Published: Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, 10:55 p.m.
I can't believe the National Education Association is endorsing Barack Obama for president.
When I was an educator, I believed teachers should try to instill students with hope for a bright future. But if Obama wins, the only future students will be offered is one of hopeless debt.
I tried to instill my students with a desire to better their lives, teaching that through hard work they could achieve their goals. And without hard work, nothing was guaranteed to them.
Students were encouraged to be proud of their successes. This same philosophy should apply to our nation's citizens.
With 47 percent of our nation not paying the federal income tax, maybe it's time to reward those who work hard and pay to keep our government going. Maybe it's also time for the NEA to remember some educational philosophies.
Good educators teach their students to earn success and achieve their goals. President Obama takes this drive away by penalizing those who achieve success by forcing them to share the wealth with those lacking this work ethic.
By removing this drive to succeed — and allow others to sit at home and wait for the government to provide for their needs — the incentive to work hard will diminish. This great nation would not be what our Founding Fathers fought to create.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Hunt where the deer are
- About time for Gilpin
- Handled it well
- ACA deserves support
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- Harming, not improving
- Zubik is right
- Maybe problem is kids
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- Fuel tax increase
- Ferlo & Natrona