Cleo's Mom

How dare you say I must have been a terrible teacher. You know nothing about me or my teaching. I was a very good teacher. I taught 2nd grade. One of the teachers in the grade below me told me she would give me her gifted students because she knew I did a lot of enrichment activities. I had excellent classroom management and got through all the curriculum in the year's time. I had the students for 5.5 hours. They had 1/2 hour for lunch, 1/2 hour at a special (art, music, etc..) each day. So the students were there for 6.5 hours a day. Plus there were times for assemblies maybe once or twice a month. I had to cover 7 subjects in that 5.5 hours of time. Reading, math, spelling, handwriting, English, Social Studies, and Science. Reading was to be for 2 hours/day and math for 1 hour. That left 2.5 hours for the other 5 subjects. These are mandated times, not mine. Most of the work they needed to reinforce at home was reading vocabulary, math, spelling words, and some English writing. I sometimes assigned projects like dioramas or small reports. My job DID require more work when I got home. I had 1/2 hour a day for planning for 7 subjects so I did a lot at home as well as grading papers and researching for enrichment activities to reinforce the learning concepts. The parents that complained about homework were the lazy ones that didn't want to help with anything. You know what I think? I think you're a terrible person and a lousy christian and I feel sorry for any patient at the nursing home that you come into contact with.

There are biblical interpretations (Catholic church) who oppose IVF and sperm donation, not that I think a lot of catholics follow that when put in that position, and I support those catholic couples who pursue these options.

Except for one MINOR detail, I don't think abortion should be made illegal because I don't think it's a crime. And the law of the land agrees with me, not you.

I have a following? :thumbup: Who knew? But I promise as the "head shepherd" I will not lead you to slaughter but on the path of rightness, truth and the american way.

You always stick up for the rich and bash the poor, characterizing the latter as just wanting the government handouts while the former does the same thing. But I digress. I support small businesses and their start up. But you always make it sound like the private sector is so independent and does everything on their own - owing only to the hard work of the person who started the business, but read on: Entrepreneurs may feel pinch with aid cuts In bad economy, state help for entrepreneurs faces cuts Sunday, June 06, 2010 By Jon Offredo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Nationally, the recession produced a surge in entrepreneurial activity last year with new business creation hitting the highest levels in 14 years as some people who lost their jobs decided to go out on their own. But in Pennsylvania, which came in third-to-last in a Kauffman Index entrepreneurial ranking, small business advocates worry that huge cuts in funding for key programs that helped nurture those new ventures may mean fewer startups will get off the ground. "That's the irony we're facing," said Christian Conroy, state director of the Small Business Development Center. "[it's been] one of the worst economies in the country, especially in Pennsylvania ... the demand for our services is in more need now than ever before." During last year's budget crisis, funding for the Small Business Development Center was cut to $3.6 million, down 55 percent from the all-time high of $8 million in 2006. "If we can't get the state funding restored to $5.5 million for the fiscal year in July, I'm not sure we'll be able to sustain the existing infrastructure we currently have," Mr. Conroy said. Programs such as those offered by the development center have helped returning Pittsburghers like Matthew Rodgers and Marc Cipullo form business plans and kick-start their companies. Despite such stories, the programs may fall victim to the economic downturn they have helped others to weather. Determination despite cuts Supporters of the small business programs haven't given up. With budgetary discussions coming up and the state facing another shortfall, Mr. Conroy and local caucuses have written letters to the state Senate Appropriations Committee and the state Chamber of Commerce. "I don't envy the folks in Harrisburg. They had some incredibly difficult decisions to make," Mr. Conroy said. He said supporters also are exploring the possibility of seeking up to $7 million in federal funding, but that would require matching grants from the state. What's that? State and federal funding for private business start up - and they are asking for it. Say it isn't so. I though they didn't want any help from the government. They wanted to go it alone. No handouts. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom Teachers pay into their pension/retirement funds with their money too. Yeah, the money that the rest of us gave them to do their job. You didn't "give" them anything. They earned it. How elitist of you. And by that standard, I give you your money at the nursing home, much of which comes from federal taxes for medicare & medicaid. You have such a superior attitude over other people, their plights, their professions, and how you live your life. You think you are so independent - you don't need or want any government help. That is such an immature position and very far from the truth. No it isn't. Why do you find it so hard to believe that there are people out there who actually desire to fend for themselves? When you do it yourself and work hard to get ahead, there comes a sence of pride, a sense of wellness. There is a big difference in the way a person feels about their car when they worked and saved to pay for it themselves over when they received it as a gift from mom and dad. There is a sense of accomplishment and joy when you are independent. And this comes from being independent of the government as well. You are not independent of the government. From the first lightswitch you turn on, to the clean water that comes out of your faucet, to the food you eat, the medication you take, the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the highways you drive on, the safety at your workplace to the wages you receive, those are all affected by the government that you love to bash and from whom you think you are so independent. So immature.

Spanking toddlers leads to aggressive behavior When it comes to disciplining toddlers, spanking doesn't work and it can even make them more aggressive later on, according to a new study in the journal Pediatrics. Researchers at Tulane University studied about 2,500 3-year-olds and found that children whose mothers spanked them more than twice in a month were more likely to show higher levels of aggression by the time they turned 5. Researchers said they controlled for the child's initial aggression levels and issues that increase the risk that a child will act aggressively, such as a mother's depression, substance abuse and intimate partner violence. The study underscores similar findings in other research and is in line with a long held position by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which recommends against corporal punishment. Instead, the group advises parents to consider "time outs" and withholding privileges as more effective ways to discipline a child. Just another research study for you to ignore. Probably done by some liberal, commie, socialist, gay group who supports government handouts and people marrying pets.

You're a poet and didn't even know it. I might be able to help with a coupon for Purina puppy chow.

Which means that making it illegal won't stop them. Just punish them, which is what I have been saying is what it's all about for you.

That's different than your saying everyone is born with nothing. And people who are born into money don't have to work for it, like everyone else. The following illustrates how neocons and republicans allow the rich to get richer while the rest have to pick up the slack - the middle class has had declining earning power for years and it's the fault of the conservative, help the rich get richer agenda of the republicans. ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year. ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half. BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids. A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid. THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars. ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968. IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03. A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes. SUCH A WORKER would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation. ELLISON RECENTLY posed in Vanity Fair with his $300 million, 454-foot yacht, which he noted is “really only the size of a very large house.” ONLY THE WEALTHIEST 20% of Americans spend more on entertainment than on health care. THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4. 5 OF AMERICA’S 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs. PUBLIC COMPANIES spend 10% of their earnings compensating their top 5 executives. 1,730 BOARD MEMBERS of the nation’s 1,000 leading companies sit on the boards of 4 or more other corporations—including half of Coca-Cola’s 14-person board. THE BIDDER who won a round of golf with Tiger Woods for $30,100 at a 2004 Buick charity auction could deduct all but about $200. TIGER MADE $87 million in 2005, all but $12 million from endorsements and appearance fees. THE 5TH LEADING philanthropist last year was Boone Pickens, in part due to his $165 million gift to Oklahoma State University’s golf program. WITHIN AN HOUR, OSU invested it in a hedge fund Pickens controls. Thanks to a Katrina relief provision, his “gift” was also 100% deductible. LAST YEAR 250 COMPANIES gave top execs between $50,000 and $1 million worth of wholly personal flights on corporate jets. THIS PERK is 66% more costly to companies whose CEO belongs to out-of-state golf clubs. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT spends $500,000 on 8 security screeners who speed execs from a Wall Street helipad to American’s JFK terminal. UNITED HAS CUT the pensions and salaries of most employees but promised 400 top executives 8% of the shares it expects to issue upon emerging from bankruptcy. UNITED’S TOP 8 execs will also get a bonus of between 55% and 100% of their salaries. IN 2002, “turnaround artist” Robert Miller dumped Bethlehem Steel’s pension obligation, allowing “vulture investor” Wilbur L. Ross to buy steel stock and sell it at a 1,000% profit. IN 2005, DELPHI HIRED Miller for $4.5 million. After Ross said he might buy Delphi if its labor costs fell, Miller demanded wage cuts of up to 63% and dumped the pension obligation. 10 FORMER ENRON directors agreed to pay shareholders a $13 million settlement—which is 10% of what they made by dumping stock while lying about the company’s health. POOR AMERICANS spend 1/4 of their income on residential energy costs. EXXON’S 2005 PROFIT of $36.13 billion is more than the GDP of 2/3 of the world’s nations. CEO PAY AMONG military contractors has tripled since 2001. For David Brooks, the CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB, it’s risen 13,233%. We all pay for this in one way or another. Don't think it's just private money. It's corporate welfare in many cases. And it's obscene. And it's unfair, and that's the problem I have with the rich.

You are NOT independent from the government. It touches your life in every way every day. If it didn't you'd be living in a cave, but in a symbolic way you already are.

Are the 30 patients under your constant visual supervision for your entire shift?

It seems like your solution to every discipline problem is spanking. Very sad.

How about if we slash the bloated military budget by the amount needed to provide free birth control?

Here's what he said: Health Costs and the Federal Budget On Wednesday I spoke at a conference on the health care system hosted by the Institute of Medicine. My presentation dealt with health care costs and the federal budget. The central challenge is straightforward and stark: The rising costs of health care will put tremendous pressure on the federal budget during the next few decades and beyond. In CBO’s judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure. In fact, CBO estimated that the health legislation will increase the federal budgetary commitment to health care (which CBO defines as the sum of net federal outlays for health programs and tax preferences for health care) by nearly $400 billion during the 2010-2019 period. Looking further ahead, CBO estimated that the legislation would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care in the following decade—if the provisions of the legislation remain unchanged throughout that entire period. CBO also estimated that the legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion during the 2010-2019 period and by an amount in a broad range around one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP) during the following decade—again, under the assumption that the legislation remains in force as enacted. The projected reductions in budget deficits and in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade beyond the 10-year budget window are steps in the direction of sustainable fiscal policy. However, they are small steps relative to the length of the journey that will be needed to achieve sustainability. If the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are extended, (not if I or other liberal democrats have anything to say about it, which we do) the alternative minimum tax is indexed for inflation, and no other changes are made to current laws regarding taxes and spending, the budget deficit in 2020 would be about 6 percent of GDP and rising. Because federal health care programs make up a large share of the federal budget, putting that budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal spending on health care relative to the amounts projected under current law (including this year’s health legislation). In considering the opportunities for achieving that reduction in spending growth, there are grounds for both optimism and pessimism. On the upside, there is considerable agreement that a substantial share of current spending on health care contributes little if anything to people’s health, and providers and health analysts are making significant efforts to make the health system more efficient. On the downside, it is not clear what specific policies the federal government can adopt to generate fundamental changes in the health system; that is, it is not clear what specific policies would translate the potential for significant cost savings into reality. Moreover, efforts to reduce costs substantially would increase the risk that people would not get some health care they need or would like to receive. If we had passed a public option there would be considerable savings. So, I don't see anything in here to support your "in your face" posts about the cost of healthcare from the CBO director. Just another neocon hypocrite who cherry picks intelligence, oops, I mean data. And btw - it's your federal government that you depend on for your very being, if I do.

Most of the wealthy in this country got that way from investments and the low taxes they pay on them not hard work.

A lot of parents drop their kids off in kindergarten and pick them up 13 years later at graduation. Those that do become "involved" are often those who complain about the teacher and/or defend their child from any criticism (behavior or academic). Teachers should be held accountable for teaching and children should be held accountable for learning and there are parents that support this, but sadly, in my experience they are in the minority. They don't support homework, they don't support consequences for misbehavior, they think their child does no wrong. I can go into a store and by seeing parents interact with their children tell you in which families the kids run the show. The parent asking the whining child which treat he wants... not this one? No, whines the child...how about this one? No, I want that one.. the whining child says. This is not a parent that will support the teacher or education. Parents are afraid of their kids and administrators are afraid of the parents. I found this to be a huge problem in my teaching experience.

More hypocrisy from the extremists on the right: Womb watch Katha Pollitt in The Nation notes that Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul is quite the libertarian except when it comes to abortion rights: "Women can forget about the 'privacy' and 'liberty' Paul touts on his website; Warnings against government encroachment on freedom do not apply to female citizens of Paul's back-to-basics Republic. As per his website, we get the Human Life amendment banning all abortion even for rape and incest, 'a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception,' a funding ban on Planned Parenthood and a ban on the Supreme Court taking up abortion-related cases. "As with many of Paul's statements and positions, you wonder if he's thought about them for more than two minutes. How, after all, is a ban on abortion to be implemented except by a massive government intrusion into private and personal behavior? To say nothing of monitoring thousands of medical practices, clinics, hospitals and pharmacies -- apparently the only businesses Paul would want to put under government oversight." Rand Paul wants to amend the 14th amendment. He wants to dictate what cases the supreme court takes. This is VERY DANGEROUS thinking and should be rejected by all those who say they care about our constitution. But if we're going to be changing amendments to the constitution and the teabaggers, libertarians, anti-immigration, and neocons are all for it, then I propose we start with the second to limit gun ownership to law enforcement and the military. I think I just heard Charleton Heston rolling over in his grave. LOL.

If Teachers Were Paid Like Babysitters… by Lisa on March 21st, 2008 We came recently came across a blog by a soon-to-be first-year teacher who was making the point that, despite complaints to the contrary, teachers are NOT overpaid. (Not sure who he’s been talking to, since we rarely hear that claim!)Obviously not talking to pattygreen and her ilk. Nonetheless, here’s what he says he would make if teachers were paid like babysitters. He starts by saying that all of this will be based on the average babysitter rate of $5/hour. Note: The national average for babysitting is actually $10-12/hour for college-age babysitters. Check out our Rate Calculator to get a much more specific idea about what babysitters in your neighborhood are actually making. Teacher wage per hour: $5 per hour for each student. Average number of students per class: 22. Average number of hours per day a teacher works: 7 hours. Average number of days per year a teacher works: 180 The blogger continues… 22 students at $5 per hour = $110 per hour. $110 per hour multiplied 7 hours a day = $770 per day. $770 per day multiplied 180 days a year = $138,600. He also argues that on top of this, most teachers put in an extra “three to four hours a day preparing, assessing, tutoring and participating in extracurricular events to ensure the success of their students.” Based on that, plus the fact that the average rate of babysitters is around $10/hour, his calculator should actually be well more than doubled… in the high $300,000s. How’s THAT for a starting salary?

Teachers pay into their pension/retirement funds with their money too. You have such a superior attitude over other people, their plights, their professions, and how you live your life. You think you are so independent - you don't need or want any government help. That is such an immature position and very far from the truth. What the government has done for americans touches your life everyday from the moment you wake up and turn on a light, to driving on the highway, to taking your meds, drinking your Water, eating your food and the place you work. You are seriously delusional when you smugly suggest you are so independent. And why would paying into social security and a retirement plan make "liberals" dependent slugs? Let's see how far the "privatizing social security" plan the republicans toss out every so often gets this election year. Who supports that? Not the american people. I guess they're all liberal dependent slugs!! LOL

The laws we have about murder, rape, stealing, etc.. aren't meant as a deterrent. People with no morals or conscience will still commit crimes. The laws are made to mete out punishments for committing crimes. People will continue to have abortions even if they're made illegal. Those who find it immoral don't need a law against it. The only difference will be the punishment end of it which is what you support. The liberal's philosophy is that equal rights under the law shouldn't be denied to you because of your sexual orientation. I haven't heard any liberal say that they want to make marriage between people and animals or relatives legal. That's just another neocon inflammatory comment. Typical when they can't argue otherwise :thumbup:

Once again, you ignored my post about the research that showed that making birth control free reduces abortion. If your REAL goal was to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions, you would want to do everything possible for that to happen. You would support government subsidies for free birth control because you would say "You can't put a price on saving even one baby so if providing free birth control would save even one life, it would be worth it." Now that would be the attitude of someone whose MAIN concern was the life of the fetus. However, for someone whose main concern is punishment then their attitude would be: "Why should I pay for someone else's birth control. They need to be responsible. Give up that pizza and make a trip to the drugstore." See the difference? I made it succinct so you wouldn't have to strain your eyes to read it.

That's right, just ignore all the proof I posted concerning the cost of healthcare while continuing to post your lies. :thumbup: I wouldn't care if the healthcare cost would not be totally paid for as currently presented. Let those unnecessary tax cuts to the rich expire at the end of the year to help with the cost of things and help reduce the deficit. What's that sound I hear? Why it's the conservatives, teabaggers and elected republicans howling about that possibility. Standing up for the rich, as usual.

What a hypocrite!!! Time and time again on these boards you have dismissed anything the CBO has published concerning scoring the healthcare bill. You rolled your eyes, called them just another government agency, blah, blah, blah and mocked those who believed them. Now you want to quote them? No, you don't get to do that. I am mocking you for being a hypocrite. :thumbup:

And conservatives have problems being truthful as to why they are against the things they're against. It has nothing to do with morality or reducing abortions and thus "saving babies", it's all about retribution, punishment, throw them all in jail mentality.