Voter Criteria

Rickman should be happy with this...

Rickman probably has enough sense to realise that teachers are processing a variable raw material. Parents have to have some responsibility for bringi ng up kids who are hard to educate, and simple-minded measures of "teacher productivity" just provide extra motivation for teachers to avoid working i n low income neighbourhoods.

The US is already notorious as the advanced industrial country where choosi ng your parent carefully gives you the biggest life-time advantage, and dis couraging teachers from working on the children of the poor isn't going to help.

Heheheh. It couldn't possibly suck nearly as bad is it must suck to be you.

To have a chance at arguing (let alone debating; alas a nearly lost art) you must know your opponents arguments at least as well as your opponent does. Something almost never seen here; what is most seen is total disregard for the opponents presentation.

?-)

This is an example of when you are both wrong. I do believe in holding teachers accountable for their performance. I remember all the times I was held accountable for my work and how I hated it. Of course I justified all the reasons why I didn't meet schedule or... well, that was the only real problem, not meeting a schedule someone else put together.

My point is that over the years I have learned that everyone has to be held accountable for their performance. That doesn't mean using standardized tests to rate the performance of the kids being taught as if they were the only and most important measure of the teacher's performance. But some method needs to be applied that is realistic both from the teacher's perspective and respects the needs of the children.

So how did we get off topic of an off topic thread? Oh yeah, Jim wanted to say something he thought would bug me. Did it work? Do you think you bugged me? I hope so. I want you to be happy Jim. :)

You didn't explain your reasoning very well. You describe a situation where someone apparently gamed the system into getting something he didn't deserve. But is that supposed to mean that *everyone* on SSI disability is gaming the system? What?

I will say I envy the guy. I bet he is living high on the hog with that SSI check and the food stamps. Damn, where did I go wrong?

Oh, I looked it up and SSI *is* about need. You have to be over 65, blind or disabled... *and* be financially challenged (my term) which you wouldn't be if you had paid enough into the SS system.

Why is the financial need issue relevant? Why do these people lose the right to vote?

Why not just require a poll tax? Make it large enough so that most people who don't really care can't vote. Make it hurt enough that only those who are truly committed vote. While we are at it, let's institute a test so that those who are not aware of the issues of the day (and past) can't vote. We don't want uninformed voters deciding the fate of our country do we?

Can we do the same of anyone running for an elected office... *and* for those who are allowed to express an opinion in a public place!

Save the country what, forty Shillings?

So this includes retirement pay to those who have paid into social security? How about the government worker's retirement? Or was that combined into SS some years back? My dad worked for the railroad and never paid a penny into SS, the railroad retirement preceded and outstripped SS and was allowed to usurp it for those entitled to it. So he was never counted in your entitlements number.

I'm very glad I'm not you. I would hate to be as miserable as you seem.

Look at the CFRs; there are various sections that describe, limit and allow specific actions - TITLE xxx etc. Government promulgations in writing; if TITLE sss covers your situation,you are enTITLEd. Spekka deah Engrish?

-there is no fund, and never was

-since1968 it's part of the general treasury, so it's like any tax

-it's a graduated tax, so it must be a tax

-FDR told the supreme court it was a tax

Instead of paying tax to qualify for voting, receiving benefits should disqualify.

Why? This country started out with the battle cry: No taxation without representation, so the opposite sounds just as ligit to me.

There are different disability benefits in Social Security. My wife has been on SSDI for a long time now due to her vision, but she would never qualify for SSI. That requires you to have NO assets, no savings, no stocks, no nothing. If is also why so many try to game the system to get on it, as you don't have to have any earned credits. My wife worked many years (usually at low paying jobs) to earn her credits.

Suplemental Security (SSI) is a very strange beasty...

For a while I worked at UCSB, and was in CALPERS. Because of this, I was not in Social Security. I still have all them money in an IRA. My wife's father is retired railroad, so has no Social Security for the same reason, but my wife's mother is on SS.

Unfortunately, in this country, you have to do something pretty serious to be denied the right to vote, and now the congress critters are trying to expand the right of citizenship as well!

Well! Can you blame them? Another name for illegal immigrant is Democrat Voter. ...Jim Thompson

So thne you shouldn't be able to vote on anything that might affect your tax since that would indirectly affect your income?

that is why direct democracy seldom works, every wants to pay less and get or be paid more

-Lasse

"Jasen Betts" schreef in bericht news:ktta86$984$ snipped-for-privacy@gonzo.reversiblemaps.ath.cx...

Tell me who is *not* paying taxes these days? You can't even buy a potato without paying VAT.

petrus biybyter

Well yeah, that pretty much limits the eligible voters to only the prison population, I was just applying "reductio ad absurdum" to this recent plague of "X should not vote" arguments.

I think i have a better idea. Instead of limiting voters, double the vote weights of those most like to be adversely impacted.

?-)