05-09-2016, 04:18 PM
05-09-2016, 04:23 PM
Instructional Expenditures account for about 60% of spending. Spending also varies widely by state, with places like New York (the highest) being much higher than places like Utah (the lowest). New York spends more than 3x per pupil than Utah does.
05-09-2016, 04:50 PM
Quote:First off, Switzerland spends more. Jj was wrong, once again...
Second of all, the costs of education are not winding up in the hands of labor-- the problem lies with management, not the teachers.
I know most would like to think that the union is colluding with the politicians, but that's simply not happening.
The politicians don't give one rat's Heineken about the public service workers. They are too busy making deals with those that can grease their palms.
In the case of education, I'd look towards the book publishers, test creators, and the private companies that are being contracted by the different government education agencies. That's where the waste, corruption, and collusion is occurring.
Scapegoating the teachers is a defection in order to confuse the public on what is really happening.
You mean books like this? After all, it's "educational" material.
I'm sure that the teachers unions are being reasonable. After all, to teach our little snowflakes is a demanding job that deserves an 8.5% salary increase among other things.
05-09-2016, 04:54 PM
Quote:We spend a large part of our educational budget on non-instructional items such as security, which other countries don't. That's why we spend more per student than most other countries.
Also, I'd say we've made quite a few advancements in technology. These things take time. The internet took many years to develop and come into it's own. Before long we could put a man on Mars. The development of robotic limbs has come a long way too, which will help amputees and paralyzed patients. And they'll be able to control these limbs with just their minds. A lot of developments have been in improving on technologies we already have. 3D Printing has really come a long ways.
Hmm... I guess that really worked. Maybe the answer is to throw more money at the problem?
05-09-2016, 04:56 PM
Quote:It would be interesting to see how the department of education's budget is broken down...
I would bet that the budget is probably higher on the salary end for the department. How did we ever manage education prior to the Department of Education? That's one of the biggest government entities that needs to go away.
05-09-2016, 05:07 PM
Quote:You mean books like this? After all, it's "educational" material.
I'm sure that the teachers unions are being reasonable. After all, to teach our little snowflakes is a demanding job that deserves an 8.5% salary increase among other things.
LOL, a list of books you don't like? A list that you cannot even provide a curriculum on as to why they would be used? Please.
Also, it's nice that you pull an outlier to make your case. I'll give you what the norm looks like all through-out the country right there in your back yard...
TALLAHASSEE – Florida Education Association President Andy Ford said he was encouraged by Gov. Rick Scott’s proposal for a pay increase for teachers, but said it was important to get a full picture of the salary situation for Florida’s school employees.
“A $2,500 increase in pay would certainly be welcome, but it’s important to put it in its proper context,” Ford said. “Teachers and other school workers lost 3 percent of their salary in 2011 and saw another 2 percent disappear when Social Security and Medicare tax breaks expired earlier this month. But this is a step in the right direction because investing in public schools and the people who work in them is the way to create the workforce of the future.” https://feaweb.org/gov-scott-wants-to-gi...-pay-raise
05-09-2016, 05:37 PM
Quote:LOL, a list of books you don't like? A list that you cannot even provide a curriculum on as to why they would be used? Please.
Also, it's nice that you pull an outlier to make your case. I'll give you what the norm looks like all through-out the country right there in your back yard...
TALLAHASSEE – Florida Education Association President Andy Ford said he was encouraged by Gov. Rick Scott’s proposal for a pay increase for teachers, but said it was important to get a full picture of the salary situation for Florida’s school employees.
“A $2,500 increase in pay would certainly be welcome, but it’s important to put it in its proper context,” Ford said. “Teachers and other school workers lost 3 percent of their salary in 2011 and saw another 2 percent disappear when Social Security and Medicare tax breaks expired earlier this month. But this is a step in the right direction because investing in public schools and the people who work in them is the way to create the workforce of the future.” https://feaweb.org/gov-scott-wants-to-gi...-pay-raise
Books that are "middle school" books. Is that really appropriate?
I'm all for increasing pay for teachers, don't get me wrong. Being a former instructor (although it wasn't kids) showed me how hard the job is. However, the unions are being unrealistic as far as the value of the position. They talk about pay all of the time, but fail to say anything at all about the other benefits (which is part of computing salary). The thing is, teachers are not held accountable for the results of their work, and unions seek to protect that.
Kids these days are taught "the answer" rather than "how to come up with the answer".
05-09-2016, 05:58 PM
Quote:LOL, a list of books you don't like? A list that you cannot even provide a curriculum on as to why they would be used? Please.
Oh no, middle schoolers might learn that people are *gasp* gay, and that it's okay. Oh the horror! Oh the humanity!
05-09-2016, 06:18 PM
Quote:First off, Switzerland spends more. Jj was wrong, once again...
Second of all, the costs of education are not winding up in the hands of labor-- the problem lies with management, not the teachers.
I know most would like to think that the union is colluding with the politicians, but that's simply not happening.
The politicians don't give one rat's Heineken about the public service workers. They are too busy making deals with those that can grease their palms.
In the case of education, I'd look towards the book publishers, test creators, and the private companies that are being contracted by the different government education agencies. That's where the waste, corruption, and collusion is occurring.
Scapegoating the teachers is a defection in order to confuse the public on what is really happening.
[BAD WORD REMOVED], there's a reason why the NEA is the second largest donor and give 97% to Democrats.
And the AFT is 6th and gives 100% to Democrats.
05-09-2016, 07:13 PM
Quote:Typical jj... Deflect, demean, dissassociate.
Defelct - You change the discussion the moment your pinned down and shown to be wrong.
Demean - you make personal insults to make yourself feel better. (I do this too, though, and at times I find the banter fun. So I'm not gonna call too much attention to that)
Dissassociate - Pretent that the point that was blown apart was not the point you were making...
I mean, come on, jj. What are you even talking about now in regards to the bolded?? We're clearly talking about the purchasing power of the dollar then compared to now. The purchasing power has gone down based on the neo-con supply side economic model. But again, once your exposed, you're gonna deflect and disassociate the topic in order to try and gain the upper hand, or wiggle out of being exposed for being wrong.
But whatever... Let's move on. Anchorman 1, jj 0... :-)
You don't like the minimum wage, but it's clear that its something Eisenhower (a sensible republican) was in favor of...
1.) you can't use Eisenhower as a reference and then use the numbers from the end of the great society as your benchmark.
2.) Going back to the dollar under Eisenhower, the economy was roughly 2.5 trillion in gdp at the time, its roughly 16.5 now. That's 6.6 times greater which correlates to a $6.60 dollar minimum wage in today's economy. Depending on the CPI calculator that you use the inflation adjusted number would be somewhere between 8.50 and $9.00. The average between the inflation adjusted number and the number indexed to GDP is roughly what we have now. If you want to make the case that you believe in a higher minimum wage then be my guest, but the idea that you can use Eisenhower as a benchmark to lecture conservatives as heartless is just disingenuous.
3.) the benchmark of a great economy isn't the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a floor that's set for the kid who can only say "Do you want fries with that but doesn't know how to work the fry machine yet. The idea that it's the driver or the lead indicator of economic success is just ridiculous.
4.) You decry SUPPLY SIDE economics, but leave out the fact that one of the reasons that laffer and his economic team designed what we currently call SUPPLY SIDE economics in the early 80s was due to the runaway inflationary trends created in mid 60's policies (that you champion). It was so bad that Jimmy Carter had to give a speech about trying to WHIP inflation and Ray Stantz had to pay 19.5% interest on a mortgage. Keynesian economics didn't prescribe a policy to counteract both runaway inflation and economic stagnation. Reagan says you're welcome.
5.) Most importantly, you can try and cherry pick about the average increase of the minimum wage all you want. you're undoing is what you don't say. As someone who FEELS THE BERN, you are in favor of an ever increasing state and taxing people at a rate high enough to pay for it. You don't mention the fact that at current we are in the middle of the largest government expansion in the history of man, underwritten by zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing which have contributed to one of the largest monetary expansions in history. I don't hear you running around shouting from the rooftops about the roaring 21st century economy. All of that money flowing from the printing presses and the banks of the world and yet in the 8 years of this administration we will never see 3% GDP growth and the labor force participation rate stands at historic lows. Now that's change you can believe in.
05-09-2016, 07:40 PM
Meanwhile, Captain Fourputt is out there telling college graduates that they are just lucky and can't achieve anything without the help of the federal government.
05-09-2016, 08:04 PM
I was shocked
05-09-2016, 10:02 PM
Quote:Typical jj... Deflect, demean, dissassociate.
Defelct - You change the discussion the moment your pinned down and shown to be wrong.
Demean - you make personal insults to make yourself feel better. (I do this too, though, and at times I find the banter fun. So I'm not gonna call too much attention to that)
Dissassociate - Pretent that the point that was blown apart was not the point you were making...
I mean, come on, jj. What are you even talking about now in regards to the bolded?? We're clearly talking about the purchasing power of the dollar then compared to now. The purchasing power has gone down based on the neo-con supply side economic model. But again, once your exposed, you're gonna deflect and disassociate the topic in order to try and gain the upper hand, or wiggle out of being exposed for being wrong.
But whatever... Let's move on. Anchorman 1, jj 0... :-)
You don't like the minimum wage, but it's clear that its something Eisenhower (a sensible republican) was in favor of...
You have no clue what "Neocon" means, do you?
05-10-2016, 06:54 AM
Quote:You have no clue what "Neocon" means, do you?
I think I use it pretty accurately. Where do you think I am describing them wrong? Is Ronnie Ray-gun not a neo-con? He certainly isn't an Eisenhower conservative. Neo-Cons are mostly focused on the war machine, but they are also small government, hacks as well now-a-days. I think my use of the term is not out of bounds.
05-10-2016, 07:01 AM
Quote:I think I use it pretty accurately. Where do you think I am describing them wrong? Is Ronnie Ray-gun not a neo-con? He certainly isn't an Eisenhower conservative. Neo-Cons are mostly focused on the war machine, but they are also small government, hacks as well now-a-days. I think my use of the term is not out of bounds.
neo-conservatives are war machine focused but they certainly are not small government focused at all. Neo-conservatives are of the Bush ilk they give us huge government programs like no child left behind, the first round of bank bailouts, and so on.
05-10-2016, 07:10 AM
Quote:What is highly unlikely to occur in 2016.
These individuals were elected President that were not affiliated with the Democrat or Republican party after they were created for $500, Alex.
Who was Millard Fillmore, <span>John Tyler and Andrew Johnson?</span>
None of those people were elected President.
05-10-2016, 07:53 AM
Quote:1.) you can't use Eisenhower as a reference and then use the numbers from the end of the great society as your benchmark.
2.) Going back to the dollar under Eisenhower, the economy was roughly 2.5 trillion in gdp at the time, its roughly 16.5 now. That's 6.6 times greater which correlates to a $6.60 dollar minimum wage in today's economy. Depending on the CPI calculator that you use the inflation adjusted number would be somewhere between 8.50 and $9.00. The average between the inflation adjusted number and the number indexed to GDP is roughly what we have now. If you want to make the case that you believe in a higher minimum wage then be my guest, but the idea that you can use Eisenhower as a benchmark to lecture conservatives as heartless is just disingenuous.
3.) the benchmark of a great economy isn't the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a floor that's set for the kid who can only say "Do you want fries with that but doesn't know how to work the fry machine yet. The idea that it's the driver or the lead indicator of economic success is just ridiculous.
4.) You decry SUPPLY SIDE economics, but leave out the fact that one of the reasons that laffer and his economic team designed what we currently call SUPPLY SIDE economics in the early 80s was due to the runaway inflationary trends created in mid 60's policies (that you champion). It was so bad that Jimmy Carter had to give a speech about trying to WHIP inflation and Ray Stantz had to pay 19.5% interest on a mortgage. Keynesian economics didn't prescribe a policy to counteract both runaway inflation and economic stagnation. Reagan says you're welcome.
5.) Most importantly, you can try and cherry pick about the average increase of the minimum wage all you want. you're undoing is what you don't say. As someone who FEELS THE BERN, you are in favor of an ever increasing state and taxing people at a rate high enough to pay for it. You don't mention the fact that at current we are in the middle of the largest government expansion in the history of man, underwritten by zero percent interest rates and quantitative easing which have contributed to one of the largest monetary expansions in history. I don't hear you running around shouting from the rooftops about the roaring 21st century economy. All of that money flowing from the printing presses and the banks of the world and yet in the 8 years of this administration we will never see 3% GDP growth and the labor force participation rate stands at historic lows. Now that's change you can believe in.
Oh dear... I don't even know where to start, or whether it's worth it or not... You're just gonna ignore what I say and just make up some more non-sense.
1st off, your "theory" on the laffer curve is cute and may garner you some nods of approval from your neo-con friends (wink wink, Malabar), but it's just not accurate. I mean, I have this theory called the Anchorman Curve. In the Anchorman Curve, you give all your money to me, and then inflation goes down, wages go up, the middle class grows, and women all want you. Yes, you specifically, JJ... See, just because I say something doesn't make it true, just because. Inflation went up because of the monetary policy started in the 60's and then exacerbated by Nixon, and then the great oil crisis came to head under Carter. So to blame it all on "liberals" would be foolish, but not beneath you. Kensyian economics actually models this issue. However, to say that the laffer curve was the only way to resolve this problems is ridiculous. Keynsian eonomic models and theories would have gotten us out of this mess just as easily, and probably with more benefits to workers. Reagan can put another coal on the fire of whatever perdition he resides with in. Millionaires and Billionaires can thank Reagun, I tell him to go kick rocks.
As for the minimum wage discussion... You're changing the topic. The miminum wage has been stagnant to getting lower in terms of dollars... That's the point. That's why your boy Trump thinks it needs to be looked at and possible raised. Obviously, minimum wage isn't the gold standard of how an nation/economy is doing. There you go again... Deflecting.
And as for government expansion under Obama... Care to elaborate? Or are you just parrotting what you hear on Fox News and your boy Hannity/Limbaugh? Federal employment under Obama has actually DECREASED!!!!
05-10-2016, 07:55 AM
Quote:neo-conservatives are war machine focused but they certainly are not small government focused at all. Neo-conservatives are of the Bush ilk they give us huge government programs like no child left behind, the first round of bank bailouts, and so on.
I gotcha... But I think most Neo-Cons also would call themselves small government... While I agree that the W. Bush era neo-cons are known mainly for thier pro-war machine stance. I think that they have always had a philosophy in small government as a dog whistle to mean stopping social programs, but increasing military might.
But I see your point. I just don't think I'm off base by using the descritor the way I did.
05-10-2016, 09:37 AM
Quote:Oh dear... I don't even know where to start, or whether it's worth it or not... You're just gonna ignore what I say and just make up some more non-sense.
1st off, your "theory" on the laffer curve is cute and may garner you some nods of approval from your neo-con friends (wink wink, Malabar), but it's just not accurate. I mean, I have this theory called the Anchorman Curve. In the Anchorman Curve, you give all your money to me, and then inflation goes down, wages go up, the middle class grows, and women all want you. (It's like RAINNN on your wedding day... It's a free ridddddeeeee when you're already late!)
Yes, you specifically, JJ... See, just because I say something doesn't make it true, just because. Inflation went up because of the monetary policy started in the 60's and then exacerbated by Nixon, and then the great oil crisis came to head under Carter. So to blame it all on "liberals" would be foolish, but not beneath you. Kensyian economics actually models this issue.
Two democrat administrations and one administration that pioneered abandoning the bretton woods system, founding opec, instituted wage and price controls etc. etc. and you want to blame conservatives? Good luck with that.
However, to say that the laffer curve was the only way to resolve this problems is ridiculous. Keynsian eonomic models and theories would have gotten us out of this mess just as easily, and probably with more benefits to workers. Reagan can put another coal on the fire of whatever perdition he resides with in. Millionaires and Billionaires can thank Reagun, I tell him to go kick rocks.
The laffer curve was the theory about optimizing revenue. That's actually not directly correlated to the idea of leaving more money in the private sector to stimulate the economy without direct devaluation of the currency or the inefficiency that plagues public works. 20 million jobs created tells YOU to kick rocks.
As for the minimum wage discussion... You're changing the topic. The miminum wage has been stagnant to getting lower in terms of dollars... That's the point. That's why your boy Trump thinks it needs to be looked at and possible raised. Obviously, minimum wage isn't the gold standard of how an nation/economy is doing. There you go again... Deflecting.
No, not getting off that easy. You called me out by name. You insinuated that just because i don't read or comment on every post in a thread that i am in some way DENYING FACTS. You did this based on a post about LIVING WAGE and how SENSIBLE Eisenhower was. a.) emotional qualifiers don't pass as fact. b.) I then pointed out to you what the minimum wage was with Eisenhower and then further elaborated that in reality our current minimum wage is mathematically in line with the rate under Eisenhower.
You can point out that it was higher in inflation adjusted dollars in 1968, but that negates the idea that Eisenhower's rate had anything to do with it!
And as for government expansion under Obama... Care to elaborate? Or are you just parrotting what you hear on Fox News and your boy Hannity/Limbaugh? Federal employment under Obama has actually DECREASED!!!!
You advocate more spending to drive the growth of the economy. We will have spent a greater percentage of GDP through the federal government than at any time in our history at the end of the current administration. Yet we will have never grown at a rate of 3% or higher... Who needs the nutmeg now brother?
05-10-2016, 09:43 AM
Quote:I think I use it pretty accurately. Where do you think I am describing them wrong? Is Ronnie Ray-gun not a neo-con? He certainly isn't an Eisenhower conservative. Neo-Cons are mostly focused on the war machine, but they are also small government, hacks as well now-a-days. I think my use of the term is not out of bounds.
Yep. You have no clue.