Apparently he is not against reparations. What he says is that the reparations should be in the form of actually improving the living conditions of the descendents of slavery, not by giving them a handout of cash.

 

The reparations should be in the form of rebuilding the dilapidated schools and community centers that have been neglected for so long.

 

The reparations should be in the form of normalizing race relations and insuring that people are not discriminated against b/c of their race.

 

So okay you guys - you got him. He is for reparations. Do you feel better now?

What does that mean?

What does that mean?

 

What it means is that in certain pockets of the country you are not welcome if your skin is too brown. True reparations will occur when that is not the case.

That is the thing. You have accused Obama of not taking unpopular stances. This is a very unpopular stance with a lot of the Obama base! Most would rather him just cut a check to everyone and be done with it, but he recognizes that this wont work.

No I didn't. My point is, when president, what will he do when the clamoring continues?

 

And will someone please tell me how building new schools will make kids that don't want to go to school go to school. How will it solve the problem?

Washington, DC spends more on its public schools than almost any other district in the country. How is that working out for them?

 

Actually it is New York State that is #1, followed by New Jersey and then the District of Columbia.

 

 

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/the-highest-per-pupil-spending-in-the-us/

 

 

One factor to point out in such comparisons is the "cost of living" in different areas tends to create a false appearance. In other words it's probably cheaper to educate a student in KY than in NY or DC for that matter just because of the cost of things in each given place.

What it means is that in certain pockets of the country you are not welcome if your skin is too brown. True reparations will occur when that is not the case.

There are certain pockets of the country you are not welcome if your skin is too white as well. What exactly in his proposal will change that?

It was a simple question....

No, it was three questions in response to my simple question concerning your link. I am not wasting any more of my time reading linked articles that do not contain the content that you represent. Either quote the relevant passages or don't bother.

No I didn't. My point is, when president, what will he do when the clamoring continues?

 

And will someone please tell me how building new schools will make kids that don't want to go to school go to school. How will it solve the problem?

 

HERE WE GO . . .

 

I am the director of a school for at risk kids. It was built in 1953.

When I walked in to the building on Thursday, the day before our first day I had an area in the hallway with a couple of inches of water b/c of a leak and an even worse leak in one of the classrooms. I have 15 year old carpet over even older tile. I do not have central AC system and we started school August 1.

 

Do you think the students are more likely to want to come to school if I re-do the floor, fix the leaks and get us some air??? I will tell you, that YES THEY ARE. If the school is trashy, the students and community will feel trashy about it. If it looks good, they can be proud about. It is one thing in the fight against their apathy, but it is certainly A THING.

This thread is going to be all over the board in responses. :lol:

 

The initial post, RTS, has several different questions to answer:

 

Does Obama oppose reparations? The answer is yes.

 

How does Obama's comments about accounting for the discrimination in our history not mean he's for reparations? Being accountable doesn't mean being in a position to pay individuals a sum of money to each individual. It means accepting the responsibility, and admitting the wrongdoing.

 

Isn't Obama's statements indicating improving inner city schools affirming his support of reparations? No. After the accountability is accepted, the solutions he proposes assist in righting the wrongs of decades and decades of ignoring the problems inherent in poverty stricken inner city areas.

 

Will improving inner city schools make kids want to go to school? Well, I say that the liklihood is high, if there are serious attempts. From a capital standpoint, it will take more than a coat of paint. Some schools that are in old buildings may need to be moved to different facilities, or renovated extensively to bring them up to the level of facility that suburban schools. The emphasis on creating programs within the schools to emphasize not only college education, but career-exploration programs, and school-to-work programs. So, yes, if done right, improving inner city schools could make kids want to go to school.

 

Will improving inner city schools make bad parents good parents? Well, I guess on the surface, no. But, this is a plan for the future, not just for today. So, if you can create future parents that care about education even a little more than the current parents, it's a positive step. On a more immediate level, if there were programs at the schools to include the parents, or even offer them adult-education opportunities, it could possibly impact at least a small segment.

 

Creating great schools requires a lot of things, but the biggest is a sense of community and common goals, IMO. So, to that end, improving facilities, re-vamping the curriculum could indeed accomplish a great deal, if not today, over time. But, it has to start somewhere, and at some time. It's easy to say it is what it is, and that there's nothing that could be done. It's much, much harder to look to the future, and fight the battles now for the benefit many years down the road.

 

Better schools create a better workforce. If a joint effort can be made in improving the communities in which the schools are located, it again can lead to positive benefits in the long term. Too many people are willing to write off whole areas because of problems. Everyone wants to "get out". It's better, IMO, to solve the problems than to let them fester unchecked and continue to erode the community than it is to just move.

Actually it is New York State that is #1, followed by New Jersey and then the District of Columbia.

 

 

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/the-highest-per-pupil-spending-in-the-us/

 

 

One factor to point out in such comparisons is the "cost of living" in different areas tends to create a false appearance. In other words it's probably cheaper to educate a student in KY than in NY or DC for that matter just because of the cost of things in each given place.

Was my post unclear in some way?

 

Washington, DC spends more on its public schools than almost any other district in the country. How is that working out for them?[/b]Does the fact that two states spend more on education per pupil contradict my statement?

 

My point is, and it is a valid one, that spending more to try to provide better schools does not necessarily achieve the desired results. Lack of money is not the cause of poverty in this country, the roots of poverty are cultural. The culture of dependence bred by decades of liberal programs have robbed entire communities of a once strong work ethic. The inner cities have been hit hardest but the damage has also impacted large swaths of other areas such as Appalachia. Obama is promising more of the same failed policies under the ironic banner of "Change."

This thread is going to be all over the board in responses. :lol:

 

The initial post, RTS, has several different questions to answer:

 

Does Obama oppose reparations? The answer is yes.

 

How does Obama's comments about accounting for the discrimination in our history not mean he's for reparations? Being accountable doesn't mean being in a position to pay individuals a sum of money to each individual. It means accepting the responsibility, and admitting the wrongdoing.

 

Isn't Obama's statements indicating improving inner city schools affirming his support of reparations? No. After the accountability is accepted, the solutions he proposes assist in righting the wrongs of decades and decades of ignoring the problems inherent in poverty stricken inner city areas.

 

Will improving inner city schools make kids want to go to school? Well, I say that the liklihood is high, if there are serious attempts. From a capital standpoint, it will take more than a coat of paint. Some schools that are in old buildings may need to be moved to different facilities, or renovated extensively to bring them up to the level of facility that suburban schools. The emphasis on creating programs within the schools to emphasize not only college education, but career-exploration programs, and school-to-work programs. So, yes, if done right, improving inner city schools could make kids want to go to school.

 

Will improving inner city schools make bad parents good parents? Well, I guess on the surface, no. But, this is a plan for the future, not just for today. So, if you can create future parents that care about education even a little more than the current parents, it's a positive step. On a more immediate level, if there were programs at the schools to include the parents, or even offer them adult-education opportunities, it could possibly impact at least a small segment.

 

Creating great schools requires a lot of things, but the biggest is a sense of community and common goals, IMO. So, to that end, improving facilities, re-vamping the curriculum could indeed accomplish a great deal, if not today, over time. But, it has to start somewhere, and at some time. It's easy to say it is what it is, and that there's nothing that could be done. It's much, much harder to look to the future, and fight the battles now for the benefit many years down the road.

 

Better schools create a better workforce. If a joint effort can be made in improving the communities in which the schools are located, it again can lead to positive benefits in the long term. Too many people are willing to write off whole areas because of problems. Everyone wants to "get out". It's better, IMO, to solve the problems than to let them fester unchecked and continue to erode the community than it is to just move.

 

:thumb::thumb:

HERE WE GO . . .

 

I am the director of a school for at risk kids. It was built in 1953.

When I walked in to the building on Thursday, the day before our first day I had an area in the hallway with a couple of inches of water b/c of a leak and an even worse leak in one of the classrooms. I have 15 year old carpet over even older tile. I do not have central AC system and we started school August 1.

 

Do you think the students are more likely to want to come to school if I re-do the floor, fix the leaks and get us some air??? I will tell you, that YES THEY ARE. If the school is trashy, the students and community will feel trashy about it. If it looks good, they can be proud about. It is one thing in the fight against their apathy, but it is certainly A THING.

I disagree. If their parents don't care and they don't care, a nice new building isn't going to matter. How in the world is a school built in 1953 so dilapidated?

I disagree. If their parents don't care and they don't care, a nice new building isn't going to matter. How in the world is a school built in 1953 so dilapidated?

 

I can't answer for Ace's school, but we have an elementary school in our district that was built in the late 50s that has the exact same problems. Actually, our district is building the replacement and it will be ready by Christmas, so they will start out the second semester in it. The plumbing is terrible, there is no central air, only one 20 year old window unit in each classroom (nothing for the hallways or concrete floored gym besides fans). There is one electrical outlet for each room (try thinking of setting up just one simple computer on one outlet, much less any other electrical equipment).

 

Why is the school so delapidated? We have a very small tax base. I was the first minority student to attend that school back in 1980, but I wasn't the first poor one.

 

RTS, you keep mentioning that new buildings won't make the students/parents care more. What do you suggest would do it?

First of all, H, you need to do a little research on me. I'm no fan of McCain, both him and Obama are wrong for America IMO, so you can forget McCain rhetoric that you're almost as good at at as the Bush rhetoric.

Secondly, I merely quoted thy savior and asked some simple questions of you all. If it's more than you can handle, find another thread. This isn't fear mongering (although I notice anytime someone takes issue with "The One" on his own comments or or his policies you and a few others scream fear mongering ), it's simply asking your opinion on where you think he stands and if you think he will go further and actually call for monetary reparations should he become president. I also ask if policies like universal health-care will have a negative effect on the economy. I also ask what building new schools will do to ensure that kids that don't care with parents that don't care will go to school. If you care to address these issues, fine, otherwise please save your rhetoric for someone that cares.

 

RTS...I believe you...but how many "anti-McCain" threads have you started in the last six months?

This thread is going to be all over the board in responses. :lol:

 

The initial post, RTS, has several different questions to answer:

 

Does Obama oppose reparations? The answer is yes.

 

How does Obama's comments about accounting for the discrimination in our history not mean he's for reparations? Being accountable doesn't mean being in a position to pay individuals a sum of money to each individual. It means accepting the responsibility, and admitting the wrongdoing.

Point is, he hasn't closed the door on a sum of money to each individual. If he does that, I'm in agreement with you.

 

Isn't Obama's statements indicating improving inner city schools affirming his support of reparations? No. After the accountability is accepted, the solutions he proposes assist in righting the wrongs of decades and decades of ignoring the problems inherent in poverty stricken inner city areas.

So, you're saying the government doesn't give inner city public schools money?

 

Will improving inner city schools make kids want to go to school? Well, I say that the liklihood is high, if there are serious attempts. From a capital standpoint, it will take more than a coat of paint. Some schools that are in old buildings may need to be moved to different facilities, or renovated extensively to bring them up to the level of facility that suburban schools. The emphasis on creating programs within the schools to emphasize not only college education, but career-exploration programs, and school-to-work programs. So, yes, if done right, improving inner city schools could make kids want to go to school.

If their parents don't care, the kid isn't going to either. I'd be willing to bet that the nice new school would look like the old school in a very short time as well.

 

Will improving inner city schools make bad parents good parents? Well, I guess on the surface, no. But, this is a plan for the future, not just for today. So, if you can create future parents that care about education even a little more than the current parents, it's a positive step. On a more immediate level, if there were programs at the schools to include the parents, or even offer them adult-education opportunities, it could possibly impact at least a small segment.

These parent's aren't going to give two hoots about some programs at the schools to include the parents, they're a lost cause. I agree, if you can reach the kids the future may be better, but that's tougher then you think and new schools won't be the cure, it's much deeper than that.

 

Creating great schools requires a lot of things, but the biggest is a sense of community and common goals, IMO. So, to that end, improving facilities, re-vamping the curriculum could indeed accomplish a great deal, if not today, over time. But, it has to start somewhere, and at some time. It's easy to say it is what it is, and that there's nothing that could be done. It's much, much harder to look to the future, and fight the battles now for the benefit many years down the road.

How do you instill a sense of community in those that don't even have a sense of self respect?

 

Better schools create a better workforce. If a joint effort can be made in improving the communities in which the schools are located, it again can lead to positive benefits in the long term. Too many people are willing to write off whole areas because of problems. Everyone wants to "get out". It's better, IMO, to solve the problems than to let them fester unchecked and continue to erode the community than it is to just move.

If is a might big word, RM. While I would love to see all of this happen, it's just not realistic. You're dealing with people that just don't care, regardless of what you're willing to do for them. Many of them have no sense of pride, right or wrong or respect (be it for themselves or others) along with many other rejections to a civilized community. How do you help people that just don't care?

RTS...I believe you...but how many "anti-McCain" threads have you started in the last six months?

That's because we only have two choices, McCain is the lesser of the two evils IMO.