, does that make the one better than the other? Is that a reflection of the quality of the teachers or the context with which they find themselves? Even without a ranking system like the Fraser Institute, people know where the posh schools are so I don't even know what difference rankings would make. I guess it would be easier for schools to recruit for sports teams.
Besides, there are already private schools, home schools, and online education if people are looking for choice. Ranking schools is a nice thing to say, but I don't see it as having a significant, practical benefit. You aren't actually doing anything beyond making a giant list.
|
On October 04 2012 12:05 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years. Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ?
No the $5 trillion is what the reduction of deduction needs to make up if the plan is going to be revenue neutral.
|
On October 04 2012 12:06 tarath wrote:
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me.
next debate i think
|
On October 04 2012 12:04 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC just came out that Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney. Obama's problem is that he took to long in his ramblings, consuming time, where Romney could always just get the last word in. It was hard to let Obama counter a couple of times because he had taken so long to make his original point and Romney's short refutation was short enough for Lehrer to end it after Romney.
That and Obama left that $716 billion Medicare cut out there for seniors to hold against him, and also saying their Social Security plans were basically the same. Seniors don't have much reason to fear Romney based on this debate. Bad for Obama. Yup, I give Romney a B and Obama a C in this debate.
For once I'd 100% agree. We'll see if it's enough to take 538 out of the 90%+ Obama it's been in for ages on the nowcast. It's telling that not even most Obama supporters (including myself) would say he did well this debate.
|
On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:32 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
the question i think people have is how are these kids getting to these better schools? generally the same way they get to their school now. it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job.
In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations.
|
On October 04 2012 12:02 WniO wrote:
tbh i would vote for anyone who could lower gas prices. if a candidate brought that up and had a legit plan, they would win ez.
That wouldn't be too hard, just increase the already exhorbitant subsidies to oil companies and rape and pillage the taxpayer even more.
I'm sure both parties would be more than happy to help you, and their donors at the same time. Win-win for them.
|
On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:36 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
generally the same way they get to their school now.
it's pretty advanced in the state of wisconsin, my niece goes to a charter school. my aunt and uncle picked it because it teaches some of the material in spanish and they want her to be bilingual. it's a solid program if you ask me. Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations.
invest in better teachers?
specifically, what does this mean?
also, what is your problem with giving low-income students at least some ability to go to a private or charter school without having to worry about tuition? seems like that's really shafting the kids for the sake of bad schools.
|
On October 04 2012 12:05 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:01 Saryph wrote:Romney proposed and for most of the campaign (until tonight's debate) has run on a tax plan that includes a 20% tax cut to each tax bracket. His tax plan has been calculated by independent analysts to reduce revenue by $5 trillion over the next ten years. Does that $5 trillion take into account the reduction of deductions ?
Was the $5 trillion number ever even true? Quick googles have only shown claims from Obama, but I havent seen any studies to back the claim up.
|
On October 04 2012 12:04 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:03 Kaitlin wrote:
MSNBC just came out that Obama spoke for 4 more minutes than Romney. Obama's problem is that he took to long in his ramblings, consuming time, where Romney could always just get the last word in. It was hard to let Obama counter a couple of times because he had taken so long to make his original point and Romney's short refutation was short enough for Lehrer to end it after Romney.
That and Obama left that $716 billion Medicare cut out there for seniors to hold against him, and also saying their Social Security plans were basically the same. Seniors don't have much reason to fear Romney based on this debate. Bad for Obama. Yup, I give Romney a B and Obama a C in this debate.
I gave them both low scores. They both sucked at debating. 
|
On October 04 2012 12:05 a176 wrote:
why did romney just flat out ignore the moderator
You mean why did BOTH of them ignore the mod? probably because he let them walk all over him
|
On October 04 2012 11:54 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 11:46 Romantic wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Saryph wrote:
Romney did a great job this debate by completely changing his platform from what it was when he was last out on the campaign trail. Have you actually got Romney's platform from Romney or do you listen to Democrats tell you what Romney's platform is? If you have been doing the latter then obviously you are surprised when you hear him defend himself. How many times did Romney claim he didn't have a plan that independent analysts have said would reduce revenues by $5 trillion over the next ten years? Did he just drop the 20% reduction to each tax bracket aspect of his tax plan or did he just lie over and over? I tend to by default assume presidential candidates are not lying on national television. Perhaps that is my mistake.
Romney has repeatedly said he wants to reduce tax rates by 20% while keeping revenue neutral by getting rid of loopholes. He has repeatedly said he does not want to reduce the share of taxes paid by the rich. He has repeatedly said he wants it to be revenue neutral.
If reducing tax rates on income by 20% across the board (hint: not just the rich) ends up being in conflict with the other stated goals, then Romney has to pick one or the other.
What these stupid "independent analysts" are doing is assuming Romney will break his revenue neutral and\or not overly reducing taxes for the rich pledge if it conflicts with the tax rate reduction pledge. That is just Democrat spin and bias. Who says which one he will budge on if he has to? They\you are just assuming the worst because you are biased against him for whatever reason.
In the debate Romney repeated his pledges not to reduce revenue or lessen the relative burden on the rich. If he didn't know he has been promising this the whole time then I can tell you get your news from partisan sources that like to leave that part out and only talk about the 20% rate reduction.
This is all assuming that the pledges are in conflict in the first place. They may be, I don't know I am not a tax expert.
|
IMO Romney won the debate pretty convincingly, for almost every shot Obama took at his plans he had an appropriate and sensible retort, and he did a better job at fully explaining his plans. He also seemed to have more energy than Obama and looked more focused on putting his own plans into action than taking shots at his opponent.
On October 04 2012 12:06 tarath wrote:
Why didn't they ask about birth control, abortion, gay marriage etc at all? I feel like the social issues are big issues where the candidates are miles apart and that social issues are very important to a significant % of voters.
eg romneys stance on gay marriage and birth control is a deal breaker for me.
Because they are sensible and realize that an economy in the toilet is a far more important problem than these fluff social issues.
|
On October 04 2012 12:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2012 12:07 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 12:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 12:00 NPF wrote:On October 04 2012 11:57 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 04 2012 11:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 04 2012 11:46 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 04 2012 11:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 04 2012 11:38 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
Okay, well i live in a city in California, we have highschools in my city because we have a decent size population. I went to North highschool despite the fact that West highschool had better programs, if i was able to attend west, how am i to get there? we dont have a good buss route, if im poor and dont have a car i cant walk the 10+ miles to get to the other school when my school is only one mile away. There is a logistical problem to getting to better schools for the poor if it's so far away you can't find a way to get there, maybe you shouldn't be attending that school? It's not a perfect system, but it's a definite improvement over mandatory schools. so you go, if your poor, i guess you cant go? come on man that really isnt the best response, i know you can do better then this. This is the problem that people see, this idea will only increase funding for the better schools because now they will have more students, and will kill the lesser schools that only the poor can go to People need to learn how vouchers work. The parents, the poor parents, get the money directly and then can choose which school they send their child too. If the parents choose to send their child to a failing school that is their own fault. Alright, so parents have vouchers and can send kids to any school. What do you do about overpopulation of schools then? Parents will want to send their kids to the "good schools", which means they become hugely crowded. How is this even an argument? The school will expand like any other business in the country. They will hire new teachers and build more classrooms or open new schools and do what it takes to get the money being offered them. How many businesses do you know that turn away customers because of overcrowding? So why instead of expanding a school or bulding a new one you study what makes a school good and you realocate some of the ressources to help the poor schools Because that is rewarding poor management and teaching. The market is based upon destruction, the destruction of poor management and poor performance. If a school is poor at teaching, then it is a good thing that the school dies, and gets replaced by a better once. The concept here is competition, which is what is lacking in public schools and why they are doing such a poor job. In order to get better teaching, you need better teachers. Which we dont have. Sending a student to a different school doesnt solve this problem, it just creates one of overcrowding. You want better schools? Invest in better teachers, not different locations. invest in better teachers? specifically, what does this mean?
Raise wages of teachers to make it a more appealing job, get people that want to teach. Look at programs that would train teachers in better teaching methods. Lots of ways to invest in better teachers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
