Listening to a major Colorado Dem extoll the virtues on Obama yesterday on talkradio. She said that everyone who was out of work that got a job in the last four years should vote for Obama because his policies worked [for them]. I was thinking about an implication of what she said.
I lost my job due to budget-cut layoffs. I still do not have one and without getting into details, I can pretty much guaranty I’m the most qualified 90% of the time when I interview. What’s one reason I dont have a job? Because for every job opening in No Colorado, there are about 100 teachers applying for it. Unemployment is still at 8.3% Underemployment is over 17%. That means that there is over a quarter of the workforce that is making less than they should. Clearly Obama’s policies have not worked for them.
So if the argument is that for at least 8% and arguably 25% of the workforce, Obama’s policies havn’t worked, then why shouldn’t we vote for Romney and try something different? I mean I am (and apparently many of my collegues are) still waiting to be part of Obama’s “army of teachers” that he’s been promising since 2008. Romney couldn’t do worse and may do better.
Considering that Romney’s side of the aisle considers teacher’s unions to be nothing but a treacherous hive of villainy … I don’t see why any teacher would vote Republican.
Not trying to be snarky at all, but could you walk me through the process by which, in your view, a Romney Presidency somehow results in more teachers hired in Colorado? I think most folks would say that this is not self-evident.
If they can increase class room sizes to 60+ students each instead of the current upper limits, you would have even less demand for teachers.
If they make home schooling easier and more profitable (say they decide to ‘return those taxes to the parents’), then there will be even fewer students in school classroom situations and less demand for teachers.
If they get rid of the Dept of Ed and all national standards, states may be able to shorten the education requirements for students to save on their budgets. So, if the kid is considered graduated at 10th grade and when they recognize at least 6 of 8 colors and 5 of 10 animals when presented in pictures, there will be even less demand for teachers.
Or you could look at Romney’s budget proposals and try to figure out how a budget that has no revenue increases and increases military spending is going to lead to funding for public schools.
You could look at the House and try to predict how a body whose GOP members have taken a solemn vow to not raise taxes will fund education under a GOP senate and President. (I think you’d be lucky to see the Department of Education survive at all.)
I know it sucks, but funding for public schools has always been cyclical and dependent on local voters who hate paying taxes. But voting for the guys who want to slash public spending on education is unlikely to help you much.
Isn’t education funding primarily a State level decision in the US? So wouldn’t education cuts be due to state level budget issues and not necessarily federal ones?
Standards are determined at the state level, though over the next few years most states (I think 45) are moving to a new set of standards called Common Core, which are more universal.
NCLB requires adherence to certain standards set by the federal government, but those only apply to schools who accept NCLB monies.
So what I’m getting from this is ignore all of the people out of work (and I am a teacher and gave that as my example but my question extends to ALL unemployed/underemployed Americans) because Romney may do crazy things to put more Americans out of work? And these assertions are backed up by what?
And when I say he can’t do worse, that would be speaking for the 8.3% of us out of work. For me personally in the voting booth, what could Romney do that is worse than me not having a job?
Cut unemployment benefits. Repeal Obamacare so you don’t get subsidies to buy insurance that you no longer get from your job (which also cuts Medicaid, if you happen to fall so far that you qualify). Cut back on food stamps and welfare-to-work benefits if you happen to qualify.
As to your particular situation - I just heard this morning that Broward Co. in FL is looking for 500 or so new teachers (mainly in math, science, foreign language, and some special ed). You should just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and move there. If you don’t have those skills you should consider getting a certification… but Romney is planning on cutting Pell Grants and privatizing low-interest student loans, so don’t expect to borrow money from the government to help.
Reduce your benefits, make it harder to find a new job, make it harder to get affordable healthcare, reduce/remove Social Security benefits. Being out of work sucks, but it certainly can get worse.
He could demonstrate (again) that tax cuts for the rich don’t create jobs, never have, and instead of not having a job right now, you could not have a job for like, ever. And then, once you’re permanently out of work, he could make good on his threat to torpedo ACA, which would make it impossible for you ever to afford insurance again. He could start a war with Iran, driving the cost of oil through the stratosphere, which would erode your spending power. He could shred the entire social safety net so it’s a lot more miserable not to have a job.
And if you thought about it for a moment, there are many things in the world that could make your life worse than simply not having a job at any given moment. It’s hard, but there are worse things.
Honestly, according to the GOP, if you don’t have a job it is because you’re too lazy to go out and find one. I think you should vote Republican because they’re determined to cut off all the lazy entitlement moochers who are ruining the economy anyway.
I think there have been some really really good points made in this thread that you should listen to, Saint Cad. I’ll add that I think looking at what the President will do for you, specifically, is a very myopic way of voting. I think “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” is a stupid and pointless question that’s unfortunately been trotted out every election cycle for over 30 years.
The President works on a macro level. The President works to either enact or repeal policies concerning the economy, the social safety net, educational outlays, and a wide variety of other things. The President does not get you a job.
So you need to ask yourself what policies America has that you wish to keep and which candidate supports those particular policies. That’s who you should vote for.
Granted we are all biased toward our own interests but hopefully we’re not dumb enough to think the President is working down a Santa-Claus-esque list of
who needs jobs, and he’s failed if he hasn’t gotten to your name yet.
When you were (presumably) happily employed during better economic times, did you ever read a story about some other guy who was out of work and think “Well, economic policy has clearly failed, though I’m happily employed.” Probably not.
And this… I’m just processing this, that you actually ARE a teacher? You do know that teachers are public enemy #1 to hear the Republicans tell it, right?