Saving Social Security by privitization on the back end rather than the front?

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: mfs378
Ok, so if you are able to work, and you can't get a job, you get unemployment? How would you deal with a situation where people want to work but can't get jobs?

"want to work" or "want to only work doing what they want to do"?

CkG

I think it reasonable to have a period where people can have enough time to find a job and not have to default on their homes, etc. At some point, they may have to take a lower paying job, but at least they arent thrown to the wolves right away. Unemployment is not a permanent fix and I can't remember it ever being so.

Sure - I didn't put forth any idea that Unemployment should go away, I was asking for clarification. But now that I feel like taking the time, I'll just say - Unemployment as we know it would not exist. It too would be means tested(just like any handout) and reformed into a stronger and leaner handout. Kind of a handout with a boot chaser

CkG

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

How about the right to vote? The right of speedy and public trial by jury?

With the way our government is set up, you exchange certain rights for equivelant rights. The right to vote isn't a right, it's the application of your right to choose those who represent your voice in the government. The right to Trial by Jury is an extension of your right to Justice as applied by the Judiciary. Other rights for which there can be no equivelant, such as Freedom of Speech, are retained by the people.

Would you agree to increased funding for schools in poor neighborhoods and university scholarships for poor students?

There is already a TON of this stuff in place, so no. The problem with the schools right now *ISN'T* funding, it's that standards are set too low for both students and teachers adn that education focuses too LITTLE on applied sciences, mathematics, psychology, philosophy and economics and too MUCH on social studies and feel-good courses. I would in fact propose to abolish the High School system altogether and put those kids at the 9th grade age level straight into college level curricula.

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

How about the right to vote? The right of speedy and public trial by jury?

With the way our government is set up, you exchange certain rights for equivelant rights. The right to vote isn't a right, it's the application of your right to choose those who represent your voice in the government. The right to Trial by Jury is an extension of your right to Justice as applied by the Judiciary. Other rights for which there can be no equivelant, such as Freedom of Speech, are retained by the people.

Would you agree to increased funding for schools in poor neighborhoods and university scholarships for poor students?

There is already a TON of this stuff in place, so no. The problem with the schools right now *ISN'T* funding, it's that standards are set too low for both students and teachers adn that education focuses too LITTLE on applied sciences, mathematics, psychology, philosophy and economics and too MUCH on social studies and feel-good courses. I would in fact propose to abolish the High School system altogether and put those kids at the 9th grade age level straight into college level curricula.

Jason

9th graders do not have the intellectual background (except in very rare cases) or the emotional maturity to do this. Children who have not had geometry are not ready for calculus.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

9th graders do not have the intellectual background (except in very rare cases) or the emotional maturity to do this. Children who have not had geometry are not ready for calculus.

Suffice to say, the pre-9th grade educational system will have to be redesigned as well, but yes, they CAN do it if educated properly from the start. People in other countries push their children FAR more than we do ours, and it shows. Maybe if we push them to higher levels companies will be hiring *US* citizens to be their engineers instead of flying in people from India.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
There is already a TON of this stuff in place, so no. The problem with the schools right now *ISN'T* funding, it's that standards are set too low for both students and teachers adn that education focuses too LITTLE on applied sciences, mathematics, psychology, philosophy and economics and too MUCH on social studies and feel-good courses. I would in fact propose to abolish the High School system altogether and put those kids at the 9th grade age level straight into college level curricula.

Jason

There are good public schools and there are poor ones.

Given that teachers in some schools earn close to $100K, while others make $20K, I would say that there is a difference. I agree that the emphasis should be stronger in useful fields (as an engineer I may be biased ), but certainly the money pays a role.

Take mathematics for example. You aren't going to attract someone with a mathematics degree with a salary of $20K. To get someone who is competent in higher level math, you are going to have to pay more than to get someone who is teaching social studies to grade schoolers. Schools are competing with companies when it comes to people with math and science skills. To get good teachers, you need to pay them what they are worth in the market.

This requires more money. Now maybe this could be achieved by restructuring the budget, but the point is that more money has to be put in certain areas.

And this will require some significant higher-level intervention (State or federal). Poor districts are not going to be able to afford a teacher of the same quality as more wealthy districts.

There are plenty of examples pf people who overcame obstacles in their youth to succeed, but unfortunately, the predominant trend is one of repetition. If your parents were poor, chances are you aren't going to be a millionaire. I think that an education system which does not vary as much as you move from wealth communities to poorer ones would be a good thing.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I have a close friend, my former French teacher, who earns close to $100,000 a year, and she was an *awesome* teacher and a great friend. In all truth I don't know where I would be in life without the love and support of her family, as well as some other people who were far better for me than my parents and helped take me from that environment. I've also had, however, a lot of teachers who were just plain worthless as teachers (nice people and decent friends, though) who made in the $40-50k range. Not rich, to be sure, but decent money.

I think there is more to the problem than just teachers not being paid enough. It's that GOOD teachers don't get paid enough and it's too difficult to FIRE bad teachers.

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

9th graders do not have the intellectual background (except in very rare cases) or the emotional maturity to do this. Children who have not had geometry are not ready for calculus.

Suffice to say, the pre-9th grade educational system will have to be redesigned as well, but yes, they CAN do it if educated properly from the start. People in other countries push their children FAR more than we do ours, and it shows. Maybe if we push them to higher levels companies will be hiring *US* citizens to be their engineers instead of flying in people from India.

Jason

I agree that the educational system needs improvement, however I believe that getting the fundamentals down would be better that pushing children beyond their emotional level. For example, we decided to keep my son back a year and have him go into kindergarten next year instead of this. It seems to have been a good idea for him.

It also seems that the standards and resources in all communities need to be sufficient. Unfortunately some people do not value education, and it is reflected in how they encourage their children, or rather in how they do not. Teachers sometimes have parents which are the problem, and that is very difficult to fix.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

I agree that the educational system needs improvement, however I believe that getting the fundamentals down would be better that pushing children beyond their emotional level. For example, we decided to keep my son back a year and have him go into kindergarten next year instead of this. It seems to have been a good idea for him.

It also seems that the standards and resources in all communities need to be sufficient. Unfortunately some people do not value education, and it is reflected in how they encourage their children, or rather in how they do not. Teachers sometimes have parents which are the problem, and that is very difficult to fix.[/quote]

Sure, I understand that. Different kids have different needs, and the parents should be well enough in touch with their own children to know what is best for them. My roommate's son, at 16, was failing like mad in high school because he was bored silly. After a while I convinced her to take him out of high school --which he didn't want because he wanted to just hang out with his friends-- and enroll him in college where he chose to major in Animation. He's now 6 months in and pulling a 3.7 GPA. Some kids *need* that push, and the parents have to be willing to do that.

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

I agree that the educational system needs improvement, however I believe that getting the fundamentals down would be better that pushing children beyond their emotional level. For example, we decided to keep my son back a year and have him go into kindergarten next year instead of this. It seems to have been a good idea for him.

It also seems that the standards and resources in all communities need to be sufficient. Unfortunately some people do not value education, and it is reflected in how they encourage their children, or rather in how they do not. Teachers sometimes have parents which are the problem, and that is very difficult to fix.

Sure, I understand that. Different kids have different needs, and the parents should be well enough in touch with their own children to know what is best for them. My roommate's son, at 16, was failing like mad in high school because he was bored silly. After a while I convinced her to take him out of high school --which he didn't want because he wanted to just hang out with his friends-- and enroll him in college where he chose to major in Animation. He's now 6 months in and pulling a 3.7 GPA. Some kids *need* that push, and the parents have to be willing to do that.

Jason[/quote]

Damn, we agreed on something

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I think there is more to the problem than just teachers not being paid enough. It's that GOOD teachers don't get paid enough and it's too difficult to FIRE bad teachers.

Jason

I agree. But often there isn't enough money to attract good teachers in the first place.

My opinion: make sure the schools aren't falling apart, make sure they are safe, provide incentives for good teachers to work there, and if someone refuses to perform up to par, get rid of them. Now do it everywhere, regardless of what the average income of the town is.

[Edit] I should add that the curriculum would have to be modified to match my every whim.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I have a close friend, my former French teacher, who earns close to $100,000 a year, and she was an *awesome* teacher and a great friend. In all truth I don't know where I would be in life without the love and support of her family, as well as some other people who were far better for me than my parents and helped take me from that environment. I've also had, however, a lot of teachers who were just plain worthless as teachers (nice people and decent friends, though) who made in the $40-50k range. Not rich, to be sure, but decent money.

I think there is more to the problem than just teachers not being paid enough. It's that GOOD teachers don't get paid enough and it's too difficult to FIRE bad teachers.

Jason

I am suprised that any teacher in a public HS would earn $100K currently, unless they were working on some special system that paid out heavy duty $$$.

I think there is more to the problem than just teachers not being paid enough. It's that GOOD teachers don't get paid enough and it's too difficult to FIRE bad teachers.

Teachers should get a higher salary, that will encourage a quality teacher inflow and also allow professionals from the actual field to assist.
There needs to be a way to get rid of bad teachers quickly (ggod for moral)
Bad administration must be dealt with by accountable school boards and the administration must be held accountable for the qualtiy of student being processed.

This is the easy part.

Hard part is getting the pols out of the way and having the parents support the system.

The schooling system needs to be revamped from the ground up starting in elementary school. Everybody needs to have the guts to call a spade a spade.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Damn, we agreed on something

LOL. Everyone else better watch out, now the sky really *will* fall, heh Sometimes I wonder if disagreement on this board isn't in large part due to the very different ways in which we express our ideas more than it really is the ideas themselves.

Jason

 

[EagleKeeper]

Again this thread is getting Hi-Jacked from SS to education

And I am also guilty of contributing to this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Hard part is getting the pols out of the way and having the parents support the system.

The schooling system needs to be revamped from the ground up starting in elementary school. Everybody needs to have the guts to call a spade a spade.

Bullseye

:beer::beer:

CkG

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Again this thread is getting Hi-Jacked from SS to education

And I am also guilty of contributing to this.

Well I will argue that it's *related* because if we don't get people educated well, we'll never get rid of bad systems like Social Security

Jason

 

[mfs378]

From SS to unemployment benefits to education... I think I am to blame on all counts.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Jason

When the school systems started exploding due to population, there were many people going into technology where the $$$ were.
It was hard to get qualified people into the school system.
Many laymen were qualified and assisted upon retirement. They had no degree though.
The NETA wanted these people to beef up their strength and the school systems valued these peoples knowledge/experience.

That set the tone for the quality of educators. Most teachers that are now coming into the system have degrees, implicit requirement.


The problem comes into play when the school system can not obtain qualified teachers (salary/location/conditions). then they have to work with what materials are at hand. Sometimes they succeeed, othertimes, the students get the shaft.
Only option would be for the school system to boost the salary level high enough to encourage qualified teachers to work at the system.
The salary level would have to be equitable across the board at a given school (district, etc). If the tax base could not support such a salary, then the state and/or Fed would have to step in.

Then you will have the problem that exists now in reverse. Taxes are being paid for out of area schools vs. rich districts having better schools.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Jason

When the school systems started exploding due to population, there were many people going into technology where the $$$ were.
It was hard to get qualified people into the school system.
Many laymen were qualified and assisted upon retirement. They had no degree though.
The NETA wanted these people to beef up their strength and the school systems valued these peoples knowledge/experience.

That set the tone for the quality of educators. Most teachers that are now coming into the system have degrees, implicit requirement.

The problem comes into play when the school system can not obtain qualified teachers (salary/location/conditions). then they have to work with what materials are at hand. Sometimes they succeeed, othertimes, the students get the shaft.
Only option would be for the school system to boost the salary level high enough to encourage qualified teachers to work at the system.
The salary level would have to be equitable across the board at a given school (district, etc). If the tax base could not support such a salary, then the state and/or Fed would have to step in.

Then you will have the problem that exists now in reverse. Taxes are being paid for out of area schools vs. rich districts having better schools.

What a pain in the ass

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Jason

When the school systems started exploding due to population, there were many people going into technology where the $$$ were.
It was hard to get qualified people into the school system.
Many laymen were qualified and assisted upon retirement. They had no degree though.
The NETA wanted these people to beef up their strength and the school systems valued these peoples knowledge/experience.

That set the tone for the quality of educators. Most teachers that are now coming into the system have degrees, implicit requirement.

The problem comes into play when the school system can not obtain qualified teachers (salary/location/conditions). then they have to work with what materials are at hand. Sometimes they succeeed, othertimes, the students get the shaft.
Only option would be for the school system to boost the salary level high enough to encourage qualified teachers to work at the system.
The salary level would have to be equitable across the board at a given school (district, etc). If the tax base could not support such a salary, then the state and/or Fed would have to step in.

Then you will have the problem that exists now in reverse. Taxes are being paid for out of area schools vs. rich districts having better schools.

What a pain in the ass

All this shows is that almost any system has gotten so convoluted over the past 20-60 years that it will take major surgery to correct the problem.
There is no anithesia (pol will) that will dull the pain.
SS, Income taxes, immigration, education, etc. - all suffer from the same type of problem.
Good ideas/intentions have became corrupted and hijacked for the benifit of others by the do-gooding of a few.

 

[Jhhnn]

How about this: Stop Social Security in its entirety, pay people what they have paid in,

Impossible. The govt doesn't have the ability to pay what we've paid into the trust, let alone the entire amount that would be owed under such a scenario. Not to mention a few million seniors having their air supply cut off...

How about instead of that we make NO welfare system part of the plan, and that way your average family whose parents bust their asses to make ends meet don't have to pay to support Joe Blow down the street who wants to sit in his one bedroom Section-8 and smoke pot all day instead of getting a goddamn job?

Nice Demonization, excellent use of false transferrance and erroneous attribution. Rush would be proud.

Your hypothetical is without validity in a free economy the size and scope of ours. There are *always* jobs available. You might not always get the one you *want*, but sometimes it's better to bite the bullet and make ends meet until the right opportunity comes along.

Utterly false, at least in the context provided. while there are always some openings, that's part of the normal flux. If there were more jobs than workers, then average pay for new jobs would be going up, to attract workers. Instead, it's going down. Supply and demand, remember?

ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Elitist credentialism at its worst. One of our friends is a teacher, with ~15 years experience. She only has an AA degree, though, but the wall of her study is covered in commendations, awards and letters from past students, one teacher of the year. Bush's little stunt means she had to go back to school, just so as to hold her own against a no-experience 21 year old... not easy when a summer job is de rigeur... It's particularly tough on rural schools and teachers, whose payscales are low and continuing education opportunities near non-existent. Internet? yeh, right- ever try taking a huge download at 12K over funky phonelines in the middle of nowhere? Good Luck...

SS isn't hopeless, it's just being looted, and suffering from a lack of income. Yeh, we need changes, no doubt. Here's a modest proposal-

1. Establish a professionally managed pension program to accept surplus funds. Also establish a program where monies owed to SS by the govt will be repaid prior to 2016, and placed in that pension fund. Maybe even establish competing funds...

2. Increase SS deductions by a full 2%, split evenly between employees and employers. Institute sliding scale means testing for SS recipients, with a rather high threshold. Benefit increases may also need to be held in check, starting with those who receive the most. make whatever adjustments are required to maintain balance...

3. Remove the SS cap, and make all forms of income subject to SS taxes. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed at the self-employment rate.

What we really need to do is develop a surplus, independent of the vagaries of politicians' myopia, and sustain that so that everybody young and old will have something they can depend on in terms of disability, survivor benefits and retirement.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

How about this: Stop Social Security in its entirety, pay people what they have paid in,

Impossible. The govt doesn't have the ability to pay what we've paid into the trust, let alone the entire amount that would be owed under such a scenario. Not to mention a few million seniors having their air supply cut off...

Nonsense. It is NOT impossible. What is impossible is continuing the Socialist Security system the way it is. As it stands it's nothing more than a giant hemmorhage that's doing NO ONE any good. Senior's are *scraping by* in DUMPS because of Social Security, barely able to afford their medicines, barely able to live month to month. This system was NEVER a good idea, NEVER well planned. STOP collecting social security money NOW, let those who are already collecting finish out their lives and pay back those who have already paid in but are not old enough to collect yet (establish an appropriate cutoff age) either through direct payments or future tax credits toward investment in their own PRIVATE retirement plans.

How about instead of that we make NO welfare system part of the plan, and that way your average family whose parents bust their asses to make ends meet don't have to pay to support Joe Blow down the street who wants to sit in his one bedroom Section-8 and smoke pot all day instead of getting a goddamn job?

Nice Demonization, excellent use of false transferrance and erroneous attribution. Rush would be proud.

There's nothing false about what I said. People who WORK for a living are taxed EXTRA in order to pay for welfare programs. That is a FACT, and your LIES cannot change that.

Your hypothetical is without validity in a free economy the size and scope of ours. There are *always* jobs available. You might not always get the one you *want*, but sometimes it's better to bite the bullet and make ends meet until the right opportunity comes along.

Utterly false, at least in the context provided. while there are always some openings, that's part of the normal flux. If there were more jobs than workers, then average pay for new jobs would be going up, to attract workers. Instead, it's going down. Supply and demand, remember?

No, it is NOT false in any way, shape or form. The economy is large, complex and ever changing, and there are ALWAYS jobs available. Maybe not the exact job you WANT in your area, but there ARE jobs. I might also point out that as a matter of FACT, most jobs aren't even advertised, which means you have to take an extra bit of INITIATIVE and make contacts, get to know people and businesses and make sure they know you are available and have skills that they might need. I can't *believe* what a liar you are!

ONE small thing I think that Shrubbery has done right is that part of his education bill...I think last year, requires that public school teachers have a Bachelor's degree in order to teach. I forget what the deadline is, I think it's sometime in 2006, that if you don't have a BS/BA, you're gone. Why that wasn't the policy all along, I have no idea.

Elitist credentialism at its worst. One of our friends is a teacher, with ~15 years experience. She only has an AA degree, though, but the wall of her study is covered in commendations, awards and letters from past students, one teacher of the year. Bush's little stunt means she had to go back to school, just so as to hold her own against a no-experience 21 year old... not easy when a summer job is de rigeur... It's particularly tough on rural schools and teachers, whose payscales are low and continuing education opportunities near non-existent. Internet? yeh, right- ever try taking a huge download at 12K over funky phonelines in the middle of nowhere? Good Luck...

As a matter of fact, YES, I have taken online courses, and I know people at college NOW who take online courses in addition to their live courses AND their jobs. I, myself work full time AND manage to go to school 26 hours per week (4 hours 5 nights per week, 6 hours Saturday). Your assertion that educational opportunities are near non existent is a flat-out LIE and you KNOW IT! There are COUNTLESS educational institutions today who cater to the working person's schedule and offer VERY flexible class times and payment options, with the federal and state governments guaranteeing student loans even for people with sh1tty credit, not to mention all the grants that are available for those who LOOK for them. I'm sure your friend is a peachy, competent teacher, and it's nice she has all the extra awards, but the fact is that we NEED people with BETTER educations in order to educate our children. An Associate's degree is only marginally better than a High School Diploma, and I think we all know that a HSD is little better than TRASH.

SS isn't hopeless, it's just being looted, and suffering from a lack of income. Yeh, we need changes, no doubt. Here's a modest proposal-

1. Establish a professionally managed pension program to accept surplus funds. Also establish a program where monies owed to SS by the govt will be repaid prior to 2016, and placed in that pension fund. Maybe even establish competing funds...

2. Increase SS deductions by a full 2%, split evenly between employees and employers. Institute sliding scale means testing for SS recipients, with a rather high threshold. Benefit increases may also need to be held in check, starting with those who receive the most. make whatever adjustments are required to maintain balance...

3. Remove the SS cap, and make all forms of income subject to SS taxes. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed at the self-employment rate.

What we really need to do is develop a surplus, independent of the vagaries of politicians' myopia, and sustain that so that everybody young and old will have something they can depend on in terms of disability, survivor benefits and retirement.

You will never develop a surplus that is under control by politicians. Politicians DERIVE THEIR POWER from spending OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and exercising authority over their behavior. Trying to guarantee everyone that the world will be a peachy place where they don't have to worry about making the rent is not only impossible, it's a FRAUD that you're trying to pull such a plan off under the pretense of "caring." If you CARED, you'd TEACH people to PLAN for THEIR OWN futures.

Do us all a favor and try to be TRUTHFUL instead of just INFLAMATORY next time you post something.

Jason

 

[dirtboy]

The solution will be to push back the age at which people can obtain benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't get SS benefits until I'm 80. One has to remember that SS was to keep people right above poverty and that people died shortly after retiring. People weren't on it a long time. Now thanks to medical advances, people will be getting SS for quite a long time. I really don't know if we should privatize the system or make it so that it lives up to its original intention and has sufficient funding to make good on its promises. Simply, if someone gets full SS benefits at 65 and it's causing the system to go broke, push that back to 70.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Relaxed a bit after the lies above, but lemme be brief:

None of us wants to see anyone suffer. We're all relatively decent folks who don't like that sort of thing. *I think*. That said, we still have to look at the system HONESTLY and realize that it DOES NOT WORK, and that it NEVER WILL. What are you going to do when medical advances get to the stage where people live to be 130? 150? Are you going to guarantee them cash for more than half their lives? It's nonsense. The only long term solution that makes sense is to *educate* people to take responsibility and PLAN for their futures, and provide an environment where it's conducive to do so. At the MINIMUM let those people who have no faith in the Social Security sytem opt out of it and divert that money to a private 401K, IRA or something similar.

Jason

 

[Jhhnn]

Do you actually read entire posts, DMA, or just skim to the parts that piss you off the most?

Do you contend that all of the unemployed are so simply because they choose to be, rather than take a lesser job? That the figures from the govt about job loss are just made up, that there are *plenty* of jobs to go around? Or that as a free-market kind of guy that you can ignore the results of supply and demand when it suits your ideology concerning wages vs job availability?

I pointed out the difficulties of continuing education in remote rural locations. People in rural parts of the country have schools, too, and teachers who live there- How do you get that additional accreditation when the nearest source is 100 miles away and you're a single parent? I'll contend that teaching is more of a talent than a learnable skill, anyway... credentials are often misleading in terms of the ability to actually do a job that demands talent...

"I can't *believe* what a liar you are!" & etc., ad nauseum....

Ad homs, gotta love 'em. Take a look at your own position and reactions, try to realize that you've boxed yourself in, taken an untenable position, and are suffering from an emotional response to the situation. Back off, reconsider, or reveal yourself as a blindspot ideologue and an intellectual lightweight.

I'm trying to be nice, DMA- you're clearly a person who has a lot of issues beyond the discussions at hand, and pushing your buttons is child's play. You need to get past that if you expect to be considered a serious thinker in this or any of life's other venues...