Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
"most of my friends whom i went to college with are making 80k+ a year being accountants, IT workers and lawyers. that is almost twice as much as i make and i work 10-12 hour days most of the week (and if i had moved back home to abilene to teach, i would have made 12k less a year)."
sounds like "poor me." Maybe it wasn't intended to come across that way, but I that's the way I saw it.
I would suggest that you may have misread EAP's post, and I would ask that you read it again and consider my take on it:
In my reading, she is directly responding to jhammett's suggestion that if teachers don't like their compensation, then they should quit. As I see it, her point in that post was not to complain about her compensation but rather to make a more general point about the effects of compensation on teacher hiring and retention.
If my reading is correct -- and EAP please correct me if I'm wrong -- then she was saying that if we take jhammett's suggestion to its logical extension and set teacher compensation at the lowest possible levels (and yes, those perks we have been arguing about are part of that compensation) then it will be more difficult to attract and retain the best teachers.
It appears to me that her comparison of teaching and other private sector jobs was not intended to suggest that they are the same kinds of jobs. I think she was pointing to the very real decisions that people make in their lives. 1/3 of new teachers quit by their third year. Many other potential teachers never go into education. They weigh their options between compensation for teaching and compensation for different private sector jobs that require similar educational attainment. I believe this is the reason she compared teaching with those other jobs, and I believe that in this context it is a valid comparison.
Maybe I'm wrong, and she was complaining about her pay, but I don't think a close reading of her post bears out that interpretation.
i seem to remember when gas prices almost hit an average of $4/gallon many libs blamed GWB...why is no one up in arms about gas prices with Pres Obama?
I never blamed W singularly for gas prices though his wars did produce uncertainty which was used to inflate prices. Outrageous gas prices are the result of oil company collusion (promoted by non-enforcement of anti-trust laws which started under Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems) and policies to weaken the power of The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding limits on commodity speculation. (part of the overall push to ease regulations also started by Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems.) Both these are universally supported by today's Republicans and also by most Democrats.
These weak rules allow any excuse to be used to instantly inflated prices and reap huge profits for oil companies and commodity speculators.
It basically comes down to our system being controlled by monied interests. The rules therefore favor the wealthy. The Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited and secret money into US election will only make things worse and abuses like this more universal.
Just think of the day when prices of food, medicine and perhaps even household electricty are allowed to fluctuate like this. Aaaaah, the joys of deregulation never cease.
All the anti union sentiment from the republicans is starting to become laughable at this point. They are trying to make non unionized workers jealous over the benefits the unions get. Instead we should be getting these people to ask questions about why they are not able to be treated this well by their company. "Why should I have to settle for 12 dollars an hour and no benefits when you get more?" Should not be a question to ask the unions but one for people to ask their employers.
i seem to remember when gas prices almost hit an average of $4/gallon many libs blamed GWB...why is no one up in arms about gas prices with Pres Obama?
I guess since Obama did not use the word of a known liar to justify a war in a major oil producing nation he might not have as big a share of the blame for gas prices. Also he is not nearly as close to the Royal Saudi family as Bush was. Do you care to have a civilized discourse over the difference or are you just in here to whine about how Bush was (justifiably) treated?
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2011 11:12:36 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
i seem to remember when gas prices almost hit an average of $4/gallon many libs blamed GWB...why is no one up in arms about gas prices with Pres Obama?
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 13:21:24 GMT -5
Obama should be impeached because he and his staff are doing the exact same stuff they were complainig w should be impeached for. Obama care is no different than w grant unwarrented wire taps, the action in lybia no different than the initial action in iraq. And so on and so on and so on. All the way back to mcarthy hearings on hollywood being communists. We let our rights go one president at a time and havent gotten ANY of them back that were taken away.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 13:40:52 GMT -5
Joe bieden said he was going to bring impeachment charges against w for not going and getting congressional approval for going into iraq the first time. Lookit up.
Joe bieden said he was going to bring impeachment charges against w for not going and getting congressional approval for going into iraq the first time. Lookit up.
Getting us involved in 6 year debacle for questionable reasons is not the same providing short term humanitarian aid to people rising up against a tyrant.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 14:00:55 GMT -5
No how about letting the cops tap your phone becuse you called a buddy for a bag of cronik because cronik according to w funds the badguys. And yes he did just that and let the public know after it was all said and done.
No how about letting the cops tap your phone becuse you called a buddy for a bag of cronik because cronik according to w funds the badguys. And yes he did just that and let the public know after it was all said and done.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 15:21:58 GMT -5
For the homeland security act to be publicly addressed. Just like I want the fact that Obama care can not be gotten rid of due legislators putting that in writting. We get to pay two bills with the same dollar just like homeland security gets to search you at the airport they get to tap your phone if they feel you are a threat. I blame the american public for not caring enough to pay attention to what is going on.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 15:30:05 GMT -5
I mean come om vt is looking into a single payer system but in the meantime they are raising cigarettes by 27 cents yet you STILL have to either have insurance or cash to go to the dentist. No you cant use medicare or medicade the gouvernment does'nt pay enough for them.
Joe bieden said he was going to bring impeachment charges against w for not going and getting congressional approval for going into iraq the first time. Lookit up.
George W Bush did have Congress pass an authorization to go to war in Iraq. The Iraq Resolution was passed in October 2002 and it had overwhelming support because we honestly believed there were WMDs that belonged to an unstable dictator which was a haven for terrorists. The mistake was not confirming the information and going to war without absolute certainty. I admit, I was a critic at first but there is a growing stability in Iraq. In Baghdad, Haifa street was a site of carbombs and militant attacks. Now it has a Cadillac dealership and other businesses that are operating without massive lootings. The Patriot Act does have the alarming clause of tapping communications(phone and computer) if you are "suspected" of being a known terrorist or are associated with terrorists. But it also put in clauses, like being able to seize the bank records of financiers of acts of terrorism and organizing the levels of government so we can be more efficient as opposed to getting caught in bureacratic red tape. Pretty much, the Patriot Act took our existing laws we have against major drug traffickers (due to the Columbians in the 80s) and put it towards terrorist activities. It all depends on your general level of trust you have for your government. I personally don't do anything major to warrant the type of attention the Act goes after. As far as stuff over the phone "keep it discreet and keep it small" and you should be good.
Post by arlenefavreau1 on Mar 24, 2011 15:45:37 GMT -5
I did you get busted selling a couple of grams due to whom you sold it to. They tell the authoritys and they have the right to tap your phone without a warrent. Now every one you talk on the phone to is also able to be tapped because you are a threat to national security. Look it up unfortunatly they got away with it.
I did you get busted selling a couple of grams due to whom you sold it to. They tell the authoritys and they have the right to tap your phone without a warrent. Now every one you talk on the phone to is also able to be tapped because you are a threat to national security. Look it up unfortunatly they got away with it.
You didn't answer my question.
Do you think that absolutely no good can come from the ability to tap a perceived threat's phone when needed immediately?
I never blamed W singularly for gas prices though his wars did produce uncertainty which was used to inflate prices. Outrageous gas prices are the result of oil company collusion (promoted by non-enforcement of anti-trust laws which started under Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems) and policies to weaken the power of The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding limits on commodity speculation. (part of the overall push to ease regulations also started by Reagan and continued under both Reps and Dems.) Both these are universally supported by today's Republicans and also by most Democrats.
These weak rules allow any excuse to be used to instantly inflated prices and reap huge profits for oil companies and commodity speculators.
It basically comes down to our system being controlled by monied interests. The rules therefore favor the wealthy. The Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited and secret money into US election will only make things worse and abuses like this more universal.
Just think of the day when prices of food, medicine and perhaps even household electricty are allowed to fluctuate like this. Aaaaah, the joys of deregulation never cease.
THIS is the shit that scares me. Troo, you are totally right.
Deregulation has overturned many of the New Deal policies FDR put in place and has weakend the power of consumers and put it towards the titans of industry. Hell the Consumer protection act was a pain to get through and that was so credit card companies can't put unwritten interest or fees on your credit cards, seems pretty simple case of protection of the people. Don't blame the president for oil prices because oil companies and their lobbysists have found ways to give themselves tax breaks, loosen labor laws, and relax anti-trust acts. And when these big companies do lose money, they find a way for us to fund the bill. Like Gordon Gecko said, "privatize the gain, socialize the losses". It pisses me off the Geckos of this world believe they are above the Constitution that protects the rights of the people. Soon, we need a president that will reform big business like Teddy Roosevelt did against Carnegies, the Rockefellers, and the J.P Morgans of his day. Because deregulation has led to the widest gap between the rich and the poor and has led to two financial crises.(Black Monday in '87 and now our current recession) It doesn't work.