39% !!!!!!!????????? classic...ya'll texans should be proud!!! NOT!!!hahaha

[reeds]

Bush Job Approval Rating Lowest Ever


WASHINGTON -- Beset by political and economic troubles at home and a difficult war in Iraq, President Bush's job approval rating has slipped to 39 percent, the lowest measure of his presidency, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll.

Bush, whose approval rating hit 55 percent shortly after he was re-elected last November, has been below 50 percent approval since May. But this marks the first time he has fallen below 40 percent, a level that until now had been his floor.

Bush hit 40 percent, his previous low, twice: in mid-August - when Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, began an anti-war vigil on the road to the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch - and again in mid-September, when he was under fire for a slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Analysts attribute the latest erosion to multiple factors:


The continued problems of managing the recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.


The possible indictment of top White House aides in a grand jury inquiry into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.


The furor among some conservatives over Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.


High gasoline prices.


Public perception of a lack of progress in stabilizing Iraq.

"It's the cumulative effect of a thousand little cuts, or big cuts, depending who is looking at it," says Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Hess says that without strong public backing, Bush's political hand is considerably weakened as he tries to push his agenda through Congress and help Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.

Tom Edmonds, a Republican media consultant, says many Bush backers are worried that given the extent of his problems, the president will not be able to improve his poll standings. "This White House is starting to look like a ship at sea with no rudder," Edmonds says.

Bush's fall in public approval, down from 45 percent in late September, is largely due to a drop in support among independents and Democrats. Bush's approval among independents declined to 32 percent from 37 percent since the last USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Sept. 26-28. Approval among Democrats fell to 8 percent from 15 percent in that period.

Hess says that loss among independents "bodes ill" for Republicans in the 2006 elections.

However, Bush's approval among his Republican base continues to hold steady. It was 85 percent in the previous poll and 84 percent now. That steady GOP support is preventing him from falling lower. How long that GOP base holds remains a key question, Edmonds says.

[Ninkobei]

For once reeds is right. Chaos! all is lost! we must over throw our government and proclaim the united states a communism regime. then, and only then, can we falsify our government's approval ratings. three cheers for reeds! hip hip hoora! hip flip hurra! flip flop floorah!

[chumdawg]

39% is still a damn lot, when you think about it.

[MavKikiNYC]

The last approval poll that counted was conducted back in November of '04.

It was 51% then, and that'll be good enough for four more years.

Enjoy.

[capitalcity]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
39% is still a damn lot, when you think about it.

Hell, it's 38% more than 1%.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
The last approval poll that counted was conducted back in November of '04.

It was 51% then, and that'll be good enough for four more years.

Enjoy.

Exactly. reeds understands that HIS PRESIDENT will take care of him despite the reeds cowardly desire for America to fall apart.

[mavsman55]

Did someone tell reeds that approval ratings matter?

Doesn't matter what you libbies think of him, he's still got about 3 years left.

[chumdawg]

If there was any lesson from 1992, it's that 40% of the country will get it wrong, no matter what you do. So of the remaining 60%, Bush is getting about two-thirds of that. That ain't all that bad, really. Could be a lot worse.

[Rhylan]

39% is still higher than the term-lows for each of the last seven presidents, reeds.

Not saying Bush is perfect, I'm just saying this does little to prove any points you may have.

[LRB]

Reeds if Bush's approval rating was 61% would you conceed that Bush was great President and that all the democrats were wrong about him? I hardly think so.

[Drbio]

I've been thinking about why reeds consistently posts drivelesque crap (with some of the stupidest titles in d-m.com history) and I think I have finally figured it out. Seriously. Reeds is a closet Republican. He knows that stupid posts such as his will drive posts which factually praise HIS PRESIDENT and since he is unable to construct such praise, he just inspires it in others.

You are a freaking GENIUS reeds. I swear....good form sir.

Reedspublican. I like that.

[img]i/expressions/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[reeds]

"Did someone tell reeds that approval ratings matter?

Doesn't matter what you libbies think of him, he's still got about 3 years left."

Mavsman- that is where you are VERY VERY WRONG..we will see how much it matters come election time!!!!HAHAHAHAHA. I will get the last laugh after all!!! Oh how I cannot wait for that day!! Bring Back AMERICA!!!!!! Take back AMERICA!!! yipeeeeeeeeee

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Did someone tell reeds that approval ratings matter?

Doesn't matter what you libbies think of him, he's still got about 3 years left."

Mavsman- that is where you are VERY VERY WRONG..we will see how much it matters come election time!!!!HAHAHAHAHA. I will get the last laugh after all!!! Oh how I cannot wait for that day!! Bring Back AMERICA!!!!!! Take back AMERICA!!! yipeeeeeeeeee

Are you 3 years old? That's just ridiculous.

I'm still in high school and even I know that presidents can be elected for a total of 2 terms, and no more. You're right. Come election time, Bush will not be re-elected. Congrats on your success, reeds.

But until election day, go ahead and get excited that Bush will be "elected out of office"!!!

p.s. No more Howard Dean screams at the end of your post.

[Drbio]

At first glance I too see how you might think that reedspublican has lost his marbles but as I posted above he is a freaking genius.

[reeds]

"Are you 3 years old? That's just ridiculous.

I'm still in high school and even I know that presidents can be elected for a total of 2 terms, and no more. You're right. Come election time, Bush will not be re-elected. Congrats on your success, reeds.

But until election day, go ahead and get excited that Bush will be "elected out of office"!!!

p.s. No more Howard Dean screams at the end of your post. "

Obviously you just dont understand Mavsman..his terrible ratings and the overall shape of our country is going to make it next to impossible to elect a republican president in the next election..get it? I know I know, your still in high school..here is your first lesson..8 years of F ing up this country, a democrat must come in and repair the damage..hahahaha..

[chumdawg]

Please. Get your heads out of the sand, people. It's bad enough that a sitting President's party has a hard time in mid-term elections. The Republicans are going to have a a *bear* of a time in this one. That's not partisan: that's just the way it is. Ignore it to your own peril.

Look, I'm a Bush guy, but he has really fucked things politically in these first twenty months of his term. Perhaps he ought to think a little more about the party, and a little less about his own self-serving ass. Yeah, he'll be fine, when it's all said and done. But what does he leave behind?

So far, I'm thinking that I stuck my neck out for Bush and that he effin' owes me something.

Not good so far. Not good.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Are you 3 years old? That's just ridiculous.

I'm still in high school and even I know that presidents can be elected for a total of 2 terms, and no more. You're right. Come election time, Bush will not be re-elected. Congrats on your success, reeds.

But until election day, go ahead and get excited that Bush will be "elected out of office"!!!

p.s. No more Howard Dean screams at the end of your post. "

Obviously you just dont understand Mavsman..his terrible ratings and the overall shape of our country is going to make it next to impossible to elect a republican president in the next election..get it? I know I know, your still in high school..here is your first lesson..8 years of F ing up this country, a democrat must come in and repair the damage..hahahaha..

Not only does Reeds not grasp the electoral process, but he doesn't seem to understand how to use the quote feature either.

Reeds, if you think the Republicans are already doomed to lose in 2008 because of Bush's low approval ratings, you're wrong. Three years is an eternity in politics. None of us has have the slightest effing clue what his poll numbers will be three years from now. And even if they are low, I seriously doubt that it would greatly hinder Guiliani's campaign (I'm almost positive Guiliani will get the nomination)

[dude1394]

Chum...how about letting me know what dubya has "*******" up anyway?

Social Security - Yea maybe, he should just let the damn ponzi scheme go bankrupt. THIS one I unfortunately have to agree was stupid politically. He should just do nothing like most politicians.
Roberts Nomination - Looks like a wonderful jurist to me.
Kartrina- Again looked like the democrat mayor/governor and the media blew that one. The federal guvment is not the first responders.
Iraq- Hmmm..just passed a constitution.
Gas Prices- Tough cookies, nothing SHOULD be done about that. The best that dubya can do is open the Strategic Oil Reserve which he has done.
Meiers Nomination - ??- To be honest, I think the "elite conservatives" sound just like Reeds on this one. Meiers looks to me to be a breath of fresh air. I'm HAPPY she's not another Ivy League "constitutionalist" but a real, honest to goodness working lawyer.
Immigration - Possibly as well. But only to the "elite conservatives" really imo. We need a guest worker program of some sort and it's been hard to determine if the country is really ready for securing the borders. Maybe they are now as he doesn't seem to be getting demagogued to death on his latest get tough policy. But we haven't started a campaign yet and I'm sure that will be played and re-played in latino districts.
Spending- I guess dude, but the deficit is what 2.5% of GDP and is on track to be cut in half as he said. No, it's not "cutting the budget" but let's be honest no one "cuts" the budget. Ronald Reagan didn't do it either. In fact he raised taxes instead.
Education - I think NCLB is one of the greatest programs every conceived to be honest. Although it raises the federal dollars, it brings something to the system that has never been there before, accountability and voucher test cases. Greatness.
National Security - Greatness.

So I'm confused what exactly he's done that you feel is so abhorrent? I really am?

Now I WILL agree that dubya is getting hit really hard and it may look like the mid-terms are going to be tough. And dubya is the leader of the party so he'll get the blame, but the party is made up of majority senators and congressmen. I think that have a little bit of accountability here as well.

If it's for spending for example, well then is dubya supposed to save the congress from themselves? Maybe, but every SINGLE one of the voters would not be willing to give up THEIR federal road money or their Farm Subsidies to balance he budget, none. It's hypocritical.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Education - I think NCLB is one of the greatest programs every conceived to be honest. Although it raises the federal dollars, it brings something to the system that has never been there before, accountability and voucher test cases. Greatness.

I don't mean to change the topic, but I totally agree about NCLB. If only this would have been done 20 years ago...

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Chum...how about letting me know what dubya has "*******" up anyway?

I'll be glad to answer...here's my top ten list.

1. Iraq.

2. energy. the lack of leadership has left us with gas shortages and higher prices for all fuels. the energy cos. love it of course...

3. weakening of environmental regs. (according to our current administration, mercury isn't bad for people to injest...)

4. subverting the gov. role in family planning, both domestically and internationally

5. record deficits. not one veto of an appropriation bill.

6. widening economic chasm among he income classes, partly due to the tax policies

7. 180 degree turn in international perception of America

8. failure to address the genocide in Sudan

9. allowing for mining and timber companies to exploit the national parks

10. reduction in fuel efficiency targets for cars and trucks

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'll be glad to answer...here's my top ten list.

1. Iraq.

There have been mistakes made, but no realistic solutions are offered by Bush's detractors. What would you differently than Bush is doing RIGHT NOW?

2. energy. the lack of leadership has left us with gas shortages and higher prices for all fuels. the energy cos. love it of course...

Okay, that's incredibly vague. What does "lack of leadership" mean?

3. weakening of environmental regs. (according to our current administration, mercury isn't bad for people to injest...)

Again, be specific.

4. subverting the gov. role in family planning, both domestically and internationally

The government shouldn't have a role in family planning, either domestically or internationally.

5. record deficits. not one veto of an appropriation bill.

I agree with you about not vetoing an appropriations bill and about his failure to oppose wasteful government spending. What's even worse, he's gone out and increased government spending with a new entitlement and various other programs he has promoted.

6. widening economic chasm among he income classes, partly due to the tax policies

Nonsense. Bush's tax policies haven't widened an economic chasm. The problem is that Bush didn't couple his tax cuts with spending cuts.

7. 180 degree turn in international perception of America

Two things here.

First, that's Bush's fault? Most of the international perception isn't opposition to Bush's policies -- it's opposition to the American way of life.

Second, who cares what international perception of America is?

8. failure to address the genocide in Sudan

There's some truth to that, I suppose, but our armed forces aren't omnipresent. They can only be in so many places at once. Further, if the U.N. is supposed to be good for something, it's situations like that. They are the bigger culprits, in my opinion.

9. allowing for mining and timber companies to exploit the national parks

Could you offer some more specifics?

10. reduction in fuel efficiency targets for cars and trucks

I can live with that one, but again you're assuming that's Bush's fault.

[mavsman55]

I'd be glad to bump this post 3 years from now to confirm the history lesson that reeds just gave me. How George Bush performs now has nothing to do with the Republican party in 2008.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'll be glad to answer...here's my top ten list.

1. Iraq.

There have been mistakes made, but no realistic solutions are offered by Bush's detractors. What would you differently than Bush is doing RIGHT NOW?[/quote]

The rush to invade, and yes it was a rush, has produced an American face to this war. We now are paying the price. a huge price in both dollars and in lives.

2. energy. the lack of leadership has left us with gas shortages and higher prices for all fuels. the energy cos. love it of course...

Okay, that's incredibly vague. What does "lack of leadership" mean? [/quote]

Has there been ANY initiatives to reduce our dependance on 1) petroleum and 2) imported petroleum? NO. NONE. A leader would set in motion at least one...

3. weakening of environmental regs. (according to our current administration, mercury isn't bad for people to injest...)

Again, be specific.[/quote]

"cap and trade" system that would allow for power plants to emit more mercury than allowed currently
Allowed Mexican trucks to enter the USA without their complying with emission standards
Failed to include a single species under the Endangered Species Act
Failed to request Congress to continue the tax on polluters to fund the Superfund, shifting the cost to the overall budget (taxpayers)
Attempts to exclude the Dof Defense from environmental regs (ever hear of perchlorate?)
reduced the limits on the amount of selenium that can be put into waterways
rule allowing the release of partially treated sewage into waterways on "rainy days"
and there's more

4. subverting the gov. role in family planning, both domestically and internationally

The government shouldn't have a role in family planning, either domestically or internationally.[/quote]

sure they should, the greatest burden on a lower income family are having unintended kids.

[

6. widening economic chasm among he income classes, partly due to the tax policies

Nonsense. Bush's tax policies haven't widened an economic chasm. The problem is that Bush didn't couple his tax cuts with spending cuts. [/quote]

guess you missed the data on who received the lion's share of the tax breaks. the rich are getting richer, there are more poor Americans then ever before.

7. 180 degree turn in international perception of America

Two things here.

First, that's Bush's fault? Most of the international perception isn't opposition to Bush's policies -- it's opposition to the American way of life.

Second, who cares what international perception of America is?[/quote]

first, yes it is opposition to Bush's policies. Look at all the "american" styles prevalent. they love the USA and our culture.
second, many of us Do want to be in the world's community, and understand that non-Americans have opinions that should be evaluated. we don't have an obl;igation to do as they say, but they should not be tuned out.

9. allowing for mining and timber companies to exploit the national parks

Could you offer some more specifics?[/quote]

minimg and timber interests have been given access to the parks, most for almost nothing in return. strip miningf has been allowed.

10. reduction in fuel efficiency targets for cars and trucks

I can live with that one, but again you're assuming that's Bush's fault.[/quote]

sure it is. he's the leader, and "the buck" stops there.

[reeds]

Mavsman...Please PLease bump this in three years...
no doubt in my mind the next president will NOT be a repbulican..thank goodness..

[reeds]

Mavsman...Please PLease bump this in three years...
no doubt in my mind the next president will NOT be a republican..thank goodness..

[Drbio]

Aw...reedspublican strikes again.....YOUR President is doing great things reedspublican.

[Five-ofan]

Not to get off topic again but not only is NCLB not a good bill, it is a HORRIBLE bill. I like Bush in general but I disagree about that particular bill. Ask almost any teacher and they will tell you that it is a bad bill. Also why is someone from Texas setting educational policy anyway? Im from Texas and Im proud of that but we have a bad education system. The measure of that bill can be found in the fact that Iowa, which has one of the great education systems in America, refused to comply with it.

I do find it a tad bit hypocritical that people who complain about Iraq turn around and complain about us not being active in the Sudan. We cant have it both ways. Either we are a world power who uses our influence or we are a bunch of isolationist who allow the world to crumble around us until we ourselves crumble. I feel we should use our power and influence but we cant take care of everyone. Our military, though great, does have its limits. I agree that the Sudan situation is more of a UN situation. However, they are turning into the League of Nations which scares me.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
The rush to invade, and yes it was a rush, has produced an American face to this war. We now are paying the price. a huge price in both dollars and in lives.

I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty answering direct questions.

I'll ask it again: What would you differently than Bush is doing RIGHT NOW?

Has there been ANY initiatives to reduce our dependance on 1) petroleum and 2) imported petroleum? NO. NONE. A leader would set in motion at least one...

I'm curious. What did Clinton (or Bush I or Reagan or Carter or Ford before them) do to reduce our dependence on petroleum and imported petroleum? I don't recall anything, really, which means you could offer the same generic criticism of every American president for the past 30 years.

"cap and trade" system that would allow for power plants to emit more mercury than allowed currently

Actually, the Electric Power Research Institute says that the "cap-and-trade" plan will produce greater estimated overall reductions in mercury concentrations than the plan promoted by environmentalists. Also, the alternative plan would require many power plants to switch from coal to natural gas, meaning an increase in electricity prices and higher costs for home heating, food, and many consumer and industrial products. You know who pays that price the most, Mavdog? That's right -- the poor and the elderly. I find it hard to believe that you would be in favor of environmental regulations at the expense of the poor and elderly.

How heartless of you. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Allowed Mexican trucks to enter the USA without their complying with emission standards

The much greater travesty is allowing illegal immigrants to enter the U.S.A. without complying with immigration laws.

Failed to include a single species under the Endangered Species Act

Sorry, don't see that as a failure.

Failed to request Congress to continue the tax on polluters to fund the Superfund, shifting the cost to the overall budget (taxpayers)

You don't get basic economics, do you? Taxes are ALWAYS shifted to the taxpayer (consumer).

Taxing polluters might be a good idea, but don't be naive enough to think they'll be the ones paying the taxes.

Attempts to exclude the Dof Defense from environmental regs (ever hear of perchlorate?)

I've heard of it. This is just whining on your part. The fact is that the Department of Defense is working jointly with the EPA to make recommendations for the establishment of national standards for acceptable levels of perchlorate groundwater contamination, to determine what military and defense industry sources have contributed to any contamination, and to take appropriate steps to mitigate or clean up any pollution the military or defense industry may have caused.

reduced the limits on the amount of selenium that can be put into waterways

Did this pass? I thought the EPA had proposed it and was taking comments.

rule allowing the release of partially treated sewage into waterways on "rainy days"

I thought this didn't pass.

sure they should, the greatest burden on a lower income family are having unintended kids.

So what? It's not the government's job to keep people from procreating.

guess you missed the data on who received the lion's share of the tax breaks. the rich are getting richer, there are more poor Americans then ever before.

I guess you missed the data on who pays the lion's share of the taxes.

Say it with me: EVERYONE who paid taxes got a tax break, Mavdog.

The purpose of taxes is not to keep the rich from getting richer, nor is it to make the poor richer, despite what you and Howard Dean might think.

first, yes it is opposition to Bush's policies. Look at all the "american" styles prevalent. they love the USA and our culture.
second, many of us Do want to be in the world's community, and understand that non-Americans have opinions that should be evaluated. we don't have an obl;igation to do as they say, but they should not be tuned out.

I disagree with you. I think that there are certainly those that oppose Bush's policies, but many oppose the Western way of life.

We are in the world's community, but we are not beholden to what other nations think. They aren't tuned out. We have diplomatic relations with virtually every civilized nation, but that doesn't mean we should back off or back down because something our nation does is unpopular.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Five-ofan
Not to get off topic again but not only is NCLB not a good bill, it is a HORRIBLE bill. I like Bush in general but I disagree about that particular bill. Ask almost any teacher and they will tell you that it is a bad bill.

Agreed.

I do find it a tad bit hypocritical that people who complain about Iraq turn around and complain about us not being active in the Sudan.

Great point, but you'll quickly learn that Mavdog has a special privilege. He gets to be hypocritical all he wants, because he has the unique talent of being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Five-ofan
Not to get off topic again but not only is NCLB not a good bill, it is a HORRIBLE bill. I like Bush in general but I disagree about that particular bill. Ask almost any teacher and they will tell you that it is a bad bill. Also why is someone from Texas setting educational policy anyway? Im from Texas and Im proud of that but we have a bad education system. The measure of that bill can be found in the fact that Iowa, which has one of the great education systems in America, refused to comply with it.

I do find it a tad bit hypocritical that people who complain about Iraq turn around and complain about us not being active in the Sudan. We cant have it both ways. Either we are a world power who uses our influence or we are a bunch of isolationist who allow the world to crumble around us until we ourselves crumble. I feel we should use our power and influence but we cant take care of everyone. Our military, though great, does have its limits. I agree that the Sudan situation is more of a UN situation. However, they are turning into the League of Nations which scares me.

I'm curious why it's a bad idea to test children for competency? Also where is the data stating that texas has a "bad" education system? I think you'll have to show me the demographics of Iowa before you compare the two states. Not a lot of bilingual students in Iowa budda'...

Should I instead continue doing what we have been doing??? Spending more per capita than anyone else yet getting less results?

[Five-ofan]

Dude, the reason it is a bad thing is because instead of teaching information, teachers now teach to test. As a recent high school graduate, I will tell you that too many classes focus on teaching you how to test or testing strategies. I would say that over half of the class time is now devoted to testing strategies. That is a travesty. Teaching students how to take tests does not help them once they graduate. The Voucher system is also a bad idea because it takes money away from the schools that most need it. I understand the idea but feel that it is flawed.

This is an extreme analogy and im not saying they are equal so before i get flamed for it just think about it. This testing system is like communism. Its great in theory but horrible in practice. The reason is that the respective theories do not take into account the effect that the programs make on the people within the systems. Communism doesnt offer an incintive to work and always ends up with a corrupt few at the top of the government. The testing program makes people teach just for the test. I believe we are ranked in the 30s consistently as far as national educational rankings. Iowa is consistently ranked in the top 5. I understand that with the bilingual issue here we deserve a little slack but Iowa has a dang good educational system. Who do you mean as spending more per capita than anyone? The US or Texas? Texas definitely doesnt. I dont know about the US as a whole so I wont comment on that until I have time to actually look it up.

[dude1394]

Five-ofan...you've got to bring something else to the table before I will even agree that "teaching to the test" is a bad thing. Have you looked at the IOWA skills test for instance? They've been giving that test for 20+ years now. As a home-schooler we gave our children that test every year. The kids passed it with no problem. IMO it would seem that teaching to the test is needed if the kids cannot pass it. Does this not tell you that the kids are either incompetent, stupid or possibly......haven't learned basic skills before and need remedial teaching. Irregardless, you can't just tell me it's bad but ?????? is better. You've got to bring me a little bit more.

You say that the voucher system is a bad idea because it takes money away from the schools that need it most?? Which ones, the ones in inner cities that are graduating kids that can't read at a third grade level? You are quoting someone else's opinions here imo. If the same amount of money were given to each child in a voucher that was spent on them now,,,,,,why is that a bad thing? What is sacrosanct about a public school.

I couldn't find any other data here. Here are state spendings per capita (in 1998 however).

spending

Iowa was 10th, texas 24th, california surprisingly 31st. US average about where texas was.

I couldn't find data for the US as a whole, but I certainly thought that I had read where we were at the top or close to it.

[reeds]

"Please. Get your heads out of the sand, people. It's bad enough that a sitting President's party has a hard time in mid-term elections. The Republicans are going to have a a *bear* of a time in this one. That's not partisan: that's just the way it is. Ignore it to your own peril.

Look, I'm a Bush guy, but he has really fucked things politically in these first twenty months of his term. Perhaps he ought to think a little more about the party, and a little less about his own self-serving ass. Yeah, he'll be fine, when it's all said and done. But what does he leave behind?

So far, I'm thinking that I stuck my neck out for Bush and that he effin' owes me something.

Not good so far. Not good. "

Chumdog- great post!! Bravo...

[Five-ofan]

We have had TAAS for years. The public school system isnt sacrosant but one of the reasons that they have problems is that they cant afford to pay teachers well while private schools can. I went to Corsicana high school which is a fairly poor school district but isnt anywhere near inner city levels. This past year we dropped from Academically acceptable to Academically unacceptable. I know a school has to be unacceptable for 3 years before the vouchers take effect but do you really think the way to help a struggling school is to take money away from it? If you continue with the voucher system eventually private schools will become as overrun as public schools are. A huge reason for private school success is that student to teacher ratios usually stay low at private schools. When the private schools get overrun they will need more schools as the current public schools will have closed. It is a "vicious cycle."

The entire purpose of education is to become more rounded as a person and to open yourself to new ideas and stuff that you haven't been exposed to. Tests are not the most enlightening part of education, only an instrument which we rely (too heavily) on in order to make sure that learning is happening. By limiting instruction to tests, teachers are depriving their students of exposure to more interesting/important concepts in order to make students learn unimportant facts by rote memory which they will not have to really think about and explore. Students also become passive and cease to question the information and think critically about the world around them. As a democratic nation it is important that our citizens have the tools and the desire to become informed about the issues and stay involved in the process. The means of ensuring democracy is education. Teaching to tests limits the potential of this entire society.

I understand your point of view and I think that this is a good discussion. I would just like to see discussions take place in school. I do not feel that learning to eliminate 2 answers on a multiple choice test is really that helpful once you get out of school. I think that students would learn more from discussions and other creative thinking than they do from learning to test.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: Five-ofan
I went to Corsicana high school which is a fairly poor school district but isnt anywhere near inner city levels. This past year we dropped from Academically acceptable to Academically unacceptable. I know a school has to be unacceptable for 3 years before the vouchers take effect but do you really think the way to help a struggling school is to take money away from it?

I for one, fail to see why the state of Texas should continue to flush ever greater amounts of good tax-payer money down the proverbial toilet by continuing to support teacher union-sponsored, problem-districts in our state's failing and heaving state school systems, while such said school districts and all of their apologists continue to refuse to implement the much needed reforms that might help them come close to to reaching the minimal standards that general proficiency tests like the TAAS are good barometers of.

It sure seems to me, that if the state of Texas retreated from it's demands that Texas school districts reach the minimal standards of schooling that tests like the TAAS measure, then that abject surrender would stand as nothing less than a worthless, gift-wrapped box of shit that would be celebrated and happily accepted by all of the entrenched, lazy bureaucracies that hold sway in most Texas school districts, as well as by their teacher's union's cohorts, and in my opinion, that stinking, fetid gift box of tribute, sure as heck wouldn't do much for the great state of Texas, other than to help to churn out many, many more 'academically unacceptable' graduates from all of the many demonstrably 'academically unacceptable' schools that have embarassed our state's educational system for the last decade or so...

[kg_veteran]

Testing for competency is certainly not a bad thing, Dude, but I seriously doubt you were teaching your kids how to pass the test. Rather, I'm quite certain you were just teaching them subject material and then giving them the test. That's not the case in public schools.

Even before NCLB, "teaching to the test" existed, but since federal funding became tied to testing, it's become incredibly more prevalent.

"Teaching to the test" dumbs down the entire system, and it takes the focus away from learning subject material and puts the focus on test-taking strategy and only learning enough information to pass the questions that will be on the test.

[Murphy3]

Wouldn't everything be solved by just forcing doing away with public schools? If you can't afford to send your child to private school or you can't home school them, well..it'd be time to send them out into the work force at 5 years old.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty answering direct questions.

I'll ask it again: What would you differently than Bush is doing RIGHT NOW?

I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty understanding the situation in Iraq RIGHT NOW is the product of Bush's decisions.

As far as what I believe should be done differently today, there really are few choices. The US cannot just leave, so we're faced with continued loss of money and lives. remember the Powell comment, it's like Pottery Barn, if you break it you own it...well. here we are, and Bush should "own up" to his poor decisions.

I'm curious. What did Clinton (or Bush I or Reagan or Carter or Ford before them) do to reduce our dependence on petroleum and imported petroleum? I don't recall anything, really, which means you could offer the same generic criticism of every American president for the past 30 years.

oh, is this a thread about other Presidents?
Clinton proposed a energy consumption tax to reduce demand, as well as support for ethanol (both tax credits for production and at POS).
What has Bush done? anything? well... he has given us higher prices for the energy, but guess who is getting the added dollars? the producers.

Actually, the Electric Power Research Institute says that the "cap-and-trade" plan will produce greater estimated overall reductions in mercury concentrations than the plan promoted by environmentalists. Also, the alternative plan would require many power plants to switch from coal to natural gas, meaning an increase in electricity prices and higher costs for home heating, food, and many consumer and industrial products. You know who pays that price the most, Mavdog? That's right -- the poor and the elderly. I find it hard to believe that you would be in favor of environmental regulations at the expense of the poor and elderly.

How heartless of you. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

gee, quoting the trade org that virtually wrote the bill? that's comparable to asking the fox if the henhouse was safe.
The assertions are not facts, the power plants do not need to switch they would need to install "scrubbers" to stop the emissions.

Ironic that you would use the trade orgs assertions about "an increase in electricity prices for home heating" when that is exactly what is happening TODAY!

Failed to include a single species under the Endangered Species Act

Sorry, don't see that as a failure.[/quote]

Mother nature strongly disagrees with you and remember, Mother Nature doesn't like to get messed with. It always comes back to hurt us humans in the end.

Failed to request Congress to continue the tax on polluters to fund the Superfund, shifting the cost to the overall budget (taxpayers)

You don't get basic economics, do you? Taxes are ALWAYS shifted to the taxpayer (consumer). Taxing polluters might be a good idea, but don't be naive enough to think they'll be the ones paying the taxes. [/quote]

no, that is incorrect and ALWAYS not the case if the tax is not levied on all producers, the market will not allow for only some of the producers to raise their prices when other producers don't have the same tax. In this case, the polluters themselves would pay the tax. Those who don't pollute don't pay.

Attempts to exclude the Dof Defense from environmental regs (ever hear of perchlorate?)

I've heard of it. This is just whining on your part. The fact is that the Department of Defense is working jointly with the EPA to make recommendations for the establishment of national standards for acceptable levels of perchlorate groundwater contamination, to determine what military and defense industry sources have contributed to any contamination, and to take appropriate steps to mitigate or clean up any pollution the military or defense industry may have caused.[/quote]

yeah, it's "whining" when the DofD is allowed to NOT conform to the environmental regs like EVERYONE else. There are existing "acceptable levels" of contamination in the regulations, the DofD should adhere to them, rather than be allowed to violate them or to have different "acceptable levels.

[

sure they should, the greatest burden on a lower income family are having unintended kids.

So what? It's not the government's job to keep people from procreating.[/quote]

It IS in the best interests of our country to help the poor, large unintended families are a burden. We clearly disagree about how the state can aid society, you wish that it not work to help the poor and I do.

guess you missed the data on who received the lion's share of the tax breaks. the rich are getting richer, there are more poor Americans then ever before.

I guess you missed the data on who pays the lion's share of the taxes. Say it with me: EVERYONE who paid taxes got a tax break, Mavdog. The purpose of taxes is not to keep the rich from getting richer, nor is it to make the poor richer, despite what you and Howard Dean might think[/quote]

The upper incomes were given more tax reductions than the other economic classes, they also were given relief on capital gains in addition to the tax cuts. They recieved more when they need it less. The higher income houdeholds now have a greater share of the nation's wealth than they did before the tax cut. That increase in wealth is pushing the US into a starker divide in classes, a trend that is not healthy for our society. The tax policies have NOT made the "poor richer" and HAVE made the rich richer. The tax code should NOT be used to accomplish the rich getting richer. period.

first, yes it is opposition to Bush's policies. Look at all the "american" styles prevalent. they love the USA and our culture.
second, many of us Do want to be in the world's community, and understand that non-Americans have opinions that should be evaluated. we don't have an obl;igation to do as they say, but they should not be tuned out.

I disagree with you. I think that there are certainly those that oppose Bush's policies, but many oppose the Western way of life.[/quote]

look around the world. In Asia, American styles dominate. In Europe, American styles dominate. The world loves Americana, they just don't like our current leadership. No, we don't need their consent, but as we live on the same planet, have economic and cultural integrations, we should work with other countries to acheive common goals. Today, we aren't. that is a bad situation, period.

[Drbio]

Mavdog- could you please denote which side of your mouth each of your statements are spoken from after each post? Perhaps a (L) or an (R) after each of your contradictory statements? I know oftentimes you will need an (A) for those out of the arse moments and we wouldn't even begrudge you a (L) for those times you come out of left field. It would help us all greatly if we could get some interpretive assistance.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Five-ofan
I do find it a tad bit hypocritical that people who complain about Iraq turn around and complain about us not being active in the Sudan. We cant have it both ways. Either we are a world power who uses our influence or we are a bunch of isolationist who allow the world to crumble around us until we ourselves crumble. I feel we should use our power and influence but we cant take care of everyone. Our military, though great, does have its limits. I agree that the Sudan situation is more of a UN situation. However, they are turning into the League of Nations which scares me.

First, there was a lack of a mandate to invade Iraq, and that mandate needs to exist before we were to take action in Sudan.
Second, take a look at how much Bush spoke of the need to attack Iraq, while he has barely (if ever) mentioned the atrocities in Sudan.