Democrats claim exclusive use to Firefighters

03/09/2004 10:53:32 AM · #101

Thanks for the explanation on the immigration differences.
I do hold the gov't partly responsible for the bad treatment that all workers get. They are working in conjunction with corporations and not for the benefit of the people of this country. The Bush administration has received alot of money from big business to the tune so far of over $100 million difference between what Kerry has, and what Bush has towards the campaign.

You say that room & board are included in the pay for H2 workers, but those housing conditions were deplorable when it came to the cane workers, and I'm sure for many other kinds of working immigrants. Many cane workers were not paid and had no recourse from the gov't. None had health care and lost eyes, and limbs from working in the fields, which were extremely dangerous.

The Bush administration is on a road to making life for all workers deplorable! They even want to do away with overtime pay, when the executives and owners for these companies are making out like bandits. In fact, many are bandits, such as the Enron executives. This is unacceptable and will even eventually bring us back to the days of child labor. Everyone in a family will have to contribute, including children because the economics are going down hill and fast. Wait until gasoline hits $3.00/gal.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I stand corrected Ron, you are correct, the sugar cane workers came in under H-2 visas...not sure what the differences are though, but my assertion still stands that the new influx of temporary labor will not be treated well.

FYI, H2-A visas are issued to temporary agricultural workers. H1-B visas are issued to temporary DOD and specialty workers ( such as hi-tech workers ). Since agricultural work does not come under the minimum wage laws, I do not consider their pay to be a valid comparison to U.S.citizens, since the pay is often not based on an "hourly" rate, often includes room & board, etc.
While I DO agree that MANY who are working under the visa program were not, and are not treated well, I think that you will agree that many workers who ARE citizens are also not treated well. That doesn't make it OK - it's obvously not - that's just the way it is. But that fact doesn't make the U.S. Government responsible.

Ron

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/09/2004 10:54:42 AM · #102

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Wait until gasoline hits $3.00/gal.

Won't that be terrible - you'll be almost half way to paying as much as people do in other first world countries! Oh the calamity!!!!

03/09/2004 11:00:27 AM · #103

You see Russell, I disagree with you very much. It's not about bipartisan politics, and the right wing conservative media would have you believe. I don't believe, and neither do like minded friends believe, that a democrat is really any better than a republican. But you think you know what the liberal mind is saying. Why do you think that Ralph Nader ran in the last pres election and is running this time too (much to the dismay of the dems)?

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Please let the Patriot Act die a quick death. Talk about infringing constitutional rights.

Normally I'm up for limiting governments power... BUT there is a caviot (sp?). My Fiance is in Federal Law Enforcement and a friend of mine heads up the NY State Troopers Counter Terrorism unit.

Before the Patriot Act, their hands were tied, hand-cuffed and they eve had those little chineese finguff bastards on. I can't tell you a single way how my freedom has been infringed on by this act, but I can personally name 100's of times where it has saved us from a possible future attack...

Bush's greatest enemy is his success... If the Patriot Act failed to work and they were not catching the bad guys early, but instead too late. I'm sure the EXACT same people saying bush is doing to much would be crying that he wasn't doing enough.

EDIT:
My problem with most people on the left who are protesting efforts by Bush are that they are doing it ONLY because he is a repulican. I guearentee that most of the liberals I know (not you guys I don't know you) would defend ALL of this to the hilt is a democrat was behind it. Personally, I think I'm unbiased in my view. It just happens that Bush is the one doing it.

03/09/2004 11:03:41 AM · #104

Agreed, but it will still be a blow to the economy.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Wait until gasoline hits $3.00/gal.

Won't that be terrible - you'll be almost half way to paying as much as people do in other first world countries! Oh the calamity!!!!

Russell2566

03/09/2004 11:05:30 AM · #105

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...and the right wing conservative media would have you believe.

Common, your making me laugh out loud at work, stop it I tell you!!!

03/09/2004 11:12:33 AM · #106

You haven't yet answered the question down below...I'm waiting (tapping fingers on desk...lol).
Edit added: Obviously you believe your point of view is in the minority in the media, right?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

hahaha...

Ok, Russell, tell me who you believe to be the voice of liberals in this country.

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
...there is no voice for liberals in the main media outlets, despite what you believe.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 16:16:58.

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

03/09/2004 01:31:59 PM · #107

How about The New york Times, The Boston Herald... Should I continue?

03/09/2004 03:12:47 PM · #108

...Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time, Newsweek, NPR, Tom Brokow (sp?), Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, pretty much the entire cast of 60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC, most local television newsrooms, which either don't know or care to do much more than parrot their parrent stations.

And because conservatism has found a voice in one "mainstream" media - talk radio - suddenly the sky is falling.

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 20:13:26.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 03:23:43 PM · #109

Did it ever occur to you that all those people in the media who are always accused of being "liberal," arrive at those positions after exhaustive research and personal encounters with the people involved, and that maybe they KNOW SOMETHING we don't.

It's like decrying all the "liberalism" in universities. Usually when a bunch of really smart people say we should do something, we take their advice. Somehow, when it involves civil rights and a just economy or a livable environment for their grandchildren, they're suddenly part of the lunatic fringe. I wonder what would happen if our President and legislators had to take the same Civil Service exam other Federal employees have to take to get a job (hey, maybe random drug testing too...).

President is the only job in the country for which their are no qualifications except natural citizenship, age 35, and the ability to get people to give you $200 million.

03/09/2004 03:36:48 PM · #110

Originally posted by GeneralE:

This arguement can be turned around and applied to either the Bush Whitehouse (don't you think they're privileged to a lot of information we don't/"can't" see, and arrive at those positions after exhaustive research and personal encounters with the people involved, and that maybe they KNOW SOMETHING we don't) as well as to conservative media, who often report and/or emphasize one half of a story simply because that half isn't heard from the mainstream media.

Your point is very valid - but use it both ways if you really want to be honest.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/09/2004 03:57:32 PM · #111

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It's like decrying all the "liberalism" in universities. Usually when a bunch of really smart people say we should do something, we take their advice. Somehow, when it involves civil rights and a just economy or a livable environment for their grandchildren, they're suddenly part of the lunatic fringe. I wonder what would happen if our President and legislators had to take the same Civil Service exam other Federal employees have to take to get a job (hey, maybe random drug testing too...).

In response to the paragraph quoted above about "smart people" and the president and his staff taking "exams", I offer the following as but ONE example:

"At the request of Governor Paul Cellucci, Chairman John Silber convened this special meeting of the Board to reconsider its June 22 vote setting the qualifying score for the Massachusetts Teacher Test. Nearly 1,800 prospective teachers took the first certification tests of communication and literacy skills and subject knowledge in April. The passing score originally set by the Board would have prevented 44%, or about 800 prospective teachers, from gaining certification to teach in the Commonwealth's public schools. The Board's June 22 vote stated that as of October, all test-takers would be required to achieve a higher passing score, as recommended by panels of educators who reviewed the tests.

Governor Cellucci addressed the Board before its discussion of the issue. He urged the Board to adopt the panel-recommended higher qualifying score starting with the first test administration, rather than waiting until October. Applying the higher passing score to the April test would mean that 59% of the test-takers (an additional 263 people) would not pass. The Governor stated, "Education reform is not without conflict and controversy, but we must send a clear message that we are going to hold the line for high standards."

Teachers, who we would expect to know more than their students cannot pass certification tests. I thought that teachers were SMARTER, and that, therefore, we should listen to them.

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 04:14:47 PM · #112

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Did it ever occur to you that all those people in the media who are always accused of being "liberal," arrive at those positions after exhaustive research and personal encounters with the people involved, and that maybe they KNOW SOMETHING we don't.

This arguement can be turned around and applied to either the Bush Whitehouse (don't you think they're privileged to a lot of information we don't/"can't" see, and arrive at those positions after exhaustive research and personal encounters with the people involved, and that maybe they KNOW SOMETHING we don't) as well as to conservative media, who often report and/or emphasize one half of a story simply because that half isn't heard from the mainstream media.

Your point is very valid - but use it both ways if you really want to be honest.

I will be happy to use it both ways, but I believe one side is much more likely to be lying (more) than the other. Which of the two sides that would be pretty much leads to the same old argument though ....

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 04:17:00 PM · #113

Originally posted by RonB:

Teachers, who we would expect to know more than their students cannot pass certification tests. I thought that teachers were SMARTER, and that, therefore, we should listen to them.

Ron

Teachers, being paid about 1/3 what stockbrokers or bankers or other money-shufflers are paid, usually are not the "smartest" people in college, just some of the most dedicated. Too bad we think timing the market is worth more than educating our children.

MadMordegon

03/09/2004 04:17:15 PM · #114

i thought this was interesting (similar subject).
this was aired just before howard stern was taken off the air.freadom of speech?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/09/2004 05:21:33 PM · #115

So...?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/09/2004 06:11:05 PM · #116

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Teachers, who we would expect to know more than their students cannot pass certification tests. I thought that teachers were SMARTER, and that, therefore, we should listen to them.

Ron

Teachers, being paid about 1/3 what stockbrokers or bankers or other money-shufflers are paid, usually are not the "smartest" people in college, just some of the most dedicated. Too bad we think timing the market is worth more than educating our children.

We don't. We spend a lot more on educating our children. A study of 1997-1998 education expenses, conducted in 2002, shows that the average cost per pupil per year in the U.S as a whole was $6,189. The RANGE of per pupil costs was from a low of $3,969 in Utah, to a high of $9,643 in New Jersey. See THIS LINK for the complete study. And those figures are from over 5 years ago - they've gone up since.
At 25 students per classroom ( no, let's be generous and call it 20 to allow for administrative overhead, like the principal, etc. ), that comes to an average of $123,780 per teacher per year ( that would be $192,860 in New Jersey ) - a lot more than most money-pushers make. Unfortunately, about two thirds of the money taxpayers provide for education never makes it to active teacher salaries - that money goes toward administration, pension plans, and pension payments for retired teachers. Then too, not to belittle teaching, or its importance to society, but Stockbrokers, bankers, and other money-shufflers don't get tenure and very generous pension plans. If a money-shuffler works hard for three or four years, they can't then take it easy for the next 25 years because they have become "tenured" and can't be fired short of an act of congress - they have to get their money while they have a job and set a good deal of it aside for later, when they won't have a job. Most have to fund their own pension, as well.
What I would like to see, but know I never will, is a pay-for-performance plan for teachers, the same kind that money-shufflers and the rest of us endure in the real world. No tenure. I'd gladly triple a good teacher's pay if I could fire two bad ones.
As my boss used to say, "Not counting tomorrow, how long have you worked for this company?".

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-03-09 23:13:04.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

03/09/2004 07:12:47 PM · #117

Originally posted by RonB:

What evidence can you provide that George W. has opened our borders to illegal immagrents (sic) from Mexico? I am willing to accept evidence that he has proposed reducing the number of INS agents at the Border, that he has proposed closing checkpoints, or any other evidence the he has "opened our borders" in any way.

Is this a trick question? He has proposed giving amnesty to 10 MILLION ILLEGAL immagrants in this country. Did you know that the day after he gave the speech stating this, that number of illegals jumping our border from Mexico DOUBLED? Why? Because they all want to be here when Bush gives them amnesty. Did you know that 30% of the current prison population in CA, NM, AR, TX, etc. are illegal immagrants? Bush is clearly allowing/supporting this in order to benefit greedy corporations who can pay them 10 cents an hour instead of minimum wage, which further removes jobs from AMERICANS who might otherwise have a job. Did you know that illegal immagrants pay NO taxes on their wages and send the money back to Mexico, and that 10 billion dollars a year from CA alone is sent to Mexico by illegal immagrents? Did you know that since policeman in border states can't ask the immagration status of anyone because if they do they will be suied by the ACLU and fired from their job, that this makes it extremely easy for foriegn terrorists to enter the country thru Mexico with no questions asked? Do you think that this policy is good for national security?

If you answered "no" to any of these questions, you should probably do a little more research. :)

Originally posted by RonB:

Please provide evidence, if you can, that ties George W. to the movement of middle class jobs to other nations. Please provide evidence that George W. has increased ( or even proposed increasing ) the number of H1-B visas.

Well lets see, is Bush doing anything at all to stop 100's of companies from shipping their jobs overseas to India, for example? Of course not, because he would piss off a lot of corporation donators if he did something about it. Did you know that the Bush campaign itself has tele marketers in India who actually call people here in the US and ask you for your support and for donations? Did you know that meat inspection and medical perscription information is being shipped off to India for processing, in a country with almost no regulations for inspecting meat or for insuring the security of your personal medical or financial data? Does that bother you?

Again, if you answered "no" to any of these questions do a little more research.

Originally posted by RonB:

Please provide evidence that H1-B visa holders will work for 1/2 the wage. Name one occupation where this is true.

RonB, I work at a high tech firm, and in the last few years all new hires are from China or from India, and nobody else. Ask yourself why. Is it because they are more educated and better then US high tech people? No. Is it because they will work for less? YES. So then the next question to ask is, well who would be most likely to allow this flood of cheap labor? Bush? YES! Because he does if for the corporations! So in his rush to pay back his corporate buddies, he also destroys this country's standard of living. And it's not just high tech, you see it in Pharmacy technicians and litterly 100's of job types.

Did you know that an Indian who works in this country for 5 years (for example) can go back to India after that time and retire on what they have earned here? I don't blame them for coming here, I blame the government for NOT PROTECTING IT'S OWN PEOPLE!!!!

Originally posted by RonB:

Please provide evidence that by doing the things that you SAY Bush is doing, that he stands to GAIN votes.

Ron, he stands to gain the support of the corporate donations he RELIES on, and from votes from liberals who think he gives a crap about those people when in fact it's really doing it just to help out his corp buddies.

Common man, put your thinking cap on. :)

Russell2566

03/09/2004 07:16:10 PM · #118

Money is not why our education system sucks... I would look more into who is teaching our students, who is setting the adjenda and especialy those who feel the need to do nothing but coddle them like idiots and do nothing but prepare them for failure.

We spend more money per child than maybe any other "1st" world country. It's how we are doing it thats wrong...

You know if I go back to my old school, they are no longer allowed to play any games in gym that would results in a winner or a looser. Here in NY, teachers and parents are trying to LOWER the scores needed to graduate. Crap, when I was in school only 6 years ago, you were going no where fast with a sub 70. Now they are trying to make anything better than a 45 just dandy...

Way to go, way to set up kids for failure in an ever becoming harsher world... Wanna know why unemployment is up? Why don't we look at NYC where the highest or second highest per student dollar is spent yet has the HIGHEST drop out rate for minorities.

You might think I don't know much, but I know this. It's not the conservatives running the school system in NYC! I hate to break things along party lines so harshly, but our kids were much smarter and much better behaved pre the 1960's liberal take over of schooling.

They might have all sorts of good ideas and great intentions, but I could really care less if none of them are successfull. FAILURE, IN ANY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED!!!

I have several friends who are teachers (middle school and lower). They all hate their jobs and are looking for ways to get out or move to private schools. They can't do their job without getting sued and they can't discipline their students or even keep them in-line...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 08:33:17 PM · #119

Originally posted by Russell2566:

We spend more money per child than maybe any other "1st" world country. It's how we are doing it thats wrong...

Some figures would help here ...

Originally posted by Russell2566:

... they can't discipline their students or even keep them in-line.

Why should they have to ... elementary social/educational skills and politeness should be taught in the home and preschool, not Kindergarten. By then it may be too late. But we all know how enthusiastic the GOP is about funding adequate day care and preschool programs, even though they've been proven to return better than four dollars in savings for every one spent in reduced future educational, legal, medical, and welfare costs.

Everyone is familiar with the "truisms" that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," "penny-wise, pound-foolish" and even "a stitch in time saves nine." Yet the Republican approach seems to be to give all the money to those who already have a lot, and trust that everything will take care of itself. I guess they forgot a couple of other well-known phrases, "'Tis better to give than to receive" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 09:35:51 PM · #120

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Russell2566:
We spend more money per child than maybe any other "1st" world country. It's how we are doing it thats wrong...

Some figures would help here ...

I found some ... these are from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics' Global Education Digest for 2003. Most of the latest available figures are from 2000, with some from 1999. I tried to take a somewhat representative sampling of comparable countries.

The first number is public spending on education as a percentage of the GDP (gross domestic product -- total value of all goods and services), and on education spending as a fraction of all government expenditures. Of course, if you toss in UNBUDGETED war-related expenses, that fraction will fall slightly.

These seems to show the US in the lower-middle grouping in both categories; maybe not a total disaster, but not a world leader either. And I bet if we looked at a breakdown of administrative versus direct education spending, we'd rank mighty high in the former. Remember too, that in many cases a lot of those "other expenses" (like pensions and medical benefits) mentioned as driving up the cost of education in the USA, do NOT APPEAR in the other country's education budget, because those benefits are given to EVERYBODY, and would come out of the non-education part of the budget. That would also tend to make the USA education spending figures somewhat higher in comparison.

COUNTRY | Ed.$/GDP | Ed.$/All Gov't Spending

Australia | 4.7 | n/a
Bolivia | 5.5 | 23.1
Canada | 5.4 | n/a
Chile | 4.2 | 17.5
Cuba | 8.5 | 15.1
Denmark | 8.2 | 15.3
France | 5.8 | 17.5
Germany | 4.5 | 9.9
Iran | 4.4 | 20.4
Israel | 7.3 | n/a
Japan | 3.5 | 10.5
Mexico | 4.4 | 22.6
New Zealand | 6.1 | n/a
Norway | 6.8 | 16.2
S. Africa | 5.7 | 18.1
Spain | 4.5 | 11.3
Sweden | 7.8 | 13.6
UK | 4.5 | 11.4
USA | 4.8 | 15.5

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 02:39:21.

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

03/09/2004 09:45:46 PM · #121

Originally posted by Russell2566:

my friend happens to run a school in NYC. She is, by NYC standards an ultra conservative. Her school has an amazing representation of NYC population... and an unbelievable reading level. Not due to her politics, but to the fact that she is an educator. She would not stand for social promotion or the UFT "I've got tenure" nonsense. She stood for the children first, last and still fights for everything she can get for them.

03/09/2004 11:38:17 PM · #122

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Russell2566:
... they can't discipline their students or even keep them in-line.

Why should they have to ... elementary social/educational skills and politeness should be taught in the home and preschool, not Kindergarten. By then it may be too late. But we all know how enthusiastic the GOP is about funding adequate day care and preschool programs, even though they've been proven to return better than four dollars in savings for every one spent in reduced future educational, legal, medical, and welfare costs.

Everyone is familiar with the "truisms" that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," "penny-wise, pound-foolish" and even "a stitch in time saves nine." Yet the Republican approach seems to be to give all the money to those who already have a lot, and trust that everything will take care of itself. I guess they forgot a couple of other well-known phrases, "'Tis better to give than to receive" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

So close, and yet... I wholeheartedly agree with your premise that it needs to begin before elementary school. But the blame rests not on the government, but on society and parents. Parents should be at home training their children up right, instead of dumping them in day care and expecting other people, who have little or no emotional connection with their children, to rear their children. Its a bit odd that you relieve one state body, the schools, from having any responsibility for teaching morals and discipline, but then you would transfer it not to the parents but to yet another institution, preschool and day care.

The worst part is that with kids getting passed around so much, the point now is that there is a generation full of kids who have no moral foundation - they live for the moment, for themselves, for pleasure and expediency. Its too late to posturize and talk about how its the parents' or the day cares' or whoevers' responsibility - the damage has been done, and the schools now have to deal with it. I've seen it first hand - my daughter getting groped by a 1st grader in the middle of her classroom, the principal refusing to remove the kid from class. We removed our daughter from the school, but that kid is a timebomb, and someone will pay the price down the line. His father had abandoned his family, and the mother lived off welfare and paid no attention to her kids, their education or their conduct.

A generation of parents have, on the whole, failed in raising their kids, so now, sadly, its societies responsibility to clean up the mess. But I fear this society lacks the strength to meet that challenge. Instead it's more important to you all to stand up for Howard Stern's right to parade porn stars and myriad other perversions through his studio, for an endless stream of rock and rap stars right to sing about every perversion and evil known to mankind, and then when anyone objects to this crap being presented to our kids at every turn to run behind the banner of free speech and claim its the parents responsibility to raise their kids and keep them from this (nevermind that its on every street corner, in every school hallway, every magazine, every commercial - even those of us who try to be responsible are faced with a nearly insurmountable wall of filth). But I say again: this generation of parents have failed!

What a deceived generation you've created....

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 11:47:10 PM · #123

The problem is that with the current minimum wage, you simply cannot raise children in a one-income household. If there's two parents then there's not enough money. If there's one parent, there's not enough time.

Just where do you want those kids to go? I've taken mine to work with me since he was two, but few employers are as tolerant as mine.

Basically, if you have a one-parent household, you either have to have day care so the parent can work, or welfare so they can stay home and provide their own "childcare." If you have a two-parent household, you have to pay a living wage or sacrifice parental involvement. Let's take a "reasonable" example, someone able to get a job for $8/hour (118% of minumum wage). If they work a standard 40-hour week, they will GROSS $1376. Where I live, the average rent for a 1-bedroom apartment is about $1400. You do the math ....