Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[markomalley]

Another thing that makes our military better is that we have a voluntary military force with long contracts. The military is a career in America. Countries that have conscription military forces with mandatory small-length contracts, such as 2 or 3 years, cannot keep up with the skills of our military members because they constantly have to train the next “crop” of soldiers.

True, but an effective, professional NCO Corps can do wonders with a conscript force…look at our folks through WWII, as an example. And, frankly, the Brits were really good too. Until training fell apart toward the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was formidable.

Yes, an all-volunteer force is optimal, but I don’t quite think it’s 100% necessary.

 

[JimG]

A few years ago, the Kansas City Mo school district lost its state accreditation because the schools were doing such a poor job of education. The results were terrible. Would more money have helped? I doubt it. I know a woman who is a special ed counselor in the district. She says it is like working in a third world nation. You have to start from scratch every single time. The students are simply unprepared for the challenges of school, and they cannot be prepared without better cooperation from parents and families.

Unless the district has enough money to virtually replace students’ failing families, more money is going to have a small impact.

 

[estesbob]

A few years ago, the Kansas City Mo school district lost its state accreditation because the schools were doing such a poor job of education. The results were terrible. Would more money have helped? I doubt it. I know a woman who is a special ed counselor in the district. She says it is like working in a third world nation. You have to start from scratch every single time. The students are simply unprepared for the challenges of school, and they cannot be prepared without better cooperation from parents and families.

Unless the district has enough money to virtually replace students’ failing families, more money is going to have a small impact.

About 20 years ago a Federal Judge though over the KCMO school district and unilaterally imposed a new Tax to fund it. After pumping several 100 millions of dollars into the school district, reducing class sizes, building new facilities the graduation rate went down

 

[Ridgerunner]

A few years ago, the Kansas City Mo school district lost its state accreditation because the schools were doing such a poor job of education. The results were terrible. Would more money have helped? I doubt it. I know a woman who is a special ed counselor in the district. She says it is like working in a third world nation. You have to start from scratch every single time. The students are simply unprepared for the challenges of school, and they cannot be prepared without better cooperation from parents and families.

Unless the district has enough money to virtually replace students’ failing families, more money is going to have a small impact.

You might be too young or too recently in KC to remember the years and years when KC and the state of Mo were under a federal court order to create “magnet” schools in the inner city areas of KC in order to make up for “past segregation”. Unimaginable amounts of money were spent, draining both the KC school district and the state coffers. The favored districts couldn’t even figure out how to spend the money, there was so much of it, even though they spent lavishly. Not too surprisingly, it was a blessing in disguise to the unaffected Kansas side suburbs as people fled the KCMo school district.

Eventually the federal judge who ordered it all gave up because it did nothing to actually improve results. The whole effort came to nothing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

About 20 years ago a Federal Judge though over the KCMO school district and unilaterally imposed a new Tax to fund it. After pumping several 100 millions of dollars into the school district, reducing class sizes, building new facilities the graduation rate went down

Oops, you beat me to it.

 

[Crossbones]

The problem is that teachers care more about themselves then they do the students.

On average, I’d disagree with you. However, there are certainly teachers that do care for themselves more than the students. But, again, I don’t see this as a unique problem in public education, as there are people in every field that care for themselves more than customer or company.

 

[Crossbones]

Allow me to step in here:

The answer is “NO”

Having the best soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines made the US military the best in the world.

The toys enhanced our capabilities…but it was the people that made it the best.

We got the best people by training the |-|3ll out of them. And, while some of that training was pretty expensive, the foundational skill sets were largely learned as the result of some relatively low-tech means.

So, in this case, public education did not fail because it prepared these young people to be good soldiers.

 

[ishii]

I’m sorry, you asked three questions. The first was if I thought “pumping money into the educational system will really help?” My answer is yes.

Then you asked when “Since when has throwing money solved anything?” and I suggest that throwing money at the military has made it by far the best military in the world.

So, I answered the first two of your three questions. Now, for poverty, which I fear is a strawman that you will use to divert from my first two answers. There was a significant drop in the poverty rate throughout the 60s (from ~22% to ~12%). It isn’t clear to me which policies made that happen though, and it isn’t clear that the declaration of the ‘war on poverty’ was anything but political rhetoric after the fact.

So, instead of debating that, let me ask you a question. Did throwing money into the military make it the best military in the world?

“throwing money at the military” has resulted in a lot of waste and inefficiency. You’re assuming that the throwing money indiscriminately at the military is the reason for its strength and success when as others have pointed out it is probably other factors. Furthermore, who is to say that a different approach (i.e. not just throwing money at the military) would also have had the same effect?

The war on poverty started in the mid-60’s. We have spend 21 trillion dollars to reduce poverty and guess what? There are more poor people. Here is a link to an article in Forbes magazine that states the War on Poverty wasn’t a failure, it was a catastrophe.

forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/

Why did the war on poverty fail? In short, it gave an incentive for people to be “poor.” It basically subsidized poverty.

Regarding education funding, why is it that even though we spend more and more $$ per student, it doesn’t result in higher test scores or higher graduation rates? Could the answer be that there are other factors that decide educational success than mere funding - such as family life/environment? Too often we measure our concern for problems by how much money we throw at the problem, when the money does no good (or worse). It is so simple to measure success by the level of funding - like taking the easy way out. And even easier when all you have to do is take more and more money from the taxpayers to do this. I think there are other solutions.

Ishii

 

[shockerfan]

On average, I’d disagree with you. However, there are certainly teachers that do care for themselves more than the students. But, again, I don’t see this as a unique problem in public education, as there are people in every field that care for themselves more than customer or company.

The difference is this: those people in other fields can easily be fired if they don’t take care of the customer. AND…customers have a choice!

Teachers unions make it so difficult to fire bad teachers…AND…democrats fight against school choice.

In fact, the only “choice” democrats vote overwhelming for is the choice to kill unborn babies.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Regarding education funding, why is it that even though we spend more and more $$ per student, it doesn’t result in higher test scores or higher graduation rates? Could the answer be that there are other factors that decide educational success than mere funding - such as family life/environment? Too often we measure our concern for problems by how much money we throw at the problem, when the money does no good (or worse). It is so simple to measure success by the level of funding - like taking the easy way out. And even easier when all you have to do is take more and more money from the taxpayers to do this. I think there are other solutions.

Ishii

The family environment is indeed a big factor in educational success. I was in High School when a large number of Vietnamese were moved into our community. Even with having to learn English in addition to their other studies, they had a strong support structure and took advantage of the opportunities provided for them. Today they are Engineers, Doctors, and small business owners. They have done well.

DGB

 

[markomalley]

So, in this case, public education did not fail because it prepared these young people to be good soldiers.

As one who has trained enough young enlisted folks in my life…

…not really.

The first month or so of basic training is an effort to undo a lot of what civilian life (to include the social training received through public school) taught them. Basic ideas like teamwork, mission first, mental discipline, and attention to detail are virtually universally lacking…even with people who participated in sports programs throughout their school careers.

We can discuss the deficits in reading and, more commonly, mathematical skills. But the fundamental social skills are the most critical.

(I have been retired for a number of years, so things may have gotten miraculously better…but I doubt it)

 

[Crossbones]

“throwing money at the military” has resulted in a lot of waste and inefficiency. You’re assuming that the throwing money indiscriminately at the military is the reason for its strength and success when as others have pointed out it is probably other factors. Furthermore, who is to say that a different approach (i.e. not just throwing money at the military) would also have had the same effect?

The war on poverty started in the mid-60’s. We have spend 21 trillion dollars to reduce poverty and guess what? There are more poor people. Here is a link to an article in Forbes magazine that states the War on Poverty wasn’t a failure, it was a catastrophe.

forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/

Why did the war on poverty fail? In short, it gave an incentive for people to be “poor.” It basically subsidized poverty.

Regarding education funding, why is it that even though we spend more and more $$ per student, it doesn’t result in higher test scores or higher graduation rates? Could the answer be that there are other factors that decide educational success than mere funding - such as family life/environment? Too often we measure our concern for problems by how much money we throw at the problem, when the money does no good (or worse). It is so simple to measure success by the level of funding - like taking the easy way out. And even easier when all you have to do is take more and more money from the taxpayers to do this. I think there are other solutions.

Ishii

Military: The United States outspends everyone in the world on their military and they have the best military in the world. The other fellow asked for a case where throwing money at something actually worked. There it is. Even the examples people give seem to indicate that money was a key factor (yes, training is expensive and so are NCOs and so are aircraft carriers). I don’t think anyone has pointed out anything that has contradicted my assertion.

Poverty: Yep, I was a little young for this and don’t understand what was going but why the poverty rate dropped so much in the 60s. Did the ‘war on poverty’ really begin with President Johnson’s assertion in 1964 or were policies being put in place in the late 50s and early 60s that created the massive downward trend throughout the 60s? Or was it not government policies at all, but other factors? I don’t know. I just don’t think it’s a particular telling example that rules out the idea that better funding schools properly will not result in improvement.

Education: Certainly there are strong environmental factors at work in the success or failure of a student that go beyond the classroom, but the better trained the professionals and the better support the students have through aides, social workers and the like, the more likely the student is to succeed. After all, that’s one assertion on the success of our military (training). I don’t see why it applies in one case, but not the other. Or maybe it’s aircraft carriers.

 

[Crossbones]

The difference is this: those people in other fields can easily be fired if they don’t take care of the customer. AND…customers have a choice!

Teachers unions make it so difficult to fire bad teachers…AND…democrats fight against school choice.

In fact, the only “choice” democrats vote overwhelming for is the choice to kill unborn babies.

Or you can be fired for taking care of the customer. Let’s not pretend like a company in the private sector doesn’t treat their employees like cannon fodder to be canned at the whim of out of touch executives to pacify Wall Street and who get canned is determined through anything but office politics.

As far as choice, I don’t think anyone has a problem with it. They just don’t believe that public funding should go to a private school.

 

[Crossbones]

As one who has trained enough young enlisted folks in my life…

…not really.

The first month or so of basic training is an effort to undo a lot of what civilian life (to include the social training received through public school) taught them. Basic ideas like teamwork, mission first, mental discipline, and attention to detail are virtually universally lacking…even with people who participated in sports programs throughout their school careers.

We can discuss the deficits in reading and, more commonly, mathematical skills. But the fundamental social skills are the most critical.

(I have been retired for a number of years, so things may have gotten miraculously better…but I doubt it)

So, maybe you should have become a high school teacher after you retired. I mean, when you say you retired, you mean from active service and you were like 40, right? It sounds like you would be good to work with these youth.

 

[bcarson]

Getting back to the original tread, Today is President Obama’s 53rd birthday. Consider this before you send him a greeting: Since he took office, 7.8 million children have been deprived of a birthday.

Obama is the world’s leading democrat. I am Catholic, thus I cannot vote for a democrat.

Simple enough?

 

[jediliz]

at one time I think I did vote for a democrat (but not when he was up for reelection in 2006)…then he betrayed pro life nebraskans and voted for Obamacare (‘Cornhusker Kickback’ anyone?) i called him Benedict Arnold Nelson. Never again…there are very few staunchly pro life faithful Catholic democrats out there (ben wasn’t Catholic but claimed to be prolife, had many people fooled!) - at least at the NATIONAL LEVEL. The only one I can think of that’s still pro life AND Catholic is the guy from Illinois - Dan Lipinski I think? He didn’t betray pro lifers like Bart Stupak did.

Democrat party has truly become a party of death - abortion, contraception coverage REQUIRED even if you OBJECT to it for good reason, gay “marriage”, pretty sure they support euthanasia.

 

[freeRadical]

True, but an effective, professional NCO Corps can do wonders with a conscript force…look at our folks through WWII, as an example. And, frankly, the Brits were really good too. Until training fell apart toward the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was formidable.

Yes, an all-volunteer force is optimal, but I don’t quite think it’s 100% necessary.

However, modern warfare is very different than warfare during the WW2.

 

[freeRadical]

About 20 years ago a Federal Judge though over the KCMO school district and unilaterally imposed a new Tax to fund it. After pumping several 100 millions of dollars into the school district, reducing class sizes, building new facilities the graduation rate went down

How can a federal judge impose a tax?

 

[freeRadical]

On average, I’d disagree with you. However, there are certainly teachers that do care for themselves more than the students. But, again, I don’t see this as a unique problem in public education, as there are people in every field that care for themselves more than customer or company.

I’ll remember that next time I see public school teachers striking.

 

[freeRadical]

As far as choice, I don’t think anyone has a problem with it. They just don’t believe that public funding should go to a private school.

Why not? The parents of the children in private school are taxpayers right? So why shouldn’t public funding go to private schools?

Public funding goes to a lot of “private” things.