I'm not claiming it as my argument, but it's an accurate one nonetheless. As I said in a subsequent post, these bloated health care plans and pensions are unnecessary and corrosive.
The charter schools where I live do an exceptionally good job relative to their peers and I would recommend them to anyone.
Key Stone... you're so smooth. Keysianism is working out great, no doubt? Just wait...
Tinfoil wrote:
Charter schools do as you have to select to place your child in the lottery.
Which is just so tough to do. They don't get a better crop of students. They still have to split the students into "groups" based on literacy, etc.
Lottery is not the only way. Some parents just work harder volunteering outside of their normal jobs and get their kids placed that way.
Charter schools work. If they didn't, they wouldn't be cropping up everywhere and their wouldn't be so much demand. You could do away with the entire DOE and nobody would notice. That's what's scary.
they're... too bad I didn't go to a charter school.
Hasn't yet been mentioned, but I can think of a lot of unemployed teachers that would readily accept a job and have the choice of purchasing a competitive health plan on the free market, if such a plan were available through competition.
Tinfoil wrote:
When judging the merits of an argument the credibility of the source and their objective is of the utmost importance. To ignore this simple fact is very naive of you.
Nope. The facts and ONLY the facts are what is important. To ignore the facts and attack the messenger is very liberal of you.
Sagarin wrote:
Key Stone... you're so smooth. Keysianism is working out great, no doubt? Just wait...
For anyone paying attention to the facts Keysianism works better than the alternatives. If you ignore the facts and just spout ideology, Keysianism looks really bad.
A basic fact you cannot refute; since the country made the mistake of implementing components of the conservatives ideology the income levels of everyone below the top 1% have remained static or declined. In addition mobility between the income strata has drastically reduced.
What conservatives, including you, are proposing is basically this: "F**k over as many people as possible by reducing their pay and benefits, then we can afford to pay more of them". That's the core conservative mantra. If we can reduce everyone (except executives) to subsistence wages unemployment goes away. Since conservatives on the lower end have never been the brightest bulbs in the bunch they hold to the belief that if they keep their mouths firmly attached to the genitals of the upper class they won't get f**ked from behind. They don't realize they're still getting f**ked and just keep swallowing.
So if you ignore that fact that the article you linked to is at best a half-truth, you're still saying teachers deserved to be screwed. You and the rest of the conservative scum that pollutes this site feel benefits are "bloated" when it's people that work for a living, but "earned" by people that don't as represented by the financial sector. Today thanks to conservative principals those that contribute the least reap the most, and the American dream of working hard to get ahead is pretty much trashed.
What a legacy to brag about, and amazingly enough conservatives do.
Sagarin I suppose you support Michelle Obama's fitness and nutrition in schools initiative's then correct? Or are we supposed to let the free market take care of the food issues because I can't see how that has given us anything but diet related issues.
I have mixed emotions about this. On one hand I support unions because for SOME workers I still think they are necessary. For teachers though, I do NOT support unions. Might seem odd since I was a teacher at one time, but I don't believe college-educated teachers need the same kind of protection as a truck driver or welder for example.I also don't believe that generally speaking that good teachers will turn away from teaching. Teachers can and do make decent money, and the best of them do it because it is a calling for them, not because of the money they might make. Yes, many teachers who now have worse medical coverage are unhappy about that, but that's to be expected. If I had my way they wouldn't be part of a union at all and would get raises and so on just like everyone else has to go about getting them. At the same time though, I think schools should get even more money from taxpayers, and I don't like the idea of levies; taxes should just be set to pay for school like a sales tax is set. Our schools should ALWAYS have cutting edge technology and teachers trained to use that technology at all times, and no kid should ever have to attend class in a broken down building.Here in Ohio, we have an issue on the ballot (Issue 2) that if passed, upholds Senate Bill 5 which eliminates collective bargaining for teachers among other things. The problem is that bill affects more than just teachers. I can't support the bill based on the other types of employees it would affect. Also, the bill is backed highly by Republican Ohio governor John Kasich, and I don't believe he's a good governor for Ohio, so I'd have to be really adamant about something to agree with him on it.
Sagarin wrote:
This got real quiet as to how it came out. Well, here are the results. Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for Teacher's unions? The results are in. Some school districts went from a $400,000 deficit to a $1,500,000 surplus as a result. They are even hiring new teachers, not firing like the Liberals said would happen.
Why? It seems that the insurance company that provided all the "so-called" benefits to the teachers was an insurance company owned and operated by the teacher's union. Since the outfit was guaranteed to get the insurance business from the teachers, and the State had to pay for it (not the teachers) the insurance company was increasing annual costs every single year to become the most expensive insurance company in the state. Then the company was donating millions and millions of dollars to its favorite democrat politicians who, when they got elected, guaranteed to keep funding the union's outrageous costs. In other words, the insurance company was a "pass through" for Wisconsin taxpayer money directly to the democrat politicians. Nice racket, and this is the racket that is going on in every single State that allows collective bargaining. No wonder the States are taking it away.
Now the State of Wisconsin is free to put the insurance contract out for bids and, lo and behold, they have saved so much money it has turned deficits into surplus amounts. As a result, none of the teachers had to be laid off, everyone got a raise, etc., etc., and the taxpayers of Wisconsin don't have to pay more taxes to fund the union's political ambitions. If you weren't aware of the reasons Gov. Walker was fighting to take away collective bargaining, it gives you an idea of the problem conservatives have:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/07/wisconsin-schools-buck-union-cut-health-costs
So should I become a teacher or shouldn't I?
First of all, it's Keynesian or Keynesianism. The Keysian was a play on the smooth Key Stone. We have arrived where we are now because of cronyism in both the government and financial sectors that crosses both parties. That and a Federal Reserve that has exploited gluttinous, American consumerism by encouraging over-leverage by making the price and availability of credit less transparent. I have no interest in "screwing over the little guy," but I know that pensions, like those in the CINN states (our PIIGS like California, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey) were based on flawed actuarial assumptions that are still in place and will require massive haircuts to come. I pay a fair amount in taxes, make big charitable contributions, and don't live high on the hog, even as I could afford to. For some, there's the added luxury tax tacked on by contractors based on zip code that never gets mentioned.
If we reformed the tax code to broaden the revenue base without creating malincentives for corporations, improved our education system, incentived capital to come back to our shores, and started on a scalable energy infrastructure tomorrow, we could create millions of white and blue collar jobs. But we have no interest in doing that. Instead, we want to subsidize fat people, adopt a European model when that model is breaking down rapidly, and further misallocate tax dollars as per TARP and the stimulus. This was no ordinary recession. It was some 30 years in the making. Rogoff's study is a minimum read for you Key Stone. We're at the point of no return, and more debt isn't the solution, as it would be in an ordinary recession.
The party's just getting started and it's global.
Sagarin wrote:
Which is just so tough to do. They don't get a better crop of students. They still have to split the students into "groups" based on literacy, etc.
Lottery is not the only way. Some parents just work harder volunteering outside of their normal jobs and get their kids placed that way.
Charter schools work. If they didn't, they wouldn't be cropping up everywhere and their wouldn't be so much demand. You could do away with the entire DOE and nobody would notice. That's what's scary.
Choosing to enter the charter school lottery shows initiative and some level of interest in education on the part of parents You still have a selection problem.
I have heard some real horror stories from friends who work at charter schools, too. One school stopped paying teachers halfway through the year and then acted shocked when they started to quit.
Many charter schools probably do a wonderful job, but many don't.
Awesomeness... wrote:
Sagarin I suppose you support Michelle Obama's fitness and nutrition in schools initiative's then correct? Or are we supposed to let the free market take care of the food issues because I can't see how that has given us anything but diet related issues.
That's the one thing I really like about Michelle Obama, as I've said on this site before. We could solve a lot of our economic problems based on revamping healthcare alone. However, it's also going to require personal accountability. That's what's lacking, a system which incentivizes that.
Sagarin, I expect a lot better from you...
First, you say that the Madison protests were "violent and disgusting." Where's your proof? Because, if I recall every instance of property damage and violence ended out being much less of a deal than the media initially claimed.
These are teachers for christ-sakes. Not Phillies fans.
Second, the issue was about collective bargaining - nothing else. The teachers union agreed to all cuts except to their right to collectively bargain. This is why they protested.
Your mischarachterization that Walker saved money by killing bargaining rights off is simply wrong. The savings would have come anyway.
As to your comment about "cadilac pension plans" I suggest you read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Retirement-Heist-Companies-Plunder-American/dp/1591843332
Mr. Price, the media mischaraterized a lot of things about Walker and the incident. You conveniently forget the organized mafia that decided to boycott any and all business that wouldn't participate and the subsequent to attempt to overturn Walker's negotiated package through the legal bureaucracy, hardly an "agreement" to all cuts. Flagpole has one of the best takes on this, and I actually agree with him when it comes to some very dangerous, blue-collar jobs, but not on all of it. What's a governor to do? Ohio was absolutely bleeding jobs before and Kasich, whether you like him or not, has a plan to stymie the bloodletting. The whole deterrent to the right to work state is ridiculous. There's a reason why companies are largely migrating southward and away from higher tax districts.
Sagarin wrote:
If we reformed the tax code to broaden the revenue base without creating malincentives for corporations, improved our education system, incentived capital to come back to our shores, and started on a scalable energy infrastructure tomorrow, we could create millions of white and blue collar jobs. But we have no interest in doing that. Instead, we want to subsidize fat people, adopt a European model when that model is breaking down rapidly, and further misallocate tax dollars as per TARP and the stimulus. This was no ordinary recession. It was some 30 years in the making. Rogoff's study is a minimum read for you Key Stone. We're at the point of no return, and more debt isn't the solution, as it would be in an ordinary recession.
Oh please. How can you believe that nonsense, particularly when most if it is just a flat out lie. You and your cronies didn't give a rip about the debt, or consumerism or any of that until you weren't in power. You're nothing but a conman ginning up a crisis. You've clearly never worked an honest job in your life or what's happening would really piss you off.
A simple look at history and a passing knowledge of economics will should you that there has NEVER been a nation that successfully used austerity to grow out of a crisis. NEVER. So what you're saying is you know your solution has failed each and every time, and been proven to have never worked in all of history, but you want to give it one more go. Now honestly, what would you call someone that suggested that?
Now the Rogoff study is basically more ideological clap-trap that conservatives swallow like Linda Lovelace. It ignores that fact that concentrating just on debt stunts growth, and growth is the fastest way to get out of debt. You need look no farther that Ireland to see how quickly what conservatives are proposing can quash a recovering economy. Sure, using a few scary numbers sounds impressive, but it's not a solution. The conservative's solution is "you have pain from a broken leg, so take this painkiller and since my leg isn't broken then both of us will be pain free and better off".
As far as you having no interest in "screwing over the little guy" that's exactly what you're proposing so clearly you're interested and it's pretty much the only thing you and other conservatives care about. When you have an honest job you should be expected to get rewarded for your hard work, but you're clearly against that, so if that's not "screwing over the little guy" I don't know what is.
Fishing Instructor wrote:
For your consideration, this article that takes a critical look at your source:
http://veracitystew.com/2011/07/27/a-bakers-dozen-lies-the-walker-was-right-viral-email/
Sagarin wrote:
I'm not claiming it as my argument, but it's an accurate one nonetheless. As I said in a subsequent post, these bloated health care plans and pensions are unnecessary and corrosive.
Perhaps you were responding to someone else. The article I linked indicates that the Washington Examiner article takes great liberties with the facts. I can't say that I've verified the claims in my link, but it gives sufficient details that anyone so inclined could do so. In this context your statement "it's an accurate one nonetheless" is ideology and not a clear logical conclusion. It's disappointing that you opened the thread with what appears to be a propaganda piece.
Sagarin, your stupidity is given away in your first few sentences when you say "Remember the violent and disgusting demonstrations over Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doing away with collective bargaining for Teacher's unions?"
I remember the demonstrations. I live in Madison and took part in most of them. They were not violent at all. In fact, if you go to the Wikipedia article on the protests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_protests) the only use of the term "violence" is when it describes how prosecutor Carlos Lam from Indiana suggested that Governor Walker should mount a false flag operation that would make it appear as if the protesters were being violent (for which he subsequently resigned).
Or perhaps you were thinking of the violence depicted by Fox News. Oh, wait. That was a clip of protesters from California with palm trees in the background (see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOzerRfB27o
.
Also, the protests were about far more than "collective bargaining for teachers unions". Even though I was protesting against much of what Scott Walker and the republicans were doing, I am not necessarily opposed to some of the ideas and actions being pushed forward. However, you obviously know little about the whole situation. I'd suggest doing some research before posting next time.
If you live by the sword then you die by the sword. Walker 100% deserves the flack he's received - even if he was mischarachterized. He didn't campaign on breaking public-sector unions, but he definately made it his first priority. Then there's the way he approached it. Cuomo (in New York) is essentially doing the same thing. The difference? Walker was an inflamatory prick. Cuomo hasn't been.
Hell, even Kaisch was less inflamitory.
I can't blaim the attempt to overturn the negotiated package; Walker came out guns blazing. There wasn't an indication he was interested in a deal from the get-go so they fought him.
Need more proof? Look at his plan to "balance" the State budget. Basically, every cent that was to be saved by eliminating collective barganing (which is seperate from actual, ledger-item savings anyway) would have been ruined by his tax-cut program.
Talk about the Laffer Curve all you want, but tax cuts only do so much to stimulate growth. And, evicerating your state's revenue stream won't fix the defecit either.
I'm open to talk about the relative merits of right-to-work vs. unionized states, but in Scott Walkers case? The guy mishandled this from the beginning and provided no indication that his primary concern was the budget.
This is not Sagarin's finest day on letsrun. You can usually count on him for reasonable conservative takes. Maybe he had a bit too much coffee when he posted this one. Sagarin, I'll let you take a mulligan on this one (when you are in a hole, the smart move is to stop digging.)