Understanding the Issues: Education

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

As long as your school/teachers are striking the appropriate balance between teaching the core material and teaching how to analyze the questions, then I think the kids are in good shape. Remember, kids don't take these tests every year. They take them in like 1st grade, then 4th, then 7th, then 11th. Or something like that (I don't know the exact years). But my point is there are like 3 or 4 years between tests. In all that time, kids are not spending an inordinate amount of time on the test analysis. They're getting the building blocks over time, then when they come to the year for test time, then they get the analysis stuff.

I'll bet if you ask 4th grade teachers (or whatever year they administer the test), they're probably the ones most aggravated and affected. The other teachers probably don't care much, as they get to focus on core curriculum.

In Virginia, the SOL's are taken every grade level except kindergarten. I'm fairly certain that any state that wants to keep receiving federal money for meeting the No Child Left Behind requirements has to have some form of yearly standardized testing for every grade level.

[SmootSmack]

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

not really, since obama is so willing to really jack up tax rates and his foreign policy statements overall haven't been very good (and prove a lack of experience with how the world works). I still don't think the "aura of change" is going to matter much once congress opens if he's in charge. It might help him push through a few issues early, but i don't think it'll hold up too well unless he can flip the economy into a strong boom within 18 months due to his policies, which i REALLY don't see happening.

either candidate will be better on science than bush though, so false "studies" with badly tainted/wrong "scientific results" should decrease either way, which i'm really looking forward to. both will probably do a little work on lobbyists reform or whatnot, which will be welcome, though minor.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

not really, since obama is so willing to really jack up tax rates and his foreign policy statements overall haven't been very good (and prove a lack of experience with how the world works). I still don't think the "aura of change" is going to matter much once congress opens if he's in charge. It might help him push through a few issues early, but i don't think it'll hold up too well unless he can flip the economy into a strong boom within 18 months due to his policies, which i REALLY don't see happening.

either candidate will be better on science than bush though, so false "studies" with badly tainted/wrong "scientific results" should decrease either way, which i'm really looking forward to. both will probably do a little work on lobbyists reform or whatnot, which will be welcome, though minor.

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by saden1

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

Every Democrat running for President wants to raise taxes on "the rich," but they will have to do something miraculous to outtax President Bush. Based on the latest available tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy.

The rich pay a higher rate than middle class Americans. The top 1% earns 21% of the income, but pays 39% percent of the taxes. That means they are paying a higher rate than the people below them. Bush did lower the tax rates for these people, but the amount of taxes they paid has increased. Raising taxes does not raise tax revenue. When the taxes are lower, the economy does much better and there is more total income. The rich people are the ones creating the jobs. The more you tax them, the more it will hurt the economy.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more

Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax, even though more tax revenue comes from it when the tax rate is lower.

The amount of capital gains declared on tax forms has doubled since the tax rate was cut to 15% from 20% in 2003, which has also contributed to more Americans being "rich." Dividend income has also increased by at least 50% since that rate was cut to 15% from nearly 40% in 2003.

This is a very good article about taxes.
Taxes and Income - WSJ.com


...sorry about this being off-topic.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan) then later pulling back on talking to iran. his foreign policy outside of a massively oversped pull out (another bad idea) seems very haphazard, and he's had to re-state and change his opinion on an awful lot of ideas.

I only brought up his inexperience (and only in the context of foreign policy) because it's very obvious and it's made him look stupid a number of times.

as far as tax rates, it's not just the top 2% and it's not just a minor deal. he wants f'ing socialized medicine - do you have any idea what that costs? either its insanely expensive or it's worthlessly bad (ask the swedes or brits about it). the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back - so if you try to defraud them, you can get yourself royally screwed and it limits exposure to the million dollar a day cases) but it'll never be cheap or paid for solely by minor tax hikes on the top 2%.

it seems like you like obama a whole lot, but he has flaws, and using strawman to try and cover them up is pretty weak.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

talking to our enemies while bombing our allies (iran/pakistan) then later pulling back on talking to iran. his foreign policy outside of a massively oversped pull out (another bad idea) seems very haphazard, and he's had to re-state and change his opinion on an awful lot of ideas.

I only brought up his inexperience (and only in the context of foreign policy) because it's very obvious and it's made him look stupid a number of times.

as far as tax rates, it's not just the top 2% and it's not just a minor deal. he wants f'ing socialized medicine - do you have any idea what that costs? either its insanely expensive or it's worthlessly bad (ask the swedes or brits about it). the japanese have a sorta decent idea (you pay 100% upfront, the gov pays you 80% back - so if you try to defraud them, you can get yourself royally screwed and it limits exposure to the million dollar a day cases) but it'll never be cheap or paid for solely by minor tax hikes on the top 2%.

it seems like you like obama a whole lot, but he has flaws, and using strawman to try and cover them up is pretty weak.

Iran isn't our allies and Pakistan is a dictatorship we're prepping-up.

Yes I like Obama but I have some misgivings as well. Him getting up there in front of AIPAC and pandering bothered me. One part of me thinks it's just politics, another see this as a sign of things to come. I'll admit that he is not perfect but when I look at McCain and Hillary he is certainly the "lesser of the three evils."

I'd also like to add that McCain has all the experience in the world but when you look at his overall policy I really wonder how he is any difference from Bush. If people are happy with Bush that's fine but don't tell me policy wise McCain is going to be better for America than Bush or has new ideas.

As for Japan's health care system, I couldn't find any information to support your claim. I did however find this and this. Sounds like a good universal health care system to me (control prices, allow flexibility and works for everyone).

Who provides health care in Japan?
Japan has a system of universal health coverage, although individuals may receive coverage quite differently. It can be divided into two broad categories: National Health Insurance and Employees’ Health Insurance. Membership in either program is compulsory. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, private health insurance is rarely utilized in Japan.

Employee Health Insurance covers people who are working for medium to large companies; national or local government; or private schools. There is also a government-managed program within this plan for employees of small businesses. Premiums are based on monthly salary (excluding bonuses) and half is paid by the employer, half by the employee. The average contribution is around 4% of the person’s salary. Those covered under Employee Health Insurance pay 20% of their medical costs when hospitalized and 30% of the costs for out-patient care. Co-payments may also be required for prescription drugs. Costs are shared by the patients up to a certain ceiling, after which they receive full coverage. In case of long-term illness, the patients or the patients’ spouse receive an allowance based on their salary; in case of death, an allowance for the funeral is also paid.

National Health Insurance covers workers in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, those that are self-employed, and those not employed (including expectant mothers, students, retirees, etc). “A working mother, for example, would withdraw from her company’s insurance and join the National scheme in her local ward or city. The local office provides a lump sum towards childbirth costs (on average around 300,000 yen) and a small monthly allowance afterwards.” Under this plan the insured pay 30% of in- or out-patient costs, as well as co-payments for prescription drugs. Similarly to the Employee Health Insurance program, patients share costs up to a certain ceiling, after which point they receive full coverage. Premiums are based on salary, property, and dependents; on average, the premiums are about 4% of salary. Coverage includes sickness, injury, necessary dental work, childbirth, and death of the insured or their dependents. Conditions and treatments not covered by this insurance plan include orthodontic work, cosmetic surgery, vaccinations, abortions, injuries incurred while drunk or fighting, and treatment outside of Japan.

There is also a national health program for the Elderly. People over 70 qualify for this program, which is funded by contributions from the two main plans.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

Unless I am not privy to some information you are my understanding is that he is going to "jack up" the tax rate on the top 2% of income earners. These are the same people who hardly pay the same tax rate as middle class Americans.

As for his foreign policy statements, what exactly rubs you the wrong way? I mean, seriously, should we continue to plug a square peg in a round hole? Whatever we're currently doing isn't working so shouldn't we try something difference? Talking to people isn't naive, it's the most sensible thing to do. Even if you don't get anywhere by talking it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. "Bomb bomb bomb" doesn't work.

I don't get all the experience talk either. I mean, no one in their right mind hires someone based on experience alone. You can have all the experience in the world and still be a worthless POS. It's policy, policy, policy!

p.s. Greg Brown has experience...I would throw that mother f*cker under the bus, over the bridge, and if possible, in the lion's den at the zoo.

Whose political platform is "bomb bomb bomb?" McCain's? Bush's current record?

Nobody just "bomb bomb bombs", saden. It's that kind of uneducated generalization that makes me dismiss a lot of your political thoughts because you clearly don't have an understanding of the opposing party's political platform.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Whose political platform is "bomb bomb bomb?" McCain's? Bush's current record?

Nobody just "bomb bomb bombs", saden. It's that kind of uneducated generalization that makes me dismiss a lot of your political thoughts because you clearly don't have an understanding of the opposing party's political platform.

I think he's probably expounding on McCain's perhaps ill-timed joke of "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Whose political platform is "bomb bomb bomb?" McCain's? Bush's current record?

Nobody just "bomb bomb bombs", saden. It's that kind of uneducated generalization that makes me dismiss a lot of your political thoughts because you clearly don't have an understanding of the opposing party's political platform.

Whose talking about the opposing party? "Bomb bomb bomb" is a direct McCain quote, a joke he made that was not funny. He's the one that say he won't sit down unless all our demands are met. It's not funny and it's not diplomacy. Same goes for Bush.

I will have you know I know fully well what the opposing party's platform is and I disagree pretty much with their oppressive platform. Hell, they don't even honor their platform. Dismiss all you want but hey man, you're entitled to your opinion and generalizations too (poor are poor because they want to be poor).

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

These threads are good summations of where each candidate stands on the issues... I don't have to dig too far when everything is listed here in one place.

In terms of standardized testing, general tests like the SATs and GREs are not predictors of future success (however, specialized entrance exams, like the MCATs and LSATs, are legitimate tests for their programs). I knew kids who killed at these general tests, but they didn't match high scores with an inherent motivation to succeed at the next level. The SAT is only an indicator of how well you take that particular test.

There's a reason why students can increase their scores a few hundred points after taking an SAT class. These courses teach you how to take the test in the most efficient manner- in addition to brushing up your pre-trig math, they mostly offer tricks to beat it. For example, plugging in the answers to figure out the solution (backwards-solving), scanning for major points on reading comp., bettering your odds, etc. These tricks have nothing to do with IQ or high levels of problem-solving. It's also a reason why many universities are placing less weight on these tests for entrance.

In regards to high school learning, teaching to the test does place a crutch on effective teaching styles. Schneed, you actually bring up a good point re: how logic is important when taking these exit exams. The only problem is that teachers can't sharpen these analytical skills when they teach to the test.

Give instructors the ability to teach in ways that get through to an ever-changing student body and you'll find a rise in critical-thinking skills and problem-solving ability. You do this by providing kids a hands-on approach to content learning via authentic activities. Apply the way high school chemistry is taught to all areas of teaching. What would work better? A strict state-mandated curriculum for a history class that has teachers assigning text, interspersed with quizzes and finals? Or a teacher who teaches outside the box? For example, providing activities that compare past events with current ones, allowing students a more interactive way to analyze historical events (because they're provided a relevant parallel).

Because funding for CA public schools is heavily reliant on these test scores, there is absolutely no time in the semester for teachers to do anything outside of the mandated curriculum. I think most of my generation went through the rote memorization method of learning. I memorized what I needed to, aced the test and then forgot it the next day. One thing I like from Obama's educational platform is his commitment to innovation. Let's change the educational paradigm, so kids are better equipped to learn the basics (math, English and science) via higher levels of critical thinking and problem solving abilities (and not through paint-by-numbers memorization words/numbers).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

Not really because I am philosophically opposed to much of the democratic platform that Obama adhere's to.

Look, I think what almost everyone, and I do mean everyone, wants is a change in the way this whole damn thing works. I am not talking about WHAT our government is doing but more about HOW it is doing it. We all pretty much feel our elected officials have done a shit job. Really they have. Democrats and Republicans alike. Neither more than the other. What we want, crave really, is some magical solution to the cluster f*ck that is our Federal Government. Well I've got news for everyone (news I think we all know deep down inside already)...not a single candidate we currently have or have disposed of in the past 18 months really has or had any chance to fix this deal. Obama can TALK about change all he wants but lord help me if I can figure out how he alone can possibly fix it. Remember, the problems we face aren't born out of bad policy couched in the politics of two parties more than they are based on a system that is broken. A system that is a self prepetuating organism of power seeking and money making fueled by about 2000-3000 DC politicans that either don't have the stones to stand in its way(at best) or who jump on board the train and ride it until they die(at worst). Oh at times they all get together and either sign some legislation that inevitably goes awry or bicker back and forth on some issue and end up doing nothing at all. It appears they are working for us but in the end they don't run the show: special interests do. Special interets, everything from big dick oil to big flaming gays have one hand in the cookie jar and the other in the pockets of various politicians. We can't directly do much about special interests but we can fire the ones who have given them their power. If we want REAL change it is going to take a hell of a lot more than one candidate for President or even one elected President to make it happen. We have to stop voting for people because of what party they are in or because of one single issue. Hell skip the issues altogether. Let's vote for people who we believe CAN fight the culture. Let's fight to get the same old crap politicians OFF OF BALLOTS so we can have a fighter's chance at getting real honest people in there. That could be all it takes. Seriously, I think a cross section of this board, maybe 20-30 people of varying opinions, could adequately govern this nation and that is a hell of a lot better than the current jackasses are doing. So my question is this. How the hell do we do this? I am not talking about electing Obama or McCain, no magical and unrealistic solution. I am asking what is the game plan here? We have a bunch of smart people in this country, even have one or two here on this board , so why the hell are we stuck with the shitpile we've got now?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

I can only speak for myself, but I can't say my opinion of the candidates has changed appreciably. This is partly because I think I already have a good understanding of where they're coming from on each issue. But these threads have served to educate me and the discussion has been very intelligent and thought provoking. These threads are a tremendous motivation to get up in the morning and check The Warpath first thing.

While my opinion of the candidates themselves hasn't been appreciably altered, I have learned some details of their stances, and have been surprised at times to discover that there are some democratic things I like, and some republican things I dislike. As a result, these threads have helped me gain an understanding of just how moderate I am.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can only speak for myself, but I can't say my opinion of the candidates has changed appreciably. This is partly because I think I already have a good understanding of where they're coming from on each issue. But these threads have served to educate me and the discussion has been very intelligent and thought provoking. These threads are a tremendous motivation to get up in the morning and check The Warpath first thing.

While my opinion of the candidates themselves hasn't been appreciably altered, I have learned some details of their stances, and have been surprised at times to discover that there are some democratic things I like, and some republican things I dislike. As a result, these threads have helped me gain an understanding of just how moderate I am.

Well, the reason for starting them was to generate some discussion on actual issues and to go beyond inanities such as "a vote for McCain is a vote for death" (or whatever it was that said on this board recently.

Also, hopefully these are giving some of the younger chaps out there who may be voting for the first time some ammo with which to make a decision, beyond just "well my parents are voting for McCain so I guess I will too."

These are important times, and I think far too often voters simply don't know why they are making the decisions they make.

At the very least, these have been educational for me. And maybe, just maybe, I'm more of a Democrat than I ever imagined.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just curious, has anyone's opinion changed or been affected on who they will vote for based on these Understanding The Issues threads I've started?

My opinion of the candidates hasn't been changed, but if I jump into any of these discussion it forces me to do some further research into each candidate's positions...which is a very good thing.

I think these threads are a good idea. They won't change the opinion of supporters on either side, but the posts in the thread that are thoughtful, show some level of research or critical thinking, and make an argument backed up by fact, not rhetoric will be helpful for folks out there who are truly undecided or uninformed.