Did The Teachers Union Cause this?

wrote:
You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.

No. Redneck Bible-thumpers misled by inflammatory propaganda result
in more votes for Republicans.

Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

Is that why people with advanced education are predominantly
Democrats?

The primary job of the Teacher's Unions

All of whose members have degrees, and who are therefore highly
educated

is to get maximum pay and benefits for teachers

Yes - you forgot optimal working conditions.

while minimizing the amount of work and responsibility.

Not of those would reduce the quality of working conditions, which
they would.

This is the goal of all unions.

No more than it is the goal of all human beings.

lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

Banty is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy

You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.
Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

So if you're rich and ignorant, are you a Democrat
or Republican?

You are most likely a Hollywood actor.

-Tom Enright

Cheers,
Banty (answer: B)

wrote in message
ups.com...

R. Steve Walz is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

Answer, no, they are trying to PREVENT that,
but the Republican RICH of America DON'T WANT
THEM TO SUCCEED!!!

You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.
Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

Funny, I don't see the Republicans fully funding the No Rich Child left
behind act nor do I see the Republicans funding mentoring programs as they
promised or other programs to help kids.

The primary job of the Teacher's Unions is to get maximum
pay and benefits for teachers while minimizing the amount
of work and responsibility. This is the goal of all
unions.

Yet, teachers work for pay that is less than they can make elsewhere. And
most teachers go above what is required of them.

jeff

-Tom Enright

"The stability junkies in the EU, UN and elsewhere have,
as usual, missed the point. The Middle East is too stable.
So, if you had to pick only one regime to topple, why not
Iraq? Once you've got rid of the ruling gang, it's the
West's best shot at incubating a reasonably non-insane
polity. That's why the unravelling of the Middle East has
to start not in the West Bank but in Baghdad."
-Mark Styen, April 6, 2002


Steve

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
ups.com...

You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.
Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

Funny, I don't see the Republicans fully funding the
No Rich Child left behind act nor do I see the
Republicans funding mentoring programs as they
promised or other programs to help kids.

Please explain "fully funding."

Don't worry, the Republicans are throwing away money on
education faster than ever. The Department of Education
should be eliminated, it is a wasteful money pit.

The Democrat's goal is to make citizens dependent on the
government for their well-being and income. By increasing
the minimum wage, increasing handouts, refusing to reform
social security, favoring minority setasides etc. the
Democrats hope to increase their power.

The primary job of the Teacher's Unions is to get maximum
pay and benefits for teachers while minimizing the amount
of work and responsibility. This is the goal of all
unions.

Yet, teachers work for pay that is less than they can make
elsewhere. And most teachers go above what is required of
them.

Teachers make these choices, so they are responsible for the
results.

-Tom Enright

jeff

-Tom Enright

In article .com,
says...


Banty is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy

You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.
Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

So if you're rich and ignorant, are you a Democrat
or Republican?

You are most likely a Hollywood actor.

-Tom Enright



....who became President or Governor, perhaps..?

Banty

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
ups.com...

You have that backwards. Productive and employed
people results in more votes for the Republicans.
Democrats have an interest in keeping people
relatively poor and ignorant.

Funny, I don't see the Republicans fully funding the
No Rich Child left behind act nor do I see the
Republicans funding mentoring programs as they
promised or other programs to help kids.

Please explain "fully funding."

The No Rich Child Left behind act requires that school districts spend
additional moneys for certain programs. But Dubya didn't provide enough
funding for the school districts to fully pay for these.

Don't worry, the Republicans are throwing away money on
education faster than ever. The Department of Education
should be eliminated, it is a wasteful money pit.

I disagree. The education of our children is vital to the US economy.

The Democrat's goal is to make citizens dependent on the
government for their well-being and income. By increasing
the minimum wage, increasing handouts, refusing to reform
social security, favoring minority setasides etc. the
Democrats hope to increase their power.

Gee, I think people desesrve a certain standard of living. The minimum wage
is part of this. You can't live on the proposed minimum wage in NYC.

Actually, Soc. Sec. is much more secure than Dubya lets on. The actuaries
who look at the future of Soc. Sec. use three different sets of figures.
Dubya is going on the most pessimistic one, while the most optimistic one
has been the one that has been most accurate in the past. According to the
most optimistic report, Soc. Sec. is secure until after 2080.

And the goal of the Democratic party is to decrease gov't handouts by
decreasing the need for them.

The primary job of the Teacher's Unions is to get maximum
pay and benefits for teachers while minimizing the amount
of work and responsibility. This is the goal of all
unions.

Yet, teachers work for pay that is less than they can make
elsewhere. And most teachers go above what is required of
them.

Teachers make these choices, so they are responsible for the
results.

Yes they are. They are responsible for caring for kids and mentoring them
so that the kids grow into productive adults. I have the utmost respect for
them.

Jeff
-Tom Enright

jeff

-Tom Enright

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Funny, I don't see the Republicans fully funding the
No Rich Child left behind act nor do I see the
Republicans funding mentoring programs as they
promised or other programs to help kids.

Please explain "fully funding."

The No Rich Child Left behind act requires that
school districts spend additional moneys for
certain programs. But Dubya didn't provide enough
funding for the school districts to fully pay for
these.

Good.

Don't worry, the Republicans are throwing away money on
education faster than ever. The Department of Education
should be eliminated, it is a wasteful money pit.

I disagree. The education of our children is vital to the
US economy.

This is why the Department of Education should be eliminated.
Schools are a local concern. My money should go to the school
500 yards from my house, not 800 miles to Washington DC.

The Democrat's goal is to make citizens dependent on the
government for their well-being and income. By increasing
the minimum wage, increasing handouts, refusing to reform
social security, favoring minority setasides etc. the
Democrats hope to increase their power.

Gee, I think people desesrve a certain standard of living.
The minimum wage is part of this. You can't live on the
proposed minimum wage in NYC.

Minimum wage laws keep people poor and encourage discrimination.
If one wants to live in NYC they should educate themselves.
Intruding on the rights of a business owner is not the way to
address this.

Actually, Soc. Sec. is much more secure than Dubya lets on.
The actuaries who look at the future of Soc. Sec. use three
different sets of figures. Dubya is going on the most
pessimistic one, while the most optimistic one has been the
one that has been most accurate in the past. According to the
most optimistic report, Soc. Sec. is secure until after 2080.

When Clinton was president he repeatedly stated that SS was in
trouble, now that Bush is in office it no longer is. Did Bush
fix it?

SS should be eliminated for all but the most impoverished
individuals. We should all be responsible for our own
retirement, not force others to work for us. By perpetuating
the lie that SS is not in trouble the Democrats hope to keep
the poor among us poor so as to keep a solid voting block.
Private accounts will allow the poor to pass on a portion of
SS benefits to their children. This is why the Democrats hate
it, it will lead more folks to be independent.

And the goal of the Democratic party is to decrease gov't
handouts by decreasing the need for them.

By making people more dependent on them? That is
illogical.

How do you increase the need for handouts? Pay people
for each child out of wedlock they have, have restrictive
minimum wage laws, increase SS benefits, make it economically
foolish to be married, overtax the most productive and
reward the lazy...etc.

Yet, teachers work for pay that is less than they can make
elsewhere. And most teachers go above what is required of
them.

Teachers make these choices, so they are responsible for the
results.

Yes they are. They are responsible for caring for kids and
mentoring them so that the kids grow into productive adults.
I have the utmost respect for them.

I respect good teachers, not all teachers.

Jeff

wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Funny, I don't see the Republicans fully funding the
No Rich Child left behind act nor do I see the
Republicans funding mentoring programs as they
promised or other programs to help kids.

Please explain "fully funding."

The No Rich Child Left behind act requires that
school districts spend additional moneys for
certain programs. But Dubya didn't provide enough
funding for the school districts to fully pay for
these.

Good.

Don't worry, the Republicans are throwing away money on
education faster than ever. The Department of Education
should be eliminated, it is a wasteful money pit.

I disagree. The education of our children is vital to the
US economy.

This is why the Department of Education should be eliminated.
Schools are a local concern. My money should go to the school
500 yards from my house, not 800 miles to Washington DC.

The Democrat's goal is to make citizens dependent on the
government for their well-being and income. By increasing
the minimum wage, increasing handouts, refusing to reform
social security, favoring minority setasides etc. the
Democrats hope to increase their power.

Gee, I think people desesrve a certain standard of living.
The minimum wage is part of this. You can't live on the
proposed minimum wage in NYC.

Minimum wage laws keep people poor and encourage discrimination.

This is an oxymoron. It is like saying that paying people money for the
work they do makes them poor.

If one wants to live in NYC they should educate themselves.

Gee, not every person has the oppurtunity. Education costs money and Bush is
not providing it. Federal financial aid has not kept up with increases in
the cost of education at the college level.

Intruding on the rights of a business owner is not the way to
address this.

No one is intruding on the rights of a business owner. If the owner doesn't
want to live up to the legal requirements, he doesn't have to hire the
worker (or he can hire an illegal immigrant).

Actually, Soc. Sec. is much more secure than Dubya lets on.
The actuaries who look at the future of Soc. Sec. use three
different sets of figures. Dubya is going on the most
pessimistic one, while the most optimistic one has been the
one that has been most accurate in the past. According to the
most optimistic report, Soc. Sec. is secure until after 2080.

When Clinton was president he repeatedly stated that SS was in
trouble, now that Bush is in office it no longer is. Did Bush
fix it?

No. And it was supposedly in trouble before Clinton got in office, too. In
fact, it has been about to collapse for 20 or 30 years or more.

SS should be eliminated for all but the most impoverished
individuals. We should all be responsible for our own
retirement, not force others to work for us.

Doh! The people who pay the taxes are the people who get the money.

By perpetuating
the lie that SS is not in trouble the Democrats hope to keep
the poor among us poor so as to keep a solid voting block.

Try reading the report at www.ssa.gov.

Private accounts will allow the poor to pass on a portion of
SS benefits to their children.

Not really. Part of the private account deal is that the people have to
take out an annuity on the money from the private accounts when they retire.
It has to be enough to keep them out of poverty. Poor people will be left
very little to pass on to their children after that.

This is why the Democrats hate
it, it will lead more folks to be independent.

No. It will cost trillions of dollars, because those trillions of dollars
won't pay for the benefits already promised.

And the goal of the Democratic party is to decrease gov't
handouts by decreasing the need for them.

By making people more dependent on them? That is
illogical.

No, by giving people the means and oppurtunity to get out of poverty. As it
is now, the majority of people of make it out of the welfare system barely
make it out. They end up barely above the poverty level.

How do you increase the need for handouts? Pay people
for each child out of wedlock they have, have restrictive
minimum wage laws, increase SS benefits, make it economically
foolish to be married, overtax the most productive and
reward the lazy...etc.

Let's see: no one is talking about raising SS benefits. The "pay" get for
having children no where comes close to the cost of raising a child.

And who is it who benefit most the labor of the poor people? The rich. I
have no problem with rich people paying their fair share, which i don't
think they are doing.

Jeff
Yet, teachers work for pay that is less than they can make
elsewhere. And most teachers go above what is required of
them.

Teachers make these choices, so they are responsible for the
results.

Yes they are. They are responsible for caring for kids and
mentoring them so that the kids grow into productive adults.
I have the utmost respect for them.

I respect good teachers, not all teachers.

Jeff

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Gee, I think people desesrve a certain standard of living.
The minimum wage is part of this. You can't live on the
proposed minimum wage in NYC.

Minimum wage laws keep people poor and encourage
discrimination.

This is an oxymoron. It is like saying that paying people
money for the work they do makes them poor.

Having a, or raising, the minimum wage makes the minimum wage
more attractive for some people. Jobs which pay at or near
MW are entry level positions. They are generally offered to
teenagers or new workers, by articially raising the cost of
employment you place teenagers in competition for jobs with
older workers. This increases unemployment among the young.
Not many 16 year-olds working at WalMart, is there?

If one wants to live in NYC they should educate themselves.

Gee, not every person has the oppurtunity. Education costs
money and Bush is not providing it. Federal financial aid
has not kept up with increases in the cost of education at
the college level.

It's not Bush's job to provide money or opportunity. It is
not that taxpayer money has not kept-up but the increase in
tuition is increasing far faster than inflation.

You have already fallen into the trap. You are, or believe
others should be, dependent on the taxpayers to provide you
with opportunities and when the money isn't there it is the
politician's fault (Republicans, of course).

Intruding on the rights of a business owner is not the
way to address this.

No one is intruding on the rights of a business owner. If
the owner doesn't want to live up to the legal requirements,
he doesn't have to hire the worker (or he can hire an
illegal immigrant).

The government dictating what a business owner pays his
employees is intrustion. Once again, you have stumbled
upon the truth. Making workers to expensive can often
times mean that a worker will not be hired.

When Clinton was president he repeatedly stated that SS
was in trouble, now that Bush is in office it no longer
is. Did Bushfix it?

No. And it was supposedly in trouble before Clinton got
in office, too. In fact, it has been about to collapse
for 20 or 30 years or more.

The estimations very, but SS will collapse if changes
are not made. Of course the Democrats know that there
is a problem and they will fix it by raising taxes.
But when the number of workers equalls the number of
retirees, there will be a problem.

SS should be eliminated for all but the most impoverished
individuals. We should all be responsible for our own
retirement, not force others to work for us.

Doh! The people who pay the taxes are the people who get
the money.

No, some people who don't pay still get it, and most people
now receive far more than they pay.

snip

By making people more dependent on them? That is
illogical.

No, by giving people the means and oppurtunity to get
out of poverty. As it is now, the majority of people
of make it out of the welfare system barely make it
out. They end up barely above the poverty level.

That's why welfare is so corrupting.


How do you increase the need for handouts? Pay people
for each child out of wedlock they have, have restrictive
minimum wage laws, increase SS benefits, make it economically
foolish to be married, overtax the most productive and
reward the lazy...etc.

Let's see: no one is talking about raising SS benefits.
The "pay" get for having children no where comes close to
the cost of raising a child.

Increasing the number of people on SS is an increase of
benefits, just as the increases due to inflation adjustments.

The pay for raising children doesn't pay the cost of raising
a child properly, but you certainly can rais children on that
money. Why do we see unmarried, unemployed women with seven
kids? Once again, so what?

And who is it who benefit most the labor of the poor people?
The rich. I have no problem with rich people paying their
fair share, which i don't think they are doing.

No they are not. They are paying magnitudes greater than
their fair share.

-Tom Enright

Jeff

wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff is Rex Dark, Eskimo spy:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Gee, I think people desesrve a certain standard of living.
The minimum wage is part of this. You can't live on the
proposed minimum wage in NYC.

Minimum wage laws keep people poor and encourage
discrimination.

This is an oxymoron. It is like saying that paying people
money for the work they do makes them poor.

Having a, or raising, the minimum wage makes the minimum wage
more attractive for some people. Jobs which pay at or near
MW are entry level positions. They are generally offered to
teenagers or new workers, by articially raising the cost of
employment you place teenagers in competition for jobs with
older workers. This increases unemployment among the young.
Not many 16 year-olds working at WalMart, is there?

Good example. And Sprawl-Mart is known for paying very low wages, averaging
around $8.50. Hard to raise a family on $8.50 an hour.

If one wants to live in NYC they should educate themselves.

Gee, not every person has the oppurtunity. Education costs
money and Bush is not providing it. Federal financial aid
has not kept up with increases in the cost of education at
the college level.

It's not Bush's job to provide money or opportunity. It is
not that taxpayer money has not kept-up but the increase in
tuition is increasing far faster than inflation.

Wrong. It is Bush;s job to provide money and oppurtunity. It is needed to
help the workers. And it is also needed to help industry. If the US doesn't
provide enough well-educated workers, the work goes offshore.

You have already fallen into the trap. You are, or believe
others should be, dependent on the taxpayers to provide you
with opportunities and when the money isn't there it is the
politician's fault (Republicans, of course).

Then tell me what is the alternative? Letting people stay in poverty while
the well-paying jobs go overseas?

Intruding on the rights of a business owner is not the
way to address this.

No one is intruding on the rights of a business owner. If
the owner doesn't want to live up to the legal requirements,
he doesn't have to hire the worker (or he can hire an
illegal immigrant).

The government dictating what a business owner pays his
employees is intrustion.

So is requiring that workers get paid overtime after working more than 40
hours a week. So it requiring employers to provide lunch breaks and toiliet
facilities. So is requiring employers to provide safe working environment.

Once again, you have stumbled
upon the truth. Making workers to expensive can often
times mean that a worker will not be hired.

That's life.

When Clinton was president he repeatedly stated that SS
was in trouble, now that Bush is in office it no longer
is. Did Bushfix it?

No. And it was supposedly in trouble before Clinton got
in office, too. In fact, it has been about to collapse
for 20 or 30 years or more.

The estimations very, but SS will collapse if changes
are not made.

Maybe. But the fact of the matter is that the most optimistic estimate,
which shows Soc. Sec. not running out of money, has been the most accurate
one.

I do believe that there should be one change made: After the cap on wages
that are taxed, wages should still be taxed, as they are for medicare, but
at a lower rate.

Of course the Democrats know that there
is a problem and they will fix it by raising taxes.

Yeap. On the rich. I don't have a problem with that.

But when the number of workers equalls the number of
retirees, there will be a problem.

There will be a problem regardless.

SS should be eliminated for all but the most impoverished
individuals. We should all be responsible for our own
retirement, not force others to work for us.

Doh! The people who pay the taxes are the people who get
the money.

No, some people who don't pay still get it, and most people
now receive far more than they pay.

No. To get Soc. Sec., you have to pay into the system first. I am not sure
that is true for people who get disability insurance and have been disabled
all their lives. But this is a small number of people.

snip

By making people more dependent on them? That is
illogical.

No, by giving people the means and oppurtunity to get
out of poverty. As it is now, the majority of people
of make it out of the welfare system barely make it
out. They end up barely above the poverty level.

That's why welfare is so corrupting.

Please provide a better idea for your fellow human beings.

How do you increase the need for handouts? Pay people
for each child out of wedlock they have, have restrictive
minimum wage laws, increase SS benefits, make it economically
foolish to be married, overtax the most productive and
reward the lazy...etc.

Let's see: no one is talking about raising SS benefits.
The "pay" get for having children no where comes close to
the cost of raising a child.

Increasing the number of people on SS is an increase of
benefits, just as the increases due to inflation adjustments.

Gee, people get old and retire. And these people have paid into the system
for 40 years or more. We are not talking handouts. We are talking benefits
that these people paid for.

The pay for raising children doesn't pay the cost of raising
a child properly, but you certainly can rais children on that
money. Why do we see unmarried, unemployed women with seven
kids? Once again, so what?

Well give us a better option. How about providing these young ladies with
jobs and a way out of poverty.

And who is it who benefit most the labor of the poor people?
The rich. I have no problem with rich people paying their
fair share, which i don't think they are doing.

No they are not. They are paying magnitudes greater than
their fair share.

I totally disgree. I have no problem with providing my fellow human beings a
chance a good life by paying more for products when the people who make and
sell the products get fair wages as well as paying taxes that help my fellow
human beings get a chance at a good life.

I have no problem whatsoever paying my fair share of the taxes.

Jeff

-Tom Enright

Jeff