What are peoples issues with perry? (Houston: transfer, private school, voucher)

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by slonga

How any thinking person could vote for White after this endoresment is beyond me!

By looking at the alternatives first, maybe?

KBH is a better choice than Perry but is still in the pocket of Big Oil. Everyone's bought off by somebody. That's politics.

Maybe we should give them all the heave-ho and give anarchy a try.

[Nomadic9460678748]

I hope that Republican voters who decide to support Perry will take a closer examination of his plan to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. Such a stipulation was one of many implemented by California's Proposition 13 in 1978 (I believe Prop 13 put a significant curb on property taxes and also required a 2/3 vote to approve a budget, both of which have also had deleterious effect), this proposition is largely attributed with having the most to do with the state's current fiscal travails and received support from then Governor Reagan. This is not to say that history would be repeated in Texas but it is certainly deserving of some discussion. I missed all but the last part of the debate so I have no idea if this subject was even broached.

[tgannaway89]

Originally Posted by slonga

It is great to see that White is in the pocket of the State Teachers Association - a group that has done everything in its power to destroy children's life by blocking every meaningful school reform in this State.

How any thinking person could vote for White after this endoresment is beyond me!

Your so right. Why would we want to offer teachers competitive wages? Why do teachers deserve benefits? Let's send them there educaters to other states! We ain't need know education hear!

[slonga]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

I hope that Republican voters who decide to support Perry will take a closer examination of his plan to require a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. Such a stipulation was one of many implemented by California's Proposition 13 in 1978 (I believe Prop 13 put a significant curb on property taxes and also required a 2/3 vote to approve a budget, both of which have also had deleterious effect), this proposition is largely attributed with having the most to do with the state's current fiscal travails and received support from then Governor Reagan. This is not to say that history would be repeated in Texas but it is certainly deserving of some discussion. I missed all but the last part of the debate so I have no idea if this subject was even broached.

Sorry Nomadic - wrong, wrong, wrong x 1,000,000,000,000

The reason CA has failed is out of control spending, NOT the 2/3 majority rule. This is what happens when you continue to create entitlements upon entitlements, where the majority of the population are sucking on the government's milch cow - and fewer and fewer people generate wealth and jobs.

Where CA goes America will soon follow.

[slonga]

Originally Posted by tgannaway89

Your so right. Why would we want to offer teachers competitive wages? Why do teachers deserve benefits? Let's send them there educaters to other states! We ain't need know education hear!

Sorry teaches do NOT compete they have a monopoly.

Okay I'll give you the 'competitive' wages and benefits you want if you let us have school vouchers and school choice.

No, what you have is an education monopoly that condems children to low standards and failing school and the last thing that you would ever want is to give children the benefit of education alternatives. I'm sure that White will continue in the same vein.

Simple question. If you have a teacher that is incompetent,, useless, abusive can they be fired?

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by slonga

Sorry teaches do NOT compete they have a monopoly.

Well, "teaches" is a verb as in "he teaches" or "she teaches" but that's neither here nor there. There are private schools in the state and both public and private schools in other states. That's what was meant.

[slonga]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Well, "teaches" is a verb as in "he teaches" or "she teaches" but that's neither here nor there. There are private schools in the state and both public and private schools in other states. That's what was meant.

ad hominen nitpicking over a typo - great response

Yes but private schools get no taxpayer benefit.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by slonga

ad hominen nitpicking over a typo - great response

You might look up what "ad hominem" means. You were not attacked personally. You did spell it correctly though - good show.

Whether or not public schools are taxpayer-backed has no bearing on a teacher's choices of places to work either. In other words, you have no point.

This is also completely off subject, but sometimes I even forget what topics are a few pages in. It happens.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by jfre81

You might look up what "ad hominem" means. You were not attacked personally.

This is correct. That was not ad hominem - that was more in the way of a red herring, trying to distract from the issue with an irrelevant side matter.

[slonga]

Originally Posted by jfre81

You might look up what "ad hominem" means. You were not attacked personally. You did spell it correctly though - good show.

Whether or not public schools are taxpayer-backed has no bearing on a teacher's choices of places to work either. In other words, you have no point.

This is also completely off subject, but sometimes I even forget what topics are a few pages in. It happens.

Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental disorders. You might want to look the word Pedant up. It is in the dictionary.

The fact that public schools are taxpayer-backed means that they pay teachers almost twice what private school can pay them. I think that might have a bearing on their choice of places to work.