Top 12 Reasons People Voted Democrat in 2008

[Jill]

Also, if it's a "Jill can't relate to teachers" thing... my sister is a teacher (one of the best in her county), my sister in law is a teacher, my brother in law is a teacher, some of my friends are teachers -- in addition to the clients I loosely numbered before.

 

[CharlesFamily]

I don't understand your goal here, Barbara...

In order to really benefit from my services, a person or couple really needs to have accumulated something of a size I can work with and enhance.

People know salary levels and earnings potentials when they select their careers.

I don't get where you're going but am going to have to figure you're not personally soliciting my services.

Am I supposed to be shamed over my client and marketing demographic? ... gotta pay the overhead, staff and myself.

Are teachers who have high earning spouses not as worthy? As teachers? Or my clients?

What's the point in plain English? You've lost me.

Okay - I'll try to explain what I am saying. The Republican party, by and large, has taken to attacking public school teachers and making them seem like the villians in our country's current economic downturn. I understand it is more about breaking up the unions, which are large Democratic party supporters, just as the Democrats ridicule and villify corporate America because they by and large fund the Republican party.

I was trying to make the point that the teaching jobs are not as cushy as so many would like to make them out to be, so I'm not sure why we are coming under attack. I am NOT complaining about what I or my husband earn. I feel we are fairly compensated for what we do and for our level of education (just for the record, we do NOT each make $80,000 - $100,000 a year which are some figures I have heard being thrown around). But I am trying to understand why taking my salary and retirement benefits to "fix" our current economic downturn seems to be the answer being thrown about the most? By asking you what percentage of your wealthy clients were school teachers as their primary occupation, I was simply trying to make the point that teaching will never make us "wealthy." You proved my point in your statement above, "a person or couple really needs to have accumulated something of a size I can work with and enhance." I take it to mean that then, in fact, none of your wealthy clients had teaching as their primary occupation, which made them wealthy enough to have needed your services.

And I LOVE this quote, "People know salary levels and earnings potentials when they select their careers."

Absolutely! My husband and I knew we would never be "rich" when we chose teaching as our occupation. And as a teacher, I still feel that teaching is a calling more than a job. But why then, are teachers now being attacked for the money we DO make? And it is happening, especially here in Ohio right now. Why am I suddenly a villian because I make a comfortable, middle-class wage and I can pay my bills?

I absolutely do not feel you should be ashamed for what you do or what money your clients have made. I am sure they worked hard to earn their money. I am not a "rob from the rich to give to the poor" kind of person. I just wish people would respect that when it comes to my job. Schools and teachers are not the evil of the day! So quit trying to fix something using my job when I was not involved in "breaking" it! I wasn't trying to villify corporate America. It is my limited understanding (economics is not my subject area) that a huge part in our current financial mess were the unsecured loans that were being given out. I had nothing to do with that. But anymore it seems that the solution being handed out is to get the unions out of school, set teachers back in their rights, and our economy will be fine. I guess I'm just confused.

And I never said teachers who have high earning spouses are not as worthy - absolutely not! I was just trying to distinguish between the households - those with two middle-class jobs and those with one middle-class and one upper-class jobs. You have to admit - there is a discrepancy in the earnings. I was just trying to be clear on which I was asking about. And no, I am not soliciting your services for ourselves - we won't ever be in that market, but that's okay! As long as I'm allowed to keep my current salary and the retirement benefits I have paid into over the years, we will be okay!

 

[CharlesFamily]

Also, if it's a "Jill can't relate to teachers" thing... my sister is a teacher (one of the best in her county), my sister in law is a teacher, my brother in law is a teacher, some of my friends are teachers -- in addition to the clients I loosely numbered before.

You were the one who attacked teachers and teachers' unions. I was only responding to your statements.

Simply put, I was using your job as financial advisor to wealthy clients as a way to point out that teachers are NOT wealthy. I was trying to make the distinction between those whose primary source of family income is teaching and those for which teaching is not the primary source of income. I didn't say anything about you not relating. I was just wondering why the Republican party thinks by taking away from teachers we can fix our economic woes. We certainly don't have enough money in our pockets to balance the budgets!

 

[Jill]

I'm not attacking teachers, but I am firmly opposed to ALL public sector unions and most especially, teacher unions. Public sector unions rob the tax payers. Teachers' Unions also rob the kids and the future.

 

[CharlesFamily]

How in the world do teachers' unions rob the kids and the future?? From my viewpoint, without quality teachers kids have no future. You are going to have to show me something to back up that statement before I will even come close to seeing that as a valid viewpoint.

 

[Jill]

Teachers' unions protect the jobs of bad teachers and even lazy teachers. Good teachers do not need a union's protection. By keeping sorry teachers on the payrolls, teachers' unions rob the tax payers, the kids, and the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAoepZFu-I

 

[CharlesFamily]

No, I mean some non-propaganda proof. You are a numbers person - surely if teachers' unions are the evil you claim there has got to be statistical proof.

"Good teachers do not need a union's protection." Really? Do you know that my husband and I LOVE the state of Tennessee. We have talked about moving there since before we were married. We visited there again this past year and we love it. Out of curiosity, I looked at the pay scale for the teachers in the county we were looking to move to. Do you know that I would have to teach 26 years and have my doctorate to make $52,000.00 a year?? And that is the top of the pay scale. Except for the occasional cost of living increase, that is the most I would ever have the opportunity to make if I were to teach down there. To me, that is horrendous. Why would anyone choose to seek a doctorate to make that small amount of money? There is no other profession where that level of education would be compensated that little. And it is my understanding that the teachers' unions do not have as strong a presence in Tennessee. I bet, just like in any other state, the good teachers vastly outnumber the poor teachers. And I am not saying there are no poor teachers - there are bad examples of every professsion out there! But I bet those good teachers would appreciate being appropriately compensated for the hard work they do.

I do not agree with everything that the unions stand for, but I appreciate the protection they give teachers. Again, the school system I work for is not unionized, but the system my husband works for is. Bad teachers are not so much protected by the unions. Yes, it takes a lot of documentation to fire a teacher - documentation that they have grossly neglected their duties and are not effective. But it can be done if the school system is willing to put the time into doing it. Too many times, they take the easy road and let them coast along. But at the same time, I am tremendously glad that those protections exist so that my husband cannot be fired becaue an influential member of the community is upset with the grade he gave their child and comes in demanding he be fired. When you take away the protection for teachers, who by and large do a thankless job facing increasing hostility from students, parents and society, then you are facing a slippery slope. You think the profession is dominated by "bad teachers and even lazy teachers"? Wait and see what kind of upstanding individuals you attract to the classroom when you take away everything we have worked for.

 

[Jill]

Proof? The current system is expensive and doesn't work well. Look into the free market. That works, WHEN we let it, and removes the "need" for unions of any kind in the current day USA.

 

[maestoso]

Jill, knowing teacher is not enough. You need to be IN the schools working as a teacher to truly understand what a teacher's union is and what it provides. It may protect the dead-weight teachers, but it also protects the best teachers, because our government has proven over and over again that they don't value the good teachers anymore than they value the bad ones. Education is one of the main reasons I do not vote republican, because the past couple republican candidates have had, frankly, the most ridiculous stances on education I've heard. They were down right clueless about it. Yes, they want to reward good teachers and lose the dead weight ones. However, if you were a teacher, in a school who is suffering cuts, you would understand that what is happening is they want teachers to perform, and they do this by increasing class sizes and taking away resources. When a teacher can perform under these conditions, it is usually luck of the draw with the students they have, not skill.

Nobody in the business world can truly understand any of this until they live it, no matter how many teachers you know, have worked with, or are related to. Go talk to the teachers union at your local school district, shadow a teacher for a week, sit through several school budget meetings, study what it actually means to have students meeting state and national standards, and then you will have a SMALL understanding of what the reality of all this is.

 

[maestoso]

"Good teachers do not need teachers unions..."

Jill, here you show the ignorance of a non-teacher. The videos you posted are for people like you who know little about the indsides of education. They were developed as propaganda to convince people to vote out teachers unions or to elect a leader who will eliminate them. They are bias and show one perspective.

 

[Jill]

Matt, apparently your "teacher's perspective" doesn't grant you the ability to have a "real world" -- consider the results AND the bottom line -- perspective on fixing what's broke.

 

[CharlesFamily]

Jill -

Free Market - you mean where people are forced to their breaking point by laws mandated by those who have no understanding what it is like to be in a classroom? You mean the system Michelle Rhee proposed in Washington and those shining, rising test scores which ultimately had to be admitted were attained by cheating. Was that wrong? Absolutely! But when you back people into a corner by imposing unattainable standards on them, threaten them with losing their job, when they are already working as hard as they can and doing the best they can, what do you expect?

Or do you mean those amazing charter schools? The ones where a HUGE majority are performing significantly below the level of the public schools in their community? Or like those charter schools here in Ohio where even our Republican controlled government cannot deny any longer that the money that is supposed to be helping these poor students who have suffered at the hands of the public schools is in all actuality going to line the pockets of the CEO and corporations who run them?

Or the Free Market where you want to base my pay on the achievement of my students, measured in large part by one test that they take one day of the year? Which on paper sounds like a good way to do it, until you actually look at what I am doing on a daily basis. And you take into account all of the problems in society at large that are manifested daily, on a personal level, in every classroom, in every state in this country.

 

[Jill]

Wow, I think you need an education in the Free Market! Google or something. The free market where results matter. Good results are rewarded. Poor results are not. It really does work when it's allowed to do so.

 

[CharlesFamily]

Actually, if you understood what I was referring to you, you would understand I was exactly addressing what those who think they know best feel the "Free Market" in education should look like. Good results are rewarded (merit pay), bad results are not (teachers are fired). The problem is, my results do not merely hinge on me doing my very best, they also hinge on me and teachers like me, convincing 25, 36 or over 100 children that learning is worthwhile, they need to work hard and they need to do their very best. I can work my hardest, try everything I know and then some, but at the end of the day, I cannot make them want to learn, want to succeed.

I like to compare it to if you had a doctor who had 25 patients who were overweight and suffering from a variety of problems such as high blood pressure, heart problems, weight-induced diabetes. You take the doctor aside and say, "Okay, your pay is going to be based on the success you have in getting these 25 patients to lose weight and get their health conditions under control." The doctor thinks about it and has all 25 patients come into his office each day. He weighs them every day to evaluate where they are at and where they need to go. He gives them charts and printouts on why they need to lose weight and all the benefits they will receive. He puts them each on an individual diet plan and feeds them a properly balanced meal for breakfast and lunch. He even calls in other specialists in exercise to come each day and work with them while they are there and tell them what they need to do at home to lose the weight.

Then, at the end of the day, his patients go home. There are a few of them who are dedicated to this program and dedicated to their success. They follow the doctor's instructions, they eat right, they exercise. They have family who support them and make sure they have what they need to succeed. Some of them go home and try to follow what the doctor says, but they have family who decide they are going to order pizza for dinner, or everyone should watch a movie on TV together instead of going out for a walk. Those patients try and follow the doctors orders, but without the other support, they eventually falter. Some of those patients have the drive to succeed on their own, but it is hard. And then there are those who are only in the program because their insurance has required it. They refuse to listen to what the doctor has to say or even try. They leave the office, head straight for McDonald's and order 4 Big Macs. They sit in front of the TV, computer or video game for the rest of the evening. They'll show up again tomorrow, because it is required, but they have absolutely no interest in doing the things that will help them.

NOW - let's hold the doctor responsible for the fact that only 18% of his patients successfully lost weight. What?? That's a failing number! Obviously he is a very poor physician who is not dedicated to his job! If only he had worked harder! Obviously, he should have gone to their homes each night to follow up. He should have made himself available to them at all hours of the day in order to motivate them to do what they needed to do! It is all his fault!

That is the problem with attaching pay to an arbitrary number when it is not YOUR performance being evaluated, but the performance of others - many of whom simply do not care.

I have to go to church now, but I'll tune back in later to see where this has gone!

 

[Sonya]

I work for the public sector and I'm unionized. I can tell you my union does protect some who are lazy, weak, and don't perform their jobs..but they also protect the hard working ones, the majority who keep the flying public safe... they fight so we can be able to take otc meds (simple things like immodium or sudafed), I can not take while working. They fight so I can go have a sleep apnea test and not fear to lose my job over it, they fight for increased hours between shifts so we are not fatigued. They of course fight for pay and benefits as well.....however we can not strike, if we do it's instant firing. Being a conservative I do see problems with public unions but in my profession I also see some good with my union. I am not a teacher and can't pretend to know what their unions fight for because I haven't researched it. That being said, I do believe there are some crappy teachers out there being protected, but I'm sure there are some great ones that also are. I do know in my area, teacher pay is pretty low....in other areas, teachers are paid very well.

 

[Sonya]

one thing I always didn't understand is the states who have lotteries/gambling....those proceeds are suppose to go to education....Michigan is heavy lottery (you can't go into a restaurant/bar and not find a keno machine)....I would love to really know where that $ is going...certainly can't be education as my school taxes are pretty high!

 

[Carriage]

Hmmmmm -Simply put, until the Republican party can actually stand someone up that I can get behind and really believe in, I refuse to vote for them! That's not saying that I am happy with the way things are going now on a National level, and there are a great many things I don't agree with. But I am happier with my Democratic President right now than I am with our Republican Governor here in the great state of Ohio. And, I'm sorry, but if Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney/Sarah Palin are the best my party can come up with, then it is a sad state of affairs. (And I like Sarah Palin as a person - I enjoyed watching her reality show and I think she is great, I just don't want her running our country).

Barbara

You have hit on a critical point that I've been tracking for many years now. The reason these are the "best" candidates is because the "machine" will will only back and promote like minded folk. Our rep machine here is a perfect example. It puts up only critically flawed candidates and does so at the expense of good candidates. When I ran for the house, the machine wanted no part of me and would have preferred the democrat to me. Had I been running to win, I guess I would have been bummed. The demographics clearly indicated that a true Constitutional conservative (as opposed to a common sense conservative?) stood no chance in that district. (Actually the results were pretty amazing given the circumstances).

Every election "cycle" trots out the same tired and completely failed rhetoric of "If you vote for that candidate your voting in the evil democrat." or "That candidate can't win." "or yes this candidate has baggage but gives us much of what we want, therefore we must compromise.", or the like. It blows up in their face EVERY time because said failed candidate turns out to be worse than they thought they would be. Now this happens in both parties YET seems to "catch" both parties by "surprise" EVERY time. A true Constitutional "conservative" will not compromise because they know that it is the compromise that has brought destruction to our country and people. Compromise can only lead to more compromise. The way I look at it, is that if the machine continues to put up failed candidates, only to loose every time, then the loss is on them and shows the continued insanity of this failed approach. Those of us who refuse to vote for the wrong guy/gal will continue to knock out your "common sense conservative" flawed candidate. We have told the machine this for years, yet they continue with this failed approach. We specifically have told them, "Put up the right candidate and we will vote for them. Keep giving us dirt and you will loose."

Said (common sense conservative) talk show host says he can't agree with this specific presidential candidate because he disagrees with said candidates stand on certain items. To wit begs the as yet unanswered question, "What part of the Constitution do you disagree with? Also stated by this change agent is the phrase "He can't win!" Hmmm tell ya what skippy, ifn you got behind him and supported him like you do all the failed candidates, he might have a fighting chance. However skippy's job is to make sure that the right Constitutional candidate never see's the light of day.

Last supportive point, After other candidates quit the race in MUCH better position, the rep machine gives us McCain. The guy was drowning a natural death and they have to send divers down to get him, bring him up and resuscitate him put lipstick on him and trot him out for the "masses" to reluctantly fawn over. If that isn't the clearest indication that your machine is broken and not even close to being under your control then nothing will be. We had another guy that was a whole lot more popular and would have been WILDLY popular if his message had been allowed to get out. But the machine did not want that.

Good point Barbara and thank you,

Bb

 

[Jill]

Barbara, I think there are some possibilities to be very excited about and get behind this time around. I hope the GOP will select two of them for the ticket. There's a GOP debate this week, I think Thursday at 9pm ET on FOX. I'm looking forward to it and hope the debate format is better than the last one that was done on CNN.

 

[Jill]

Sonya, I hear and see your points. I wonder if this is ever the type of service that could be outsourced to the private sector? Should / Could? I don't know... I think in almost every case, the private sector does a better job and a more efficient job, but what you do is so highly specialized and vital.

 

[CharlesFamily]

Barbara, I think there are some possibilities to be very excited about and get behind this time around. I hope the GOP will select two of them for the ticket. There's a GOP debate this week, I think Thursday at 9pm ET on FOX. I'm looking forward to it and hope the debate format is better than the last one that was done on CNN.

Thank you for letting me know! We cancelled our cable subscription though, so hopefully I will be able to watch it later on-line.

Barbara