Cut taxes or spending? - Page 10

dalem · 06-17-2008, 20:45 PM

F*ck teachers. I'm tired of hearing about them.

-dale

rj1 · 06-17-2008, 21:19 PM

From the Financial Times:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Editorial comment - Facing up to a fiscal conundrum

Quote:

"When the US economic downturn began, the country’s fiscal position was already weak. The administration nonetheless proposed an emergency stimulus – mostly criticised as too miserly. Farther ahead, demographic pressures and the failure to curb rising healthcare costs (which drive up public spending on Medicare and Medicaid) make matters worse. Both presidential candidates are big on avowals of fiscal rectitude, but not on remedies. Their proposals on taxes and spending are quite different but have this much in common: if enacted, they would add mightily to the fiscal problem.

Before the economy slowed, earlier budget forecasts – admittedly unreliable at the best of times – had turned out to be too pessimistic. Revenues had proved more buoyant than expected, and the deficit had shrunk. Thus voters and politicians have come to regard all fiscal gloom as exaggerated. Congress and the administration are expected to voice concern but do nothing, and indeed to spring boldly to the economy’s support with emergency tax cuts when demand slumps. Sooner or later, this complacency will have to confront a painful fiscal reality.

In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, the deficit was more than $300bn, roughly $170bn bigger than in the same period last year. Only about $50bn of that deterioration was due to the stimulus tax rebates that began to be paid out this spring (another $50bn or so of those rebates is still in the pipeline). Most of the rest was due not to slowing revenues but to sharply increased spending, with rises across the board.

On the spending side, the future pattern will be the same, only more so. The Congressional Budget Office expects the cost of Medicare to rise from 2.7 per cent of GDP in 2007 to nearly 6 per cent by 2030. Together, Social Security and Medicaid will add another three percentage points. This puts the deficit on track to exceed 10 per cent of GDP by 2030, and 20 per cent by 2050, taking no account of the further increases in spending and new cuts in taxes that both candidates appear to be proposing. This path implies explosive growth in public debt: it is literally unsustainable.

Fiscal consolidation, unappealing though it may be as a platform, ought to be the organising principle for current political debate in the US. The country must start to get a grip on spending, or steel itself to pay very much more in taxes. The electorate and its leaders continue to flinch at facing, let alone making, this choice. It can be evaded between now and November, one supposes – but not indefinitely."

Before anyone harps on and says it's this party's fault or that party's fault, I've always believed what 1930s satirist H.L. Mencken once stated: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." It's everyone's fault. If you got off your ass and actually voted for politicians that would cut spending, we wouldn't have this problem. But no, our country is 99% full of retards that thinks raising spending by increasing education costs, Medicaid costs, and fighting a war overseas followed by a long occupation can be complimented at the same time by cutting taxes. And then that same 99% of the population that are retards thinks said man is actually a conservative. It's good to know our country would've been right at home with Jim Jones.

7thsfsniper · 06-17-2008, 23:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

California is trying to do that. The Governator wants a 10% cut across the board. Guess who opposes that? EVERYONE! No one wants cuts. Every single public employees union is up in arms. The worst being the teacher's union. We spend nearly $60 billion on education for the next fiscal year and the teachers have the balls to say we're short changing the kids if we cut education budget. I think we're short changing the kids by keeping these incomeptent teachers employed.

Sorry for the rant. I feel slightly better now.

Don't apologize Brother! Right here with ya'! Your just tellin' it like it is!

DaveinCoalinga · 06-18-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

California is trying to do that. The Governator wants a 10% cut across the board. Guess who opposes that? EVERYONE! No one wants cuts. Every single public employees union is up in arms. The worst being the teacher's union. We spend nearly $60 billion on education for the next fiscal year and the teachers have the balls to say we're short changing the kids if we cut education budget. I think we're short changing the kids by keeping these incomeptent teachers employed.

Sorry for the rant. I feel slightly better now.

Really? By any chance have you ever taught? Been in a school recently? Have any idea how those facts and figures break down? Understand how students' achievement is measured and manipulated and the political reasons behind it? If you are going to make a comment like that, at least know what you are talking about.

gunnut · 06-18-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

Really? By any chance have you ever taught? Been in a school recently? Have any idea how those facts and figures break down? Understand how students' achievement is measured and manipulated and the political reasons behind it? If you are going to make a comment like that, at least know what you are talking about.

I know one thing. CA is ranked near last in the union and our spending is near the top.

There is a law in CA that states the ratio of teacher to students should be 1:18. The theory is fewer students per teacher will increase the results.

Question: what was the ratio of teacher to students 30 years ago? It wasn't 1:18. We turned out pretty OK. So why is it that all of a sudden we need more teachers?

Answer: more teachers mean more members for the union. More members mean more voting power and more money.

DaveinCoalinga · 06-19-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I know one thing. CA is ranked near last in the union and our spending is near the top.

There is a law in CA that states the ratio of teacher to students should be 1:18. The theory is fewer students per teacher will increase the results.

Question: what was the ratio of teacher to students 30 years ago? It wasn't 1:18. We turned out pretty OK. So why is it that all of a sudden we need more teachers?

Answer: more teachers mean more members for the union. More members mean more voting power and more money.

While I don't have this years figures in front of me, California traditionally ranks in the mid 40s in actual spending per student.

Class size reduction puts a limit of 20 to 1 in K-3. There is no cap grade 4 and up, class sizes are usually 34.

Before Prop 98 and the court case Serrano vs. ??? (forgot the name) well off districts had more money than they do now. However, those two issues tore apart school funding making it all leveled. All that means is the state took money from the rich and gave to the poor. The majority of high performing schools lost a large amount of funding.

The dynamics of the schools have changed also. English language learners account for almost half of the students in California now. That changes the climate of the schools and those students are staying in school longer. They are not being kicked out or dropping out. (thats the need for the 20 to one. The state of California says that a student must be able to perform at a proficent or advanced level on tests within one year of entering a California classroom. Every bit of research says it takes 7 years. Our standards are also the hardest in the nation bases of California UC requirements.)

Even 20 years ago, only the actual college bound were taking SAT and ACT tests. Now almost all kids are wether or not they go to college. This puts a downward emphasis on scores.

The crisis in education is a manufactured crisis done by politicians and the leaders behind it. The people who are behind causing the crisis are the same people behind the school choice movement, you know those people with money who don't want to pay for private school for their baby geniuses. Besides by doing this it has given the federal government a reason to wrestle control of schools away from state and local control to control at the federal level. Now that is a huge waste of money.

Now then the case of comparing US schools to worldwide schools is a joke. Little Mikie with is solid D- average because daddy is in jail and mommy is stoned all the time and as such wanders around the streets with no accountability takes all the measurement tests in the US. Now in every other industrialized nation, only the top percentage are tracked into a college prep track and only those are tested for all the great stories you hear about how bad the education in the country stinks.

The problem with the California budget is the growth of the prison community. The percentage of residents has exploded since the 3 strikes, lock them up attitude came in. I will find the numbers and edit this post to show that. Now in this crisis the the Governator has made (California's budget was 100 billion when he came in it is now 150 billion+) prison spending is untouchable because the CO union has the state locked into a federal judges control. The law enforcement union has twice the members of the teacher's union and they are better funded. Besides they make better ads. Also Cali spends almost twice to house a prisoner than it does to spend on a child to educate them. And if I went to teach in a prison you know teach lifelong gang members to read I would double my teacher's pay plus a few bucks to around $110,000 a year. Thats using my pay and my nieghbors for comparison.

gunnut · 06-19-2008, 13:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

While I don't have this years figures in front of me, California traditionally ranks in the mid 40s in actual spending per student.

Class size reduction puts a limit of 20 to 1 in K-3. There is no cap grade 4 and up, class sizes are usually 34.

And what's wrong with 34 kids per class? I remember my classes were in the mid-30s. What why fewer students in the lower grades? Bring up that number and fire some unneeded teachers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

Before Prop 98 and the court case Serrano vs. ??? (forgot the name) well off districts had more money than they do now. However, those two issues tore apart school funding making it all leveled. All that means is the state took money from the rich and gave to the poor. The majority of high performing schools lost a large amount of funding.

Take money from the rich and give it to the poor. How noble?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

The dynamics of the schools have changed also. English language learners account for almost half of the students in California now. That changes the climate of the schools and those students are staying in school longer. They are not being kicked out or dropping out. (thats the need for the 20 to one. The state of California says that a student must be able to perform at a proficent or advanced level on tests within one year of entering a California classroom. Every bit of research says it takes 7 years. Our standards are also the hardest in the nation bases of California UC requirements.)

Stop providing education to illegals. At least we stopped teaching the illegals in their own language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

Even 20 years ago, only the actual college bound were taking SAT and ACT tests. Now almost all kids are wether or not they go to college. This puts a downward emphasis on scores.

Nah...I'm sure it's because SAT is culturally biased.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

The crisis in education is a manufactured crisis done by politicians and the leaders behind it. The people who are behind causing the crisis are the same people behind the school choice movement, you know those people with money who don't want to pay for private school for their baby geniuses. Besides by doing this it has given the federal government a reason to wrestle control of schools away from state and local control to control at the federal level. Now that is a huge waste of money.

I agree with part of what you say here. Those parents are already paying for their kids' education. In fact I'm paying for kids' education right now since I pay property tax, and other taxes, and I don't even have kids. Why should those parents pay for a service they don't use, and they pay again for the same service they want to use? Shouldn't they get a refund for not using a crappy service provided by the government?

I agree with the part about federal government having too much power in education. It was never intended in the constitution. Abolish the department of education at the federal level and return control to the states and counties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

Now then the case of comparing US schools to worldwide schools is a joke. Little Mikie with is solid D- average because daddy is in jail and mommy is stoned all the time and as such wanders around the streets with no accountability takes all the measurement tests in the US. Now in every other industrialized nation, only the top percentage are tracked into a college prep track and only those are tested for all the great stories you hear about how bad the education in the country stinks.

And I argue part of the reason is because we have this social promotion mentality where all kids are graduated by age, not by competence, which caused problems. We measure our system by the lowest common denominator. If we dared to hold some kid back or even discipline him, god forbid Jesse Jackson will show up and make it into a race issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinCoalinga

The problem with the California budget is the growth of the prison community. The percentage of residents has exploded since the 3 strikes, lock them up attitude came in. I will find the numbers and edit this post to show that. Now in this crisis the the Governator has made (California's budget was 100 billion when he came in it is now 150 billion+) prison spending is untouchable because the CO union has the state locked into a federal judges control. The law enforcement union has twice the members of the teacher's union and they are better funded. Besides they make better ads. Also Cali spends almost twice to house a prisoner than it does to spend on a child to educate them. And if I went to teach in a prison you know teach lifelong gang members to read I would double my teacher's pay plus a few bucks to around $110,000 a year. Thats using my pay and my nieghbors for comparison.

I agree with you here too. It's the powerful prison guard union driving up the cost. I knew there's a good reason why I don't like LE personel.

View Poll Results: Cut taxes or spending?
Cut taxes	5	11.36%
Cut spending	39	88.64%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists	Leader	Science & Tech	386	04-28-2008 09:32 AM
Pakistani Sovereignty	Ironduke	South Asian Defense Topics	47	02-05-2008 13:44 PM
Economic Survey 2005-06: overview of the economy Part I	Neo	Political Discussions	3	10-31-2007 09:19 AM
Beijing Accelerates Its Military Spending	Ray	International Defense Topics	2	03-05-2007 21:24 PM
has america lost its luck?	astralis	Political Discussions	71	11-15-2006 09:44 AM

06-17-2008, 20:45 PM	#136 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,765 Country:	F*ck teachers. I'm tired of hearing about them. -dale

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)