http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-walker-fights-retain-governorship-wisconsin-recall-010044710.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/scott-walker-fights-retain-governorship-wisconsin-recall-010044710.html)
Quote
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker retained his governorship Tuesday night, besting Democrat Tom Barrett in a race that was a referendum on Walker's decision to take on public employee unions.
Walker led Barrett, who was the governor's 2010 opponent and is the current mayor of Milwaukee, 61 to 39 percent with 25 percent of precincts reporting.
A Walker win is a huge coup for the tea party movement, which rallied tea partyers across the country, as well as for fiscal conservatives and reform-minded Republicans.
Walker was targeted last year for a recall by state and national labor groups, progressives, students and others who viewed his decision to push for an end to collective bargaining by state public employee unions as an attack on middle class America.
"Tonight, Wisconsin voters rewarded political courage," Republican Governors Association Chairman Bob McDonnell said in a statement. McDonnell highlighted Walker's efforts as an attack on the "status quo" and against "unsustainable entitlements and long-term fiscal liabilities" and hailed the governor's actions to close the state deficit, reduce property taxes and improve schools. "His actions have made Wisconsin stronger today, and tomorrow. And they have improved the lives of the citizens of Wisconsin."
:nelson:
bing bang boom
:yeah:
:nelson: and screw the unions. The Federal Govt needs to do the same.
:lol:
Quoteas well as for fiscal conservatives and reform-minded Republicans
Reform minded. lol, interesting term.
That's OK, Mr. Big Winner's on his way to being indicted within the next two weeks. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 05, 2012, 10:29:32 PM
and screw the unions. The Federal Govt needs to do the same.
Yeah, you drank the Kool-Aid ages ago.
LOL
Egg in the face of the Demoncrats just like the national party knew would happen and exactly why they begged the party in Wisconsin not to go through with it. Now the Republicans have a huge head of steam at a critical time.
I like it when bad people do stupid things :lol:
Public Sector Unions = Worst Idea Evah
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
LOL
Egg in the face of the Demoncrats just like the national party knew would happen and exactly why they begged the party in Wisconsin not to go through with it. Now the Republicans have a huge head of steam at a critical time.
Not really, the Negro Muslim sill has a major lead in Wisconsin; exit polls today have him favored by well over 50%.
QuoteWhat the Recall Today Is Really About
19By Ruth Conniff, June 5, 2011
The Obama campaign just released a Wisconsin Get Out the Vote video Titled "It's time, Wisconsin: Own Your Vote," it's a nice piece featuring a young woman narrator urging people to knock on doors and make calls and get people to the polls. Would have been a bit more effective if it came out BEFORE Election Day, but OK . . .
The President also tweeted last night that he is "standing by Tom Barrett" and that Barrett would "make an outstanding governor."
That didn't do much to stem the snide commentary on the fact that Obama has not visited the state. Even Scott Walker mentioned the President's tepid support, noting that he's been in Minnesota and Illinois recently, without ever crossing the border into Wisconsin:
To progressives, it seems downright lame that the Obama campaign did not take better advantage of the incredible, grassroots outpouring of democracy in our state over the last year and a half.
Despite conventional national media analysis that treats today's election as a horse race in a divided state, with equal passion on both sides, the Wisconsin recall is really a referendum on democracy itself.
In the immortal words of billionaire Walker backer David Koch, "We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin. We're going to spend more."
David Koch's group, Americans for Prosperity, recently poured $3 million into defending Scott Walker in the Wisconsin recall, putting more than 75 staff members on the ground to organize volunteers. AFP ran a bus tour of ten cities around the state, bringing AFP members from Illinois to hold rallies and canvass the state. Around the country, state AFP chapters are participating in Freedom Phone Banks to call Wisconsinites and urge them to "stand with Walker"--that catch phrase, developed by AFP, became Walker's ubiquitous campaign slogan--on yard signs and radio and TV ads all over Wisconsin.
On the other side are the teachers, the firefighters, the cops and snowplow drivers and ordinary middle class folks who started this whole thing when they reacted with outrage to Walker's plan to "divide and conquer" workers in our state.
It's true that our state is divided. Walker deliberately divided us. It is a winning strategy for the right to stir up resentment among insecure, nonunion workers against their neighbors who have better benefits and more secure jobs. But Walker and his billionaire backers don't offer them anything--just an ideology that says we need more tax breaks for the very rich, but we can't afford to continue giving public employees good health care and retirement benefits and job security in their public-service jobs.
Even when public employee unions agreed to all of Walker's cuts, he stuck with his plan to destroy collective bargaining power. That shows that this is a political, not a budget, fight.
The Americans For Prosperity line is that Walker needed to disempower public employee unions in order to balance the budget and create jobs.
But Walker did neither. He borrowed money to make it look like he had a balanced budget. And he compiled the worst job creation record of any governor in the nation.
The only part of his divide and conquer agenda he made good on was the divide part--stirring up resentment and animosity among ordinary working folks.
If he wins today, he will declare that he has achieved the conquer part, too.
But we will not be conquered in Wisconsin. This is our state, and we are not going to stop fighting for it.
Let's remember who started this recall effort and who it is really all about.
I got tears in my eyes yesterday as I drove past my own kids' teachers at Lake View Elementary School, standing at a busy intersection holding up their handmade signs. Kindergarten, first grade, second grade, third, fourth and fifth grade teachers were each holding up one letter of Barrett's name.
It reminded me that it was the Madison Public School teachers who led the walkout that triggered the massive, historic rallies in Madison a year and a half ago. We joined those protests, and my kids were wowed to see their teachers there.
When ordinary citizens poured into the Capitol building to protest the late-night, sneak-attack passage of Walker's union-busting "budget repair bill" in the state assembly, the governor had the building locked. But my kids' gym teacher wiggled through a first-floor bathroom window to join the other citizens protesting inside.
That incredible citizen energy is what brought us to where we are today.
This recall election is not about the Democratic Party. It is not about Tom Barrett. It is certainly not about the Obama campaign.
It is about Wisconsinites standing up against the hostile takeover of our government and our community by a radical rightwing network fueled by massive quantities of corporate cash.
The Democratic Party did not know what to do with this citizens' movement.
The 30,000 volunteers who ran the historic recall petition drive, and the 1 million Wisconsinites who signed those petitions, would make a formidable ground force for Obama in this toss-up state come November.
But the political consultants thought a recall election was a dangerous idea. What if we lose? The money on the other side is overwhelming. The latest figures show Walker outfundraising Barrett 10-to-1. The Governor's $30 million, 70 percent from out of state, and the support of well-funded, national rightwing groups like Americans for Prosperity, make a daunting foe.
What if the recall takes away resources from the Obama campaign? Under Wisconsin law, there was no way to ensure the election would happen in November, on the same day as the Presidential race.
So the political strategists shied away.
But the citizens were more concerned about what was at stake here in Wisconsin than they were about political consultants' plans.
That's why we are going to the polls on June 5, and the President is tweeting his tepid support from far away.
This is not about Obama. This is about us.
Every parent in this state who has a child in the public schools knows what's at stake, as we face the largest cuts to public education in our state's history.
Students at our great university and technical colleges know what's at stake. Walker cut our tech colleges by 30 percent. Coincidentally, the size of that cut was about equal to the money Wisconsin is losing since Walker reopened the "Las Vegas loophole"--a tax dodge that allows Wisconsin corporations to hide their profits in no-tax states like Nevada, and thereby avoid paying any corporate income tax at all.
Our model environmental protections have been slashed by Walker's DNR secretary--a rightwing hack from Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce who used to write a blog about the evils of regulation. She has presided over a historic drop in environmental law enforcement and recently allowed a friend at a company that dumped illegal levels of human sewage in a residential area, imperiling neighbors' health, to get away without being prosecuted.
And, of course, there is the criminal aspect.
The score so far in the John Doe investigation of Walker's closest aides and associates: 6 indictments, 15 felony charges, 2 convictions, 13 people, including the governor's spokesman, granted immunity.
Over the weekend we learned that Walker is likely the target of both state and federal prosecutors in a case that involves campaigning on the taxpayers' time, misuse of funds, and obstructing justice.
One of Walker's closest aides, Tim Russell, who has been implicated in some of the sleaziest aspects of the John Doe investigation, now appears to be cooperating with prosecutors.
Win or lose today, Walker may leave office under a legal cloud.
Win or lose today, the people of Wisconsin are going to keep on fighting the fundamental ideological battle of this election: money versus people in our democracy, solidarity versus the divide-and-conquer strategy that leads workers into a race to the bottom, clean and open government versus corruption and cronyism, protecting the environment versus selling it off, our future, our children's future, the future of our community.
We are in this fight because we have no choice. The stakes are too high. We are going to have to go ahead and make history, as we have been doing so well—and so much to everyone's surprise all along.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
Public Sector Unions = Worst Idea Evah
Explain.
I will let the 32nd President of the United States answer for me *ahem*:
QuoteAll Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
Public Sector Unions = Worst Idea Evah
Explain.
I don't mind the concept of a public sector union, but they need to be more reasonable and public-minded, like some public sector unions have a reputation for...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsD%2F4702-16148.jpg&hash=b5d759dc9f0886646ab942a7868caf1d5281a73e)
...unless that reputation is bullcrap. :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
I will let the 32nd President of the United States answer for me *ahem*:
I didn't know FDR fired the air traffic controllers. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2012, 11:07:45 PM
What the Recall Today Is Really About
19By Ruth Conniff, June 5, 2011
Nice effort, Alfred; but this crowd, much like most of the right, has been convinced for too many years that labor unions are a sinister socialist plot. After all, teachers, firefighters and highway administration diesel mechanics get into those businesses because of the obscenely lucrative benefits provided by the Comintern, giving them a life of enviable comfort and luxury, full of the finest meats and cheeses in all the land.
:lol: If the Comintern were picking up the tab for 84K/year we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:19:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2012, 11:07:45 PM
What the Recall Today Is Really About
19By Ruth Conniff, June 5, 2011
Nice effort, Alfred; but this crowd, much like most of the right, has been convinced for too many years that labor unions are a sinister socialist plot. After all, teachers, firefighters and highway administration diesel mechanics get into those businesses because of the obscenely lucrative benefits provided by the Comintern, giving them a life of enviable comfort and luxury, full of the finest meats and cheeses in all the land.
Some of them are also probably turned off by Strix's posts. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2012, 11:29:16 PM
:lol: If the Comintern were picking up the tab for 84K/year we wouldn't be having this discussion.
84K a year?
In Wisconsin? Really? Stop smoking so much dope.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Oh, man, have you swallowed the FOXNews bullshit hook, line and sinker. :lol:
Was Special Ed crying on MSNBC? :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2012, 11:36:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:19:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2012, 11:07:45 PM
What the Recall Today Is Really About
19By Ruth Conniff, June 5, 2011
Nice effort, Alfred; but this crowd, much like most of the right, has been convinced for too many years that labor unions are a sinister socialist plot. After all, teachers, firefighters and highway administration diesel mechanics get into those businesses because of the obscenely lucrative benefits provided by the Comintern, giving them a life of enviable comfort and luxury, full of the finest meats and cheeses in all the land.
Some of them are also probably turned off by Strix's posts. :P
Yeah, as a member of the Division of Parole and Probation, he's certainly raking in the mad quan, alright. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 11:53:58 PM
Was Special Ed crying on MSNBC? :lol:
Ed was surprisingly positive, fuck you very much. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:55:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 11:53:58 PM
Was Special Ed crying on MSNBC? :lol:
Ed was surprisingly positive, fuck you very much. :mad:
Delusional, you mean. He didn't even want to believe NBC's calling of the race.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 12:08:06 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:55:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 11:53:58 PM
Was Special Ed crying on MSNBC? :lol:
Ed was surprisingly positive, fuck you very much. :mad:
Delusional, you mean. He didn't even want to believe NBC's calling of the race.
Who ever wants to see an election called with 21% in? How do they figure out that math, anyhow?
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
LOL
Egg in the face of the Demoncrats just like the national party knew would happen and exactly why they begged the party in Wisconsin not to go through with it. Now the Republicans have a huge head of steam at a critical time.
I like it when bad people do stupid things :lol:
Public Sector Unions = Worst Idea Evah
I adore this new, anti-union Valmy. :wub:
May I say as a public sector employee - I've been in a union (or, well, been in a union shop where I declined to sign a union card), and I've been in a non-union government role, and being non-union is definitely preferable.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
I adore this new, anti-union Valmy. :wub:
May I say as a public sector employee - I've been in a union (or, well, been in a union shop where I declined to sign a union card), and I've been in a non-union government role, and being non-union is definitely preferable.
<_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Oh, man, have you swallowed the FOXNews bullshit hook, line and sinker. :lol:
Gotta call crap. Back in my home region, I remember growing up, hardly a year would go by without the local Teacher's Union implying a strike at every local ballot measure to raise property taxes for education.
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
May I say as a public sector employee - I've been in a union (or, well, been in a union shop where I declined to sign a union card), and I've been in a non-union government role, and being non-union is definitely preferable.
You also charge people trying to get their money back with extortion, so we already know what kind of fucked up priorities you have, foreign monarchist.
And where is MY union anyway, dammit. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Oh, man, have you swallowed the FOXNews bullshit hook, line and sinker. :lol:
Gotta call crap. Back in my home region, I remember growing up, hardly a year would go by without the local Teacher's Union implying a strike at every local ballot measure to raise property taxes for education.
Well, you can consider unions as much a part of your lost childhood as nation-specific toy army men, because they'll be gone soon enough, and you'll get the one-party political system you deserve.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 12:27:38 AM
And where is MY union anyway, dammit. :mad:
Do what Yi said as a solution from the other thread--start looking for another job. Sucker.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 12:29:55 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Oh, man, have you swallowed the FOXNews bullshit hook, line and sinker. :lol:
Gotta call crap. Back in my home region, I remember growing up, hardly a year would go by without the local Teacher's Union implying a strike at every local ballot measure to raise property taxes for education.
Well, you can consider unions as much a part of your lost childhood as nation-specific toy army men, because they'll be gone soon enough, and you'll get the one-party political system you deserve.
If public sector unions are the only thing propping up the Democrat Party (it's not, but I'll play), then the sooner that party dies and is replaced with a more relevant party, the better.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 12:29:55 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 12:26:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 11:30:27 PM
Unions, like corporations, are fine so long as they do not use their money and influence to corrupt the democratic political process. The Public Sector Unions cannot help but do so since that is their only function.
Oh, man, have you swallowed the FOXNews bullshit hook, line and sinker. :lol:
Gotta call crap. Back in my home region, I remember growing up, hardly a year would go by without the local Teacher's Union implying a strike at every local ballot measure to raise property taxes for education.
Well, you can consider unions as much a part of your lost childhood as nation-specific toy army men, because they'll be gone soon enough, and you'll get the one-party political system you deserve.
Wow, the purpose of unions is to prop up the second of our two party political system?
And there I was thinking it was to ensure fair working conditions for workers. Thanks for setting me straight Seedy!
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
:nelson:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fclassic%2Fyipi.gif&hash=fdbbb7f660d6d5517297aec7a5656151f08b7075)
:yeah: :showoff: :)
My fundamental problem with public sector unions is this. In the private sector, the unions negotiate with corproate management. Management has an incentive to lower costs and raise profits. Therefore, the negotiation is an arms length one.
In the public sector, the politicians in charge often collude with the unions. They have an incentive to give in to union demands in exchange for support in elections. Taxpayers become losers as no one in the negotiation process takes care of their interests. The "negotiation" is a farce.
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 12:47:22 AM
Wow, the purpose of unions is to prop up the second of our two party political system?
And there I was thinking it was to ensure fair working conditions for workers. Thanks for setting me straight Seedy!
As usual, you're speedbagging the wrong target, Sluggo.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Well, in this case there isn't anyone else to combat the communists. It's not like the Dems are going to take on the unions, right?
I am glad Walker stomped on the public service unions. His being supported by the "we all should get as much democracy as we can buy" crowd is pretty distasteful, but that doesn't change the fact that I think what he has done on this issue is a good thing. I don't accept that even if "crony capitalism" is worse, it is somehow connected to public service unions. I can and am happy to be against both of them (at least I think I am - I suspect "crony capitalism" doesn't really mean anything though).
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Well, in this case there isn't anyone else to combat the communists. It's not like the Dems are going to take on the unions, right?
I am glad Walker stomped on the public service unions. His being supported by the "we all should get as much democracy as we can buy" crowd is pretty distasteful, but that doesn't change the fact that I think what he has done on this issue is a good thing. I don't accept that even if "crony capitalism" is worse, it is somehow connected to public service unions. I can and am happy to be against both of them (at least I think I am - I suspect "crony capitalism" doesn't really mean anything though).
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:33:17 AM
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
So right to work states are all run on the basis of crony capitalism? :hmm:
Seedy: you're right. 84 is how much teachers make in NY. Wisconsin is 73K/year.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 01:46:51 AM
So right to work states are all run on the basis of crony capitalism? :hmm:
There is a noticeable correlation. Then again, the color of the state has so many correlations to various quality of life measures, that it becomes statistically very difficult to figure out what really leads to what.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:52:06 AM
There is a noticeable correlation. Then again, the color of the state has so many correlations to various quality of life measures, that it becomes statistically very difficult to figure out what really leads to what.
What are the observed outcomes? How does crony capitalism manifest itself? Governors hand over large portions of state revenue to rich donors?
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:52:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 01:46:51 AM
So right to work states are all run on the basis of crony capitalism? :hmm:
There is a noticeable correlation.
Link?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 01:46:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:33:17 AM
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
So right to work states are all run on the basis of crony capitalism? :hmm:
Seedy: you're right. 84 is how much teachers make in NY. Wisconsin is 73K/year.
Yi, you're actually close, 82k is the average public sector compensation in Wisconsin, vs 67k average private sector compensation.
The real reason the Unions fought so hard is the one they don't actually want to talk about: forced Unionization. Since Walker's reforms were implemented public sector membership has been cut more than in half in Wisconsin.
So Seedy, why should people to be forced to join a political organization as a condition of employment? Maybe we should force people to join the NRA? Or the Chamber of Commerce?
Too bad you don't believe in freedom of association, it doesn't go well with your brownshirt.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:52:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 01:46:51 AM
So right to work states are all run on the basis of crony capitalism? :hmm:
There is a noticeable correlation.
Link?
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/19/8423/grading-nation-how-accountable-your-state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#U.S._states_with_right-to-work_laws
Again, it's difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from this due to multicollinearity. So many phenomena which have two states overlap neatly with the blue/red state divide.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 10:59:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
Public Sector Unions = Worst Idea Evah
Explain.
No, he's right. Public sector unions should be forbidden. Just like in the USSR.
Your iwatchnews link doesn't work for me Guller.
I strongly supported Barrett but am glad to see the massive hubris of Wisconsin Democrats punished.
They should have waited until November, they deserve what they get for their stupidity.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Well, in this case there isn't anyone else to combat the communists. It's not like the Dems are going to take on the unions, right?
I am glad Walker stomped on the public service unions. His being supported by the "we all should get as much democracy as we can buy" crowd is pretty distasteful, but that doesn't change the fact that I think what he has done on this issue is a good thing. I don't accept that even if "crony capitalism" is worse, it is somehow connected to public service unions. I can and am happy to be against both of them (at least I think I am - I suspect "crony capitalism" doesn't really mean anything though).
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
What the really cool thing is, and what makes guys like Berkut jizz their teabags, is how Republicans can use public policy to outlaw and eliminated the only organizations that actively support Democratic campaigns with money, while Democrats have no equal ability to legislate away the corporations and special interests groups that fund Republican campaigns.
So while guys like Walker can use legislation to virtually eliminate the AFSCME in one year, unfortunately a Democratic governor can't use public policy to legislate away American Crossroads.
And in the world of
Citizens United, the only campaign money left will be Republican money. Yay.
Voters in California Approve Pension Cutshttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/politics/voters-in-california-approve-pension-cuts-results-suggest.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/us/politics/voters-in-california-approve-pension-cuts-results-suggest.html)
QuoteAs Wisconsin residents voted on Tuesday not to recall Gov. Scott Walker — who has become an enemy of labor unions nationwide — two California cities dealt blows of their own to organized labor.
In both San Diego and San Jose, voters appeared to overwhelmingly approve ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.
Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension reform measure, with almost 80 percent of precincts reporting. In San Diego, 67 percent had supported a similar pension reform measure, with more than 65 percent of precincts reporting.
"This is really important to our taxpayers," Chuck Reed, the mayor of San Jose, said Tuesday night. "We'll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for."
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 02:03:40 AM
So Seedy, why should people to be forced to join a political organization as a condition of employment? Maybe we should force people to join the NRA? Or the Chamber of Commerce?
Too bad you don't believe in freedom of association, it doesn't go well with your brownshirt.
I dunno, Hansy; would I get one of those shiny NRA decals?
Quote from: Phillip V on June 06, 2012, 06:05:31 AM
In both San Diego and San Jose, voters appeared to overwhelmingly approve ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.
Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension reform measure, with almost 80 percent of precincts reporting. In San Diego, 67 percent had supported a similar pension reform measure, with more than 65 percent of precincts reporting.
"This is really important to our taxpayers," Chuck Reed, the mayor of San Jose, said Tuesday night. "We'll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for."
[/quote]
Cool; can the San Diego government turn around and curb Kaiser Permanente's retirement benefits for its workers?
I dislike walker but loathe Ed Schultz and MSNBC. So a victory for me last night as Fatty had a look on his face that made me giggle.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
I dislike walker but loathe Ed Schultz and MSNBC. So a victory for me last night as Fatty had a look on his face that made me giggle.
Who would you rather see naked in your pool; Ed Schultz or Martin Brashir? It's Marty, isn't it? It's the accent.
So how much did each vote for Walker cost?
So a lot of what I'm seeing is that public sector employees shouldn't be paid very much because the sacred tax payer has to pay them. Do I get that correct?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:36:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
I dislike walker but loathe Ed Schultz and MSNBC. So a victory for me last night as Fatty had a look on his face that made me giggle.
Who would you rather see naked in your pool; Ed Schultz or Martin Brashir? It's Marty, isn't it? It's the accent.
Sharpton.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:42:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:36:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
I dislike walker but loathe Ed Schultz and MSNBC. So a victory for me last night as Fatty had a look on his face that made me giggle.
Who would you rather see naked in your pool; Ed Schultz or Martin Brashir? It's Marty, isn't it? It's the accent.
Sharpton.
Good choice. He's lost weight, you know.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:41:36 AM
So a lot of what I'm seeing is that public sector employees shouldn't be paid very much because the sacred tax payer has to pay them. Do I get that correct?
Pretty much, yeah. The teachers that babysit their snot-nosed little shits for 8 hours a day are apparently overpaid.
I'd also take Maddow naked in the hot tub.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:41:36 AM
So a lot of what I'm seeing is that public sector employees shouldn't be paid very much because the sacred tax payer has to pay them. Do I get that correct?
No. They are saying that pay for public sector should be somewhat fixed to thge private sector. Given the lack of opportunities for bonus', stock options, and promotion and advancement I think the pay has to be at least somewhat increased though. I've seen a bunch of positions here go unfilled for over a year because nobody is willing to take the massive pay cut needed to work for a public university.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2012, 06:55:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:55:11 AM
I'd also take Maddow naked in the hot tub.
:wacko:
Brains are a turn on. I'm sure you're aware of that, right? Right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2012, 10:53:29 PM
Quoteas well as for fiscal conservatives and reform-minded Republicans
Reform minded. lol, interesting term.
That's OK, Mr. Big Winner's on his way to being indicted within the next two weeks. :lol:
You and Charley Pierce can prep for your big circle-jerk, and when he doesn't get indicted, we'll all dance about on your graves, singing Hallelujah.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 06, 2012, 01:01:50 AM
In the public sector, the politicians in charge often collude with the unions. They have an incentive to give in to union demands in exchange for support in elections. Taxpayers become losers as no one in the negotiation process takes care of their interests. The "negotiation" is a farce.
Doesn't Walker's enormous victory shows that negotiating aggressively and destroying public sector unions
is popular?
Why would he be indicted?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 06, 2012, 07:23:04 AM
Why would he be indicted?
Why wouldn't the only governor with a criminal defense fund finally put it to good use?
QuoteThe score so far in the John Doe investigation of Walker's closest aides and associates: 6 indictments, 15 felony charges, 2 convictions, 13 people, including the governor's spokesman, granted immunity.
Over the weekend we learned that Walker is likely the target of both state and federal prosecutors in a case that involves campaigning on the taxpayers' time, misuse of funds, and obstructing justice.
One of Walker's closest aides, Tim Russell, who has been implicated in some of the sleaziest aspects of the John Doe investigation, now appears to be cooperating with prosecutors.
QuoteThe two-year-old corruption investigation into Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker reached a major inflection point just days before his recall election next week when it came out that Walker had transferred $100,000 of campaign money to his legal defense fund and seemed to acknowledge that he is the center of the probe.
In the final debate last night, challenger Tom Barrett repeatedly slammed Walker for his legal woes and for stonewalling the public. "I have a police department that arrests felons," the Democratic Milwaukee mayor said, "he has a practice of hiring them." He added, "I've been in public life for 28 years. No one on my staff has been charged with a felony, and I've never had a criminal defense fund."
So what is the "John Doe" investigation?
The term does not apply to a single anonymous person, in this case, but rather it refers to a secret evidence-gathering investigation, much like a grand jury. The investigation has been led by a DA and judge in Milwaukee, who has the authority to compel testimony, issue warrants and carry other law enforcement actions.
The probe reportedly started with a single staffer who had worked for Walker when he was Milwaukee's county executive, but it has since grown much larger, touching almost everyone who has worked for Walker, and even the governor himself, and producing several arrests and convictions.
Documents made public last night show prosecutors requested the secret investigation after they found Walker's office "unable or unwilling" to provide information. "It may be the county executive's office is reluctant to provide information to investigators due to a fear of political embarrassment," an assistant DA wrote to a judge in May 2010. Walker has maintained that he has cooperated with prosecutors all along, so the document casts doubt on his story of the proceedings. Asked about the stonewalling last night, he essentially called the report untrue.
Already, three aides who have worked for Walker have been charged, as have two of his appointees and a major donor. One aide pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts relating to work she did for Walker's gubernatorial campaign on county taxpayers' dime.
Two appointees were arrested for allegedly embezzling $60,000 from a fund that was intended to be used for veterans. They used the money instead for Caribbean cruises, wedding expenses, Walker campaign barbeques and other Walker campaign activities, prosecutors claim. They are awaiting trial.
The donor, Wisconsin and Southern Railroad Co. CEO William Gardner, was convicted of violating state elections law with excessive donations to Walker's campaign. He was sentenced to two years probation last year.
There have also been FBI raids on the homes and offices of aides and the seizures of computers. At least 13 aides have been granted immunity in exchange for cooperating with the investigation.
Walker, thus far, has maintained that he is not the target of the investigation. But under Wisconsin law, politicians can only use their legal defense funds for themselves or their staffs, and Walker said this week that none of the money from the fund would go to his staff, suggesting it would be used only to defend himself. Democrats seized on the comment as an admission from Walker that he is personally a target.
Walker had already contributed $60,000 to the fund — which comes from campaign donors whom he refuses to name — before this week's transfer, bringing his total legal war chest to $160,000. He claims the money is being used to help turn over documents to investigators, but some experts point out this amount of money suggests a more sophisticated legal defense representing hundreds of hours of attorney work. There are also email records suggesting that Walker was personally involved in trying to stem the bleeding when the first allegations came out.
Graeme Zielinski, the communications director of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which has tried to make the investigation into a campaign issue, compared the investigation to a Hollywood crime drama. "If you've seen the org charts in 'The Wire,' or whatever, they're going towards the head of the outfit, and Scott Walker is the head of the outfit."
"Virtually every single person that has participated in his public life for the past 20 years is implicated in this thing, and at its rotten core is Scott Walker," Zielinski told Salon. "Virtually every crime that has been committed or alleged has been done for the benefit of Scott Walker."
Walker's role in his aides' illegal activity is difficult to determine, in part, because the county executive office allegedly set up a "secret email system" that was "routinely used by selected insiders within the Walker administration" to circumvent the state's open records law, a criminal complaint charges. The router for the network was supposedly hidden in an armoire within feet of Walker's desk.
"The idea that Scott Walker did not know what was going on in a ten person office ... is absurd. It's not believable," Zielinski said.
Quote"The idea that Scott Walker did not know what was going on in a ten person office ... is absurd. It's not believable," Zielinski said
Gots to prove it. :moon:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:03:54 AM
What the really cool thing is, and what makes guys like Berkut jizz their teabags, is how Republicans can use public policy to outlaw and eliminated the only organizations that actively support Democratic campaigns with money, while Democrats have no equal ability to legislate away the corporations and special interests groups that fund Republican campaigns.
So while guys like Walker can use legislation to virtually eliminate the AFSCME in one year, unfortunately a Democratic governor can't use public policy to legislate away American Crossroads.
And in the world of Citizens United, the only campaign money left will be Republican money. Yay.
I wonder if you believe any of this nonsense you spout. Like Dems wanting to outlaw corporations.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:00:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:03:54 AM
What the really cool thing is, and what makes guys like Berkut jizz their teabags, is how Republicans can use public policy to outlaw and eliminated the only organizations that actively support Democratic campaigns with money, while Democrats have no equal ability to legislate away the corporations and special interests groups that fund Republican campaigns.
So while guys like Walker can use legislation to virtually eliminate the AFSCME in one year, unfortunately a Democratic governor can't use public policy to legislate away American Crossroads.
And in the world of Citizens United, the only campaign money left will be Republican money. Yay.
I wonder if you believe any of this nonsense you spout. Like Dems wanting to outlaw corporations.
What are you talking about? Dems wanting to outlaw corporations? My point is that it's is no longer a level playing field regarding campaign contribution machines.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 03:18:22 AM
Your iwatchnews link doesn't work for me Guller.
:huh: Still works for me. Not sure what the problem is.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:03:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:00:28 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:03:54 AM
What the really cool thing is, and what makes guys like Berkut jizz their teabags, is how Republicans can use public policy to outlaw and eliminated the only organizations that actively support Democratic campaigns with money, while Democrats have no equal ability to legislate away the corporations and special interests groups that fund Republican campaigns.
So while guys like Walker can use legislation to virtually eliminate the AFSCME in one year, unfortunately a Democratic governor can't use public policy to legislate away American Crossroads.
And in the world of Citizens United, the only campaign money left will be Republican money. Yay.
I wonder if you believe any of this nonsense you spout. Like Dems wanting to outlaw corporations.
What are you talking about? Dems wanting to outlaw corporations? My point is that it's is no longer a level playing field regarding campaign contribution machines.
Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.
Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?
Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations. Corporations are creatures of state statutes. If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.
There are alot of special interests, particularly corps since they really have to do so to protect themselves, fund both parties. Got to make sure whoever is in power has your back.
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 08:21:15 AM
Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations. Corporations are creatures of state statutes. If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.
Only the ones with no international existence though right? I mean the big corps have legal existence in, say, Canada as well right?
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:15:04 AM
Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.
Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?
What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.
Quote from: Scipio on June 06, 2012, 08:21:15 AM
Actually, Democrats can legislate away corporations. Corporations are creatures of state statutes. If the Dems wanted to nuke the economy, they could do away with corporations quite easily.
Can they legislate away Mssrs Koch and Karl Rove?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2012, 02:17:36 AM
No, he's right. Public sector unions should be forbidden. Just like in the USSR.
Well ok it doesn't really work if: a. everybody works in the public sector and/or b. there is no democratic process. I mean utlimately the public sector Unions have to obey what the elected officials of the people decide. If they decide the public interest means benefits have to decrease they cannot morally over-turn a democratic mandate with a strike.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:22:38 AM
There are alot of special interests, particularly corps since they really have to do so to protect themselves, fund both parties. Got to make sure whoever is in power has your back.
Doesn't matter after
Citizens United.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:27:27 AM
Well ok it doesn't really work if: a. everybody works in the public sector and/or b. there is no democratic process. I mean utlimately the public sector Unions have to obey what the elected officials of the people decide. If they decide the public interest means benefits have to decrease they cannot morally over-turn a democratic mandate with a strike.
Why not? Private sector workers can strike for greater benefits.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:25:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:15:04 AM
Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.
Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?
What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.
Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back. Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 06, 2012, 07:03:11 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:41:36 AM
So a lot of what I'm seeing is that public sector employees shouldn't be paid very much because the sacred tax payer has to pay them. Do I get that correct?
No. They are saying that pay for public sector should be somewhat fixed to thge private sector. Given the lack of opportunities for bonus', stock options, and promotion and advancement I think the pay has to be at least somewhat increased though. I've seen a bunch of positions here go unfilled for over a year because nobody is willing to take the massive pay cut needed to work for a public university.
I imagine that won't be that popular. If you fix state employee wages to that of the private sector in Missouri every state employee will get a huge pay increase. You certainly won't be a balancing any budgets with that.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:25:40 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:15:04 AM
Bolded for you. An irrelevant point if no one actually wants to do that. And would, of course be odd, seeing as how many of us are employed by corporations.
Besides, corporations don't have to be anti-Dem. Didn't Obama have to deal with a minor kerfuffle as he received many campaign contributions from Wall Street interests?
What I am saying is, you've got one side that can utilize the power of legislation to eliminate the other side's national campaign finance organizations, while the other side has no equal means to do so.
Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back. Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?
Democrats aren't in this business to make money.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back. Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?
Getting funding from organizations are mostly unnecessary? You mean, like Leo Linbeck's construction company in Houston funding GOP races in Ohio and Illinios? Like that?
LOL, and there you go with the "we" again. When it's all over and we have a one-party system, the Teabaggers will execute your homo minority ass. I sincerely doubt they'll acknowledge that you've supported the billionaires and fundies all along, ghetto Jew cop.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 06, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
Why not? Private sector workers can strike for greater benefits.
And more power to them. Though they are having a rough time of it these days, they need to globalize since the employers did but...wow that is a tall task with governments like China around...but I digress.
Private sector workers are striking against the owners and management of their employers...but the owners in the case of public sector employers is the people themselves and collective bargaining in this case allows a minority to dictate policy to a majority which is counter to democratic principles. This is the same reason I hope someday we can change how elections are financed, in a way the Supreme Court will like better, to prevent politicians from being so beholden to special interests. The way you support politicians is you vote for them, not send them cash, and the way you get the government to pay you more is get the population to vote in people who want to do that.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 08:34:35 AM
Democrats aren't in this business to make money.
Well they do a great job of it. Since when have the Democrats had troubles fund raising? They seem to do alright.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:38:56 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:32:07 AM
Then it sounds like the Dems picked bad organizations to back. Getting funding from organizations that are mostly unnecessary in this day and age sounds foolish. Why should we feel bad?
Getting funding from organizations are mostly unnecessary? You mean, like Leo Linbeck's construction company in Houston funding GOP races in Ohio and Illinios? Like that?
LOL, and there you go with the "we" again. When it's all over and we have a one-party system, the Teabaggers will execute your homo minority ass. I sincerely doubt they'll acknowledge that you've supported the billionaires and fundies all along, ghetto Jew cop.
Yes, unions are largely unnecessary as part of a historical trend. I've no idea if construction companies fit that same model.
Unlike you, I don't fear that the formation of one party. Seems unlikely.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 08:34:35 AM
Democrats aren't in this business to make money.
Well they do a great job of it. Since when have the Democrats had troubles fund raising? They seem to do alright.
Indeed. Just recently there was an article lauding Nancy Pelosi's fundraising efforts.
And even if one party did take total control history shows it will just split again. Vote Neo-Whig!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:03:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Well, in this case there isn't anyone else to combat the communists. It's not like the Dems are going to take on the unions, right?
I am glad Walker stomped on the public service unions. His being supported by the "we all should get as much democracy as we can buy" crowd is pretty distasteful, but that doesn't change the fact that I think what he has done on this issue is a good thing. I don't accept that even if "crony capitalism" is worse, it is somehow connected to public service unions. I can and am happy to be against both of them (at least I think I am - I suspect "crony capitalism" doesn't really mean anything though).
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
What the really cool thing is, and what makes guys like Berkut jizz their teabags, is how Republicans can use public policy to outlaw and eliminated the only organizations that actively support Democratic campaigns with money, while Democrats have no equal ability to legislate away the corporations and special interests groups that fund Republican campaigns.
So while guys like Walker can use legislation to virtually eliminate the AFSCME in one year, unfortunately a Democratic governor can't use public policy to legislate away American Crossroads.
And in the world of Citizens United, the only campaign money left will be Republican money. Yay.
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Arguing with you about the use of unions preserving workplace conditions and benefits is useless with your Libertarian let-em-find-their-own-retirement-in-the-wild ass, anyway.
So yeah, the bigger picture here is about the equilibrium of the political system.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 08:34:35 AM
Democrats aren't in this business to make money.
Well they do a great job of it. Since when have the Democrats had troubles fund raising? They seem to do alright.
They're trailing astronomically in the SuperPAC race, and you know it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Arguing with you about the use of unions preserving workplace conditions and benefits is useless with your Libertarian let-em-find-their-own-retirement-in-the-wild ass, anyway.
So yeah, the bigger picture here is about the equilibrium of the political system.
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 08:34:35 AM
Democrats aren't in this business to make money.
Well they do a great job of it. Since when have the Democrats had troubles fund raising? They seem to do alright.
You missed the point. They aren't taking causes of the richest people out there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Arguing with you about the use of unions preserving workplace conditions and benefits is useless with your Libertarian let-em-find-their-own-retirement-in-the-wild ass, anyway.
So yeah, the bigger picture here is about the equilibrium of the political system.
Right, so the issue is about protecting the system of using Unions to circumvent the political process. Gotcha.
Good riddance - double good riddance in fact.
We get rid of the problem of not being able to afford to ridiculously over-pay a minority of the population, AND the problem that in return for being over-payed, they agree to politically support those willing to overpay them the most.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:53:28 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:42:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 06:36:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
I dislike walker but loathe Ed Schultz and MSNBC. So a victory for me last night as Fatty had a look on his face that made me giggle.
Who would you rather see naked in your pool; Ed Schultz or Martin Brashir? It's Marty, isn't it? It's the accent.
Sharpton.
Good choice. He's lost weight, you know.
RESIST WE MUCH
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
And even if one party did take total control history shows it will just split again. Vote Neo-Whig!
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Arguing with you about the use of unions preserving workplace conditions and benefits is useless with your Libertarian let-em-find-their-own-retirement-in-the-wild ass, anyway.
So yeah, the bigger picture here is about the equilibrium of the political system.
And the "equilibrium" is best preserved by forcing workers to subsidize one side against their will? Yeah, that's a vote of confidence in your side. :lmfao:
I guess to preserve democracy we have to force people to associate with one party against their will.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:02:48 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
Ahhh, so this isn't about the employees of the unions at all, but about preserving the power of unions to get your favorite politicians elected.
The irony of this being cast as a battle for the principles of democracy is really quite amusing.
Arguing with you about the use of unions preserving workplace conditions and benefits is useless with your Libertarian let-em-find-their-own-retirement-in-the-wild ass, anyway.
So yeah, the bigger picture here is about the equilibrium of the political system.
And the "equilibrium" is best preserved by forcing workers to subsidize one side against their will? Yeah, that's a vote of confidence in your side. :lmfao:
I guess to preserve democracy we have to force people to associate with one party against their will.
Wait, are you talking about Unions or Corporations?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
Quote"The idea that Scott Walker did not know what was going on in a ten person office ... is absurd. It's not believable," Zielinski said
Gots to prove it. :moon:
If I remember right Walker reported the crime in the first place and prosecutors have already said that Walker is not a target of the investigation.
I was wondering why Seedy sounds more and more retarded, now we know that he gets his news from MSNBC.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:01:00 AM
Right, so the issue is about protecting the system of using Unions to circumvent the political process. Gotcha.
Good riddance - double good riddance in fact.
We get rid of the problem of not being able to afford to ridiculously over-pay a minority of the population, AND the problem that in return for being over-payed, they agree to politically support those willing to overpay them the most.
How do unions circumvent the political process? Political contributions are legal, aren't they?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
And even if one party did take total control history shows it will just split again. Vote Neo-Whig!
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Yes because everyone in America will be forced to become a Republican. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:06:51 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:01:00 AM
Right, so the issue is about protecting the system of using Unions to circumvent the political process. Gotcha.
Good riddance - double good riddance in fact.
We get rid of the problem of not being able to afford to ridiculously over-pay a minority of the population, AND the problem that in return for being over-payed, they agree to politically support those willing to overpay them the most.
How do unions circumvent the political process? Political contributions are legal, aren't they?
Well I think Valmy had a good point as far as public sector unions subverting the political process by threatening to strike and thus undermining the power of elected officials to control their pay/benefits.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:33:17 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:07:06 AM
I'll say the same thing I said when the shit originally hit the fan. Public employee unions are bad, but crony capitalism is worse. If the cost of crushing the first is to further empower the second, it's a bad trade. It's like supporting Nazis to combat communism.
Well, in this case there isn't anyone else to combat the communists. It's not like the Dems are going to take on the unions, right?
I am glad Walker stomped on the public service unions. His being supported by the "we all should get as much democracy as we can buy" crowd is pretty distasteful, but that doesn't change the fact that I think what he has done on this issue is a good thing. I don't accept that even if "crony capitalism" is worse, it is somehow connected to public service unions. I can and am happy to be against both of them (at least I think I am - I suspect "crony capitalism" doesn't really mean anything though).
It is connected because the two are moneyed interests at odds with each other. If you destroy one, the other one gets more power. You seem to think, almost to the point of assumption, that unions are the worst evil, and should be defeated regardless of who you have to ally with.
No, I think unions are a pretty bad evil, and don't agree that destroying them means that whatever power they had automatically goes to some other evil.
There are lots of states that are NOT dominated by very powerful public sector unions, and I don't buy your assumption that they must therefore all be in the pockets of "crony capitalism". That is a pretty difficult claim to evidence I think.
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent because the ONLY alternative is this undefined "crony capitalism" might be the weakest argument I have ever seen for maintaining unions.
I think we are better off noting that public sector unions are bad, so lets get rid of them.
We should also note that massive funding of politicians via corporate interests is bad as well, and something should be done about that. Of course, much has been tried there, without much success.
Of course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
The reverse is not true, or rather, if it is true, it would just make the problem worse if the "solution" to Democratic domination of public sector unions in their historical "pay for votes" scheme were to be combated by the Republicans just doing the same. Then we would have political parties competing with one another to woo the union votes and organization, making them even more powerful and impossible to fund.
This is a case where the political parties alignments have resulted in the Republicans being on the right side of the issue, and the Dems on the wrong side. That helped the Dems for a very long time, and now it is not.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:07:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
And even if one party did take total control history shows it will just split again. Vote Neo-Whig!
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Yes because everyone in America will be forced to become a Republican. :P
Looks like they can get the black gays.
Wiconsin version of Seedy crying about the election last night:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/voter-cries-over-wi-recall-on-cnn-signaling-death-of-democracy-%E2%80%98end-of-usa-as-we-know-it%E2%80%99/
"We got oot-spent!" :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:11:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:07:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:45:12 AM
And even if one party did take total control history shows it will just split again. Vote Neo-Whig!
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Yes because everyone in America will be forced to become a Republican. :P
Looks like they can get the black gays.
Only since I moved to New York. Before the Dems had me. :)
B.S.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 09:12:03 AM
Wiconsin version of Seedy crying about the election last night:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/voter-cries-over-wi-recall-on-cnn-signaling-death-of-democracy-%E2%80%98end-of-usa-as-we-know-it%E2%80%99/
"We got oot-spent!" :lol:
:lol:
I'd bet many in our proud union couldn't pick Wisconsin out on a map.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:59:20 AM
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Slashing $1.85 billion from the Wisconsin education system, yeah, I'd say workplace conditions are deteriorating.
I hope that all of you will tell the clerk at the DMV why they shouldn't have the freedom association.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:14:02 AM
B.S.
It is true though. I first registered to vote as a Dem and voted for several Dems in local elections as well as many socially liberal ballot measures (of which we had an endless supply). That didn't stop me though for voting for a Republican governor or President. Now in New York, while I've been registered as a Republican, I've not actually voted for anyone. :D
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:05:27 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2012, 07:52:53 AM
Quote"The idea that Scott Walker did not know what was going on in a ten person office ... is absurd. It's not believable," Zielinski said
Gots to prove it. :moon:
If I remember right Walker reported the crime in the first place and prosecutors have already said that Walker is not a target of the investigation.
I was wondering why Seedy sounds more and more retarded, now we know that he gets his news from MSNBC.
Even worse, he wants to nail Madcow :yuk:
Yeah, you are a GOPTard just like Berkut.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I hope that all of you will tell the clerk at the DMV why they shouldn't have the freedom association.
If I were to give them advice, I'd advise them to find a job that they actually enjoy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:59:20 AM
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Slashing $1.85 billion from the Wisconsin education system, yeah, I'd say workplace conditions are deteriorating.
What was slashed was the Union negotiated health care plans. The Unions negotiated for the State to buy health insurance from the Union itself, grossly overpriced for what was provided in order to create a slush fund for the Union leadership. By getting out of this corrupt arraingement school districts have been able to increase spending on actual education.
Your arguments are pathetic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:59:20 AM
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Slashing $1.85 billion from the Wisconsin education system, yeah, I'd say workplace conditions are deteriorating.
We're in the age of budgets being slashed. That on its own is not compelling. Gimme some human interest.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
Of course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
Except that, well, billionaires and corporations don't traditionally the Democratic Party. Gotta have those tax cuts, regulatory relaxation, and lack of accountability to the public, you know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
Of course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
Except that, well, billionaires and corporations don't traditionally the Democratic Party. Gotta have those tax cuts, regulatory relaxation, and lack of accountability to the public, you know.
Don't the Dems excel at the latter? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I hope that all of you will tell the clerk at the DMV why they shouldn't have the freedom association.
If I were to give them advice, I'd advise them to find a job that they actually enjoy.
Perhaps you can advice them to be born wealthy as well.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
Of course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
Except that, well, billionaires and corporations don't traditionally the Democratic Party. Gotta have those tax cuts, regulatory relaxation, and lack of accountability to the public, you know.
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
You are a fucking moron.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:22:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I hope that all of you will tell the clerk at the DMV why they shouldn't have the freedom association.
If I were to give them advice, I'd advise them to find a job that they actually enjoy.
Perhaps you can advice them to be born wealthy as well.
I think hands-down, DMV employees are some of the most disgruntled individuals I've ever met. But then their gov't cushion gives them the leeway to be down right terrible.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:22:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:17:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:15:14 AM
I hope that all of you will tell the clerk at the DMV why they shouldn't have the freedom association.
If I were to give them advice, I'd advise them to find a job that they actually enjoy.
Perhaps you can advice them to be born wealthy as well.
I think hands-down, DMV employees are some of the most disgruntled individuals I've ever met. But then their gov't cushion gives them the leeway to be down right terrible.
What about the ones that don't have a "gov't cushion"? Like in Missouri?
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:59:20 AM
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Slashing $1.85 billion from the Wisconsin education system, yeah, I'd say workplace conditions are deteriorating.
What was slashed was the Union negotiated health care plans. The Unions negotiated for the State to buy health insurance from the Union itself, grossly overpriced for what was provided in order to create a slush fund for the Union leadership. By getting out of this corrupt arraingement school districts have been able to increase spending on actual education.
There isn't $1.85 billion in health care costs for Wisconsin teachers. :lol:
And no, the school districts have not increased spending on "actual" education, what with the voucher program eliminating $71 million to Milwaukee public schools alone. But that's where all the niggers live, so it's OK.
Quote
Your arguments are pathetic.
I've missed you cranking up your Bill O'Reilly Ad Hom n' Hyperbole Machine(tm) You've been deployed far too long. :hug:
Meh, I don't have any kids going to school in Wisconsin anyway.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
You are a fucking moron.
See above post. :hug:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Except it wouldn't work that way. The splinters would have to cater to the same interests that used to support the Democrats. Because somebody is going to get those votes....
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
Crap Hans said something I agree with completely :weep:
I suddenly feel pangs of self doubt.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Except it wouldn't work that way. The splinters would have to cater to the same interests that used to support the Democrats. Because somebody is going to get those votes....
Nope. All Dems will forcibly convert or emigrate.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Except it wouldn't work that way. The splinters would have to cater to the same interests that used to support the Democrats. Because somebody is going to get those votes....
Why would they? In our hypothetical why would they endorse the ideas of party that couldn't cut it?
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:30:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Except it wouldn't work that way. The splinters would have to cater to the same interests that used to support the Democrats. Because somebody is going to get those votes....
Nope. All Dems will forcibly convert or emigrate.
That is why we are next door to Canada. :Canuck:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
Why would they? In our hypothetical why would they endorse the ideas of party that couldn't cut it?
The same reasons the old Republicans ended up endorsing the Federalists ideas.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:27:00 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:14:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 08:59:20 AM
Are workplace conditions deteriorating?
Slashing $1.85 billion from the Wisconsin education system, yeah, I'd say workplace conditions are deteriorating.
What was slashed was the Union negotiated health care plans. The Unions negotiated for the State to buy health insurance from the Union itself, grossly overpriced for what was provided in order to create a slush fund for the Union leadership. By getting out of this corrupt arraingement school districts have been able to increase spending on actual education.
There isn't $1.85 billion in health care costs for Wisconsin teachers. :lol:
And no, the school districts have not increased spending on "actual" education, what with the voucher program eliminating $71 million to Milwaukee public schools alone. But that's where all the niggers live, so it's OK.
If it is necessary to cut so much from the Wisconsin educational system, then it is definitely critical that they get the teachers unions out of the power to call the shots on how those cuts happen.
After all, the teachers union does not represent students. They represent teachers. They are not there to protect the interests of students, but to make sure that those who pay them are shielded from any cuts.
The idea that teachers unions have anything other than a very passing interest in supporting education beyond their own pay and benefits is spurious. You don't need a union to advocate for education. You do need one to organize trading votes for higher salaries and bennies.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
Crap Hans said something I agree with completely :weep:
I suddenly feel pangs of self doubt.
You should. I see a bunch of people who make above average salaries and wages(as previous Languish polls indicated), who are jumping for joy that other people are going to lose income and benefits. It really makes me sick.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:28:03 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
You are a fucking moron.
See above post. :hug:
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
OTOH, the good thing about public Unions is that as long as they are around it guarantees that government services will be extremely shitty and ineffective, undermining the Democrats call for ever greater government.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
You should. I see a bunch of people who make above average salaries and wages(as previous Languish polls indicated), who are jumping for joy that other people are going to lose income and benefits. It really makes me sick.
That is not why I am jumping for joy. I am jumping for joy because a popular mandate won out over special interests. Nothing personal at all towards those teachers, I wish we could pay them all 100k with generous benefits but we cannot afford to....or at least the people of Wisconsin do not want to and that is their choice. The consequences, whatever they might be, will ultimately be on their heads which is how it should be.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:33:43 AM
Why would they? In our hypothetical why would they endorse the ideas of party that couldn't cut it?
The same reasons the old Republicans ended up endorsing the Federalists ideas.
Which is why the GOP went to war with France, continues to raise taxes, and refuses to recognize the Louisiana purchase. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
Crap Hans said something I agree with completely :weep:
I suddenly feel pangs of self doubt.
I'm gonna go and agree with some of that as well. Big business (defined as any business large enough to move the market itself) has an incentive to get the regulations written to benefit themselves. This is why in socialist europe the largest corporations tend to cooperate most intimately with government. A former employer (and wholly owned by one owner) of mine managed to arrange with the state to to sell 49% of its owners shares in exchange for more than enough cash to pay off the loans the owner took to buy the whole thing in the first place. The owner contributes to the Labour Party regularly than and his "Suggestion" that he might move production abroad is what got him that sweeheart deal.
Now he runs the company with a passive owner less demanding than a bank that wants its intrest. Now he just has to arrange that his wholly owned companies within the same group of companies get all the profit.
Adam Smith got it right, the worst enemy of free market capitalism is large capitalists.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:41:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
You should. I see a bunch of people who make above average salaries and wages(as previous Languish polls indicated), who are jumping for joy that other people are going to lose income and benefits. It really makes me sick.
That is not why I am jumping for joy. I am jumping for joy because a popular mandate won out over special interests. Nothing personal at all towards those teachers, I wish we could pay them all 100k with generous benefits but we cannot afford to....or at least the people of Wisconsin do not want to and that is their choice. The consequences, whatever they might be, will ultimately be on their heads which is how it should be.
Lets not pretend that this is divorced from teacher pay and benefits, okay? We aren't that naive.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:38:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:28:03 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
You are a fucking moron.
See above post. :hug:
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
OTOH, the good thing about public Unions is that as long as they are around it guarantees that government services will be extremely shitty and ineffective, undermining the Democrats call for ever greater government.
You are in the army, and the Republican stalwart. Your ability to deal with retardation must be astronomical. Can you perhaps prove that states with Public unions have less effective government services then those that don't? Please use a multiple regression model with a 95% confidence factor.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:27:00 AM
And no, the school districts have not increased spending on "actual" education, what with the voucher program eliminating $71 million to Milwaukee public schools alone. But that's where all the niggers live, so it's OK.
I can see why that pisses you off. With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:43:09 AM
Which is why the GOP went to war with France, continues to raise taxes, and refuses to recognize the Louisiana purchase. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Ok Raz.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
I can see why that pisses you off. With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.
Inner city black kids: A plague that has rocked Wisconsin for years!
By the way how has the voucher thing been going? I was never very optimistic about its prospects but surely it has been going in a few states by now.
It's shit like this that will ever prevent me from being a Republican. My parents worked at state jobs. There was no Union, (some positions had a Union like teachers but there's was toothless)., and it was hard to get jobs in the early 1980's and the only employment in Jefferson City is state work. They made very poor wages. We had to live on food stamps. Missouri happens to have the worst paid state employees in the nation. I remember my dad working till past 10 in the evening just to make ends meet. I remember my dad having to go to see the Governor sing (in these days it was Ashcroft), for fear of losing his job. I saw state workers regularly shit on by politicians and other citizens. "They were overpaid, and lazy". No matter how hard people worked and how little they made they were they were always "Overpaid and lazy". Every time the business owners who happen to moonlight as state reps wanted to give themselves a tax cut, state employees wages were cut or employees were laid off.
And you know what happens when you barely pay people and cut the number of positions down so each employee is doing the work of three people? The quality of services declines. Then when one of those shit eating Republican farmer-Senators (who rakes in cash from farming subsidies), decides it's best to privatize. Cause you know, the free market is always better. And guess what? He knows just the guy to take this lucrative new contract.
Fuck you.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
I can see why that pisses you off. With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.
Inner city black kids: A plague that has rocked Wisconsin for years!
By the way how has the voucher thing been going? I was never very optimistic about its prospects but surely it has been going in a few states by now.
It's a good way to funnel money into creationist schools and some of those former all white academies that dot the south.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
There are lots of states that are NOT dominated by very powerful public sector unions, and I don't buy your assumption that they must therefore all be in the pockets of "crony capitalism". That is a pretty difficult claim to evidence I think.
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent because the ONLY alternative is this undefined "crony capitalism" might be the weakest argument I have ever seen for maintaining unions.
There aren't strong arguments for maintaining public employee unions, because they are a terrible thing. As for crony capitalism, the term is very-well definited, actually. Google it or read it on Wiki.
QuoteOf course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
Except, maybe, lack of enough fat cats to actually hand over these billions. Just because there is nothing stopping me from earning aa $50 million salary doesn't mean that I'm likely to actually get that much.
QuoteThis is a case where the political parties alignments have resulted in the Republicans being on the right side of the issue, and the Dems on the wrong side. That helped the Dems for a very long time, and now it is not.
They may be on the right side of the issue, but they are on the right side of it for the wrong reasons. If that's were Republicans stop, then we shouldn't care much about whether they're right for the right or wrong reasons, but we know that they're just warming up for more radical moves.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
I can see why that pisses you off. With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.
Inner city black kids: A plague that has rocked Wisconsin for years!
By the way how has the voucher thing been going? I was never very optimistic about its prospects but surely it has been going in a few states by now.
Dunno-- haven't paid a whole lot of attention since vouchers haven't been a hot-button issue for a while.
It defunds the public school system & forces it to compete, so that's a good start.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:38:40 AM
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
Hell, nothing prevent us from being forced to participate in your psychotic performance art, either.
Pfft, Languish on the iHipster sucks.
School vouchers are great. We've had them 20 years in Sweden and they seem to work.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
There are lots of states that are NOT dominated by very powerful public sector unions, and I don't buy your assumption that they must therefore all be in the pockets of "crony capitalism". That is a pretty difficult claim to evidence I think.
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent because the ONLY alternative is this undefined "crony capitalism" might be the weakest argument I have ever seen for maintaining unions.
There aren't strong arguments for maintaining public employee unions, because they are a terrible thing. As for crony capitalism, the term is very-well definited, actually. Google it or read it on Wiki.
Nothing there that tells me how we can measure it and see if in fact less powerful public sector unions results in more of this though.
Quote
QuoteOf course, it is a fiction that the Dems MUST have this source of political power to counter Republican power from large financial backers. The Dems have their own large financial backers, and it isn't like there is anything stopping them from raising billions in super-pacs as well.
Except, maybe, lack of enough fat cats to actually hand over these billions.
Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.
Quote
Just because there is nothing stopping me from earning aa $50 million salary doesn't mean that I'm likely to actually get that much.
The same holds true for everyone.
Quote
QuoteThis is a case where the political parties alignments have resulted in the Republicans being on the right side of the issue, and the Dems on the wrong side. That helped the Dems for a very long time, and now it is not.
They may be on the right side of the issue, but they are on the right side of it for the wrong reasons. If that's were Republicans stop, then we shouldn't care much about whether they're right for the right or wrong reasons, but we know that they're just warming up for more radical moves.
Uhh, right.
What might those be, again?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 10:19:03 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:38:40 AM
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
Hell, nothing prevent us from being forced to participate in your psychotic performance art, either.
Pfft, Languish on the iHipster sucks.
:D Sucks on my Android phone as well (at least the full site-- haven't bothered with the mobile version). Tiny little box to type in & try to edit, and sometimes you don't know if your 10-paragraph post actually made it or not, but somehow I keep doing it.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 10:24:27 AM
School vouchers are great. We've had them 20 years in Sweden and they seem to work.
See this is all you have to do freak out Republicans on school vouchers. Claim 'we need to have a Swedish-style educational system'.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:38:40 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 09:28:03 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:23:47 AM
Billionaires and Corporations love taxes and regulations, since they have the werewithals to get around them, creating a competitive advantage against small business, which is why they tend to support Democrats.
Although Corporations tend to give to both sides as a for of protection. The argument that the rich and corporations favor the GOP is another bunch of uneducated claptrap without evidence.
You are a fucking moron.
See above post. :hug:
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
OTOH, the good thing about public Unions is that as long as they are around it guarantees that government services will be extremely shitty and ineffective, undermining the Democrats call for ever greater government.
While that may be so, the solution cannot be to give them even more of our trust after they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:38:40 AM
I don't know, there is only so much retardation I can put up with.
Ask your wife for some coping tips.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:25:17 AM
Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.
First Amendment, dude. Read the constitution some time.
QuoteUhh, right.
What might those be, again?
Turn the clock back 140 years ago in general. There weren't public employee unions back then, but there weren't a whole lot of other things back then too that people in civilized world have come to expect.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
First Amendment, dude. Read the constitution some time.
I was not aware the First Amendment said that the Congress could pass no law regulating the exchange of money nor could they pass any law regulating how elections to government posts were supposed to be carried out.
But strangely it appears I was wrong. But then I also thought the Fourth Amendment said I could not be searched without a warrant and clearly that is not what it says.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 09:57:19 AM
I can see why that pisses you off. With vouchers, inner city black students might actually get a chance to get a decent education and leave the vicious cycle that keeps them voting Democratic.
Inner city black kids: A plague that has rocked Wisconsin for years!
By the way how has the voucher thing been going? I was never very optimistic about its prospects but surely it has been going in a few states by now.
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 10:44:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
First Amendment, dude. Read the constitution some time.
I was not aware the First Amendment said that the Congress could pass no law regulating the exchange of money nor could they pass any law regulating how elections to government posts were supposed to be carried out.
But strangely it appears I was wrong. But then I also thought the Fourth Amendment said I could not be searched without a warrant and clearly that is not what it says.
Since the media is controlled by fat cat corporations does that mean Congress has the power to prohibited them from endorsing or critizising politicians? After all, those are simply "contributions in kind".
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:49:21 AM
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Heh...no things can always get worse especially when Louisiana is involved.
But thanks for the update I will watching with interest.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 10:40:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:25:17 AM
Convince the existing fat cats to hand it over to them instead. Or better yet, change the system so that the fat cats can't give as much to anyone.
First Amendment, dude. Read the constitution some time.
Well, there are two ways to look at that.
If in fact you buy into the idea that the First Amendment guarantees the right of people with incredible amounts of cash to have an undue influence on elections, then what is the problem? The system is working as intended, and just because YOUR tribe is not as good at attracting the guys with vast quantities of cash doesn't mean much other than that your guys should get better at sucking up to the super rich.
The other way to look at it is that all rights, including First Amendment ones, are limited in their scope, and the idea that an individuals First Amendment rights extend to the extent that we must tolerate the degradation of other people right to have their voices heard through the elective process is simply not true.
Personally, I would support campaign finance reform at the Amerndment level, if necessary, to start dealing with campaign finance reform.
QuoteUhh, right.
What might those be, again?
Turn the clock back 140 years ago in general. There weren't public employee unions back then, but there weren't a whole lot of other things back then too that people in civilized world have come to expect.
[/quote]
So you think this is all part of a plot to "turn the clock back 140 years", and that is why the Republicans are moving against public sector unions? It can't be because they think they are bad on their own merits, as they claim. Rather they have some ulterior motive. I thought you didn't like it when people assigned ulterior motives to others, rather than just accept their reasons at face value?
The handy thing about this conspiracy theory of yours is it justifies just opposing everything that any Republican ever does, because you can just claim it is all part of the attempt to fulfill this fundamental motive of turning back the clock.
It is a lot like people who claim that Obamacare is all part of the left wing plot to turn the USA into "socialism".
I am not sure that is much of an improvement over just opposing them because they are wearing those silly purple headbands instead of the really nice green ones.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:52:01 AM
Since the media is controlled by fat cat corporations does that mean Congress has the power to prohibited them from endorsing or critizising politicians? After all, those are simply "contributions in kind".
Oh right. Speech is commerce. I keep forgetting.
Then yes they have the ability to regulate commerce. Since it seems there is no distinction to be made.
I think I should get out of sales taxes by paying 1 cent for something and then giving the rest to show my support for their fine pricing of goods. After all nobody has the right to exclude me from my free speech rights.
And here we go, Berkut is on his high horse yet again. I should've known that the polite tone was just a trap, and he was poised to shovel more of the same "tribe" shit at the first opportunity. I'm done.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:52:54 AM
Personally, I would support campaign finance reform at the Amerndment level, if necessary, to start dealing with campaign finance reform.
That is probably the road we will have to do down next.
Oh, Lord. Tribes again.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
And here we go, Berkut is on his high horse yet again. I should've known that the polite tone was just a trap, and he was poised to shovel more of the same "tribe" shit at the first opportunity. I'm done.
Wow, you went right to the ad hom immediately, and here I thought you were trying to change the tone. Oh well.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:49:21 AM
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Do you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 11:00:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 10:52:54 AM
Personally, I would support campaign finance reform at the Amerndment level, if necessary, to start dealing with campaign finance reform.
That is probably the road we will have to do down next.
You are probably right, although it is pretty ridiculous that the USSC has decided that the first stretches so far as to cover crap like super-pacs.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:49:21 AM
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Do you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
If they are much worse, they will fail. Nobody is going to send their kids to shitty schools that are worse than the alternatives.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
Do you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
And this is my primary concern: most of the kids from those neighborhoods are going to end up in the bad schools anyway. Just now they will even more poorly funded than before. So the problem will remain. It should benefit alot of individual students however.
But I have an open mind and am eager to see a state do it whole hog. If it works we will all do it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:15:18 AM
You are probably right, although it is pretty ridiculous that the USSC has decided that the first stretches so far as to cover crap like super-pacs.
I know. It fills me with rage and frustration just thinking about it. The road to campaign reform is going to be far longer and harder now. I think we will still do it though....eventually. Nobody really likes the current system, it takes up too much of a politicians time for fund raising and costs the private sector too much money.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:16:03 AM
If they are much worse, they will fail. Nobody is going to send their kids to shitty schools that are worse than the alternatives.
Well it is not like there is going to be more money for schools than before. Somebody is going to end up in the shitty schools.
What are school vouchers?
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:09:51 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
And here we go, Berkut is on his high horse yet again. I should've known that the polite tone was just a trap, and he was poised to shovel more of the same "tribe" shit at the first opportunity. I'm done.
Wow, you went right to the ad hom immediately, and here I thought you were trying to change the tone. Oh well.
I was, but then you started up the "tribe" shit again, but nice try at portraying it like I was the one who started it. It's my fault, though; I have definitely been fooled like this way, way more than twice, so the shame is on me. You just don't get the concept of detente; just like grumbler, you play along with it just until you're ready to strike.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2012, 11:23:51 AM
What are school vouchers?
The tax money for a kid's education follows the kid to whatever school, public or private, it attends.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2012, 11:23:51 AM
What are school vouchers?
The tax money for a kid's education follows the kid to whatever school, public or private, it attends.
If attending a private school, does one have to pay the normal rate of admission/tuition?
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:16:03 AM
If they are much worse, they will fail. Nobody is going to send their kids to shitty schools that are worse than the alternatives.
It seems the primary driver of education achievement relates to a parent's education, income, and interest in the child's education, as well as the peer group of the child. The studies I've read about show that when you adjust for these factors, private schools aren't any better than public.
So long as you concentrate at risk kids in certain schools, you are going to get really shitty schools. At least now the schools that take the most at risk kids have standards and curricula set by the state with reasonably well compensated teachers. I could see a lot of schools competing based on the level of day care services they provide rather than teaching standards. "We'll take your kid at 9ish, you don't need to pick him up until 6ish, we'll cover the food, never mind that the class sizes are enormous, the teachers are paid nothing, while the owner/principal takes home a mint." For a single parent without an education herself struggling to make ends meet, that may be acceptible.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2012, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 06, 2012, 11:23:51 AM
What are school vouchers?
The tax money for a kid's education follows the kid to whatever school, public or private, it attends.
If attending a private school, does one have to pay the normal rate of admission/tuition?
In the Swedish system schools that accept voucher money cannot charge anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 10:12:02 AMthe only employment in Jefferson City is state work.
Kinda makes you wonder why the city exists. Has everyone left yet?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:49:21 AM
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Do you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
Personally, I think it's a risk worth taking. Our education system is so fucked up that something needs to change. I don't have faith in public education systems fixing themselves, because they are unfortunately a textbook example of bureaucratic mismanagement. The good public schools are typically public in name only: they require the parents to live in suburbs with sky-high property taxes.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 11:35:37 AM
Personally, I think it's a risk worth taking. Our education system is so fucked up that something needs to change. I don't have faith in public education systems fixing themselves, because they are unfortunately a textbook example of bureaucratic mismanagement. The good public schools are typically public in name only: they require the parents to live in suburbs with sky-high property taxes.
We have a large underclass in this country and many parents are going to make sure their kids don't end up going to school with members of it. That may not be PC, but I think that will persist in whatever system we come up with.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 11:33:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 10:12:02 AMthe only employment in Jefferson City is state work.
Kinda makes you wonder why the city exists. Has everyone left yet?
Maybe they're not allowed to leave. :menace:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:33:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:16:03 AM
If they are much worse, they will fail. Nobody is going to send their kids to shitty schools that are worse than the alternatives.
It seems the primary driver of education achievement relates to a parent's education, income, and interest in the child's education, as well as the peer group of the child. The studies I've read about show that when you adjust for these factors, private schools aren't any better than public.
I don't think the intent of vouchers systems is to push to private schools.
The intent is to allow choice and competition. In many cases, vouchers are not going to take off. A good example is here in Rochester, NY. There are several private schools that have opened in the city to compete with the relatively crappy City of Rochester public schools.
But the suburbs of Rochester has some of the best putblic schools in the country - and I am not saying best compared to the crappy RCSD schools, but compared to other suburban, middle class schools across the country. So you aren't going to see much call for private schools here - the public schools are excellent.
Vouchers, at least in theory, are not about replacing all public schools with private, it is about giving parents enough choice that they can choose better schools, and hopefully force all the schools to do a better job at education.
Quote
So long as you concentrate at risk kids in certain schools, you are going to get really shitty schools.
Not true. Some schools with high risk populations do better than others, and some schools with low risk populations stink anyway.
Vouchers are meant to deal with the situations where the schools themselves are not doing the job with the demographics they have, not fix the demographic problem (which is, as you note, the driving indicator of individual student success).
Quote
At least now the schools that take the most at risk kids have standards and curricula set by the state with reasonably well compensated teachers.
So do charter schools, at least so far as curricula and standards.
Quote
I could see a lot of schools competing based on the level of day care services they provide rather than teaching standards. "We'll take your kid at 9ish, you don't need to pick him up until 6ish, we'll cover the food, never mind that the class sizes are enormous, the teachers are paid nothing, while the owner/principal takes home a mint." For a single parent without an education herself struggling to make ends meet, that may be acceptible.
Maybe. I think you are imagining a particular circumstance though, and then decrying the entire system based on a perceived "this could happen...".
What we DO know is that today in many schools, we see very uneven results, even across similar demographic lines. It seems to me that if you want things to change, you have the change them - doing the same thing and hoping for different results is sure to fail.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:44:09 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 11:35:37 AM
Personally, I think it's a risk worth taking. Our education system is so fucked up that something needs to change. I don't have faith in public education systems fixing themselves, because they are unfortunately a textbook example of bureaucratic mismanagement. The good public schools are typically public in name only: they require the parents to live in suburbs with sky-high property taxes.
We have a large underclass in this country and many parents are going to make sure their kids don't end up going to school with members of it. That may not be PC, but I think that will persist in whatever system we come up with.
Yes, probably. At the same time, is segregation by suburbanization more efficient?
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 11:35:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:12:29 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:49:21 AM
It is still quite limited in most states; however, the dam is about to break: Lousiana just passed a law that in two years will make all kids able to receive vouchers to escape the public education system. That's right, a 100% voucher system. I think you are going to see a lot more movement in that direction. And given the record of the public education system in Louisiana it can only get better through competition.
Do you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
Personally, I think it's a risk worth taking. Our education system is so fucked up that something needs to change. I don't have faith in public education systems fixing themselves, because they are unfortunately a textbook example of bureaucratic mismanagement. The good public schools are typically public in name only: they require the parents to live in suburbs with sky-high property taxes.
You know what is scary?
In Rochester, NY, it is pretty much how you are saying - the suburban schools are excellent, and taxes are very high to pay for them.
The city schools stink, at least as far as outcomes are concerned (standard urban problems, low graduation rates, poor college placement, etc., etc.).
However, the kicker is that if you look at how much money is spent per student, the city of Rochester spends more than any of the suburban schools, with the money being provided by the State and Federal governments as at risk aid. Of course, the RCSD hsa a lot more overhead, since it is a lot larger than the suburban districts.
I also think there is a matter of oversight - the suburban districts are held to pretty serious account by the suburban soccer moms and dads. We want to know where our money is going, and if we don't like it, why, we won't vote for that new bond to pay for whatever.
You get the feeling the city mostly spends their political energy fighting about union contracts and who they are going to buy books from and who on the school board is making what, or the latest scandal. It is really very sad.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent . . .
Pretty strong words. How exactly is democracy being perverted?
In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability). Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.
Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers. And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity. Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc? If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
Maybe. I think you are imagining a particular circumstance though, and then decrying the entire system based on a perceived "this could happen...".
I'm probably biased in that two family members teach/taught at "failing" schools. One teaches elementary school at a place where a significant number of students' parents are migrant workers that miss large portions of the school year, and often don't speak english very well (she speaks Spanish very poorly).
Another taught high school english, including shakespeare, at an inner city school (over 80% minority) where her students were, for the most part, illiterate, and there were some very interesting stories regarding discipline.
Neither situation is probably relevant to upstate NY.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
But the suburbs of Rochester has some of the best putblic schools in the country - and I am not saying best compared to the crappy RCSD schools, but compared to other suburban, middle class schools across the country. So you aren't going to see much call for private schools here - the public schools are excellent.
:showoff:
Although they did insist that I don't pronounce the t in often. I still don't.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 06, 2012, 11:57:53 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:44:44 AM
Maybe. I think you are imagining a particular circumstance though, and then decrying the entire system based on a perceived "this could happen...".
I'm probably biased in that two family members teach/taught at "failing" schools. One teaches elementary school at a place where a significant number of students' parents are migrant workers that miss large portions of the school year, and often don't speak english very well (she speaks Spanish very poorly).
Another taught high school english, including shakespeare, at an inner city school (over 80% minority) where her students were, for the most part, illiterate, and there were some very interesting stories regarding discipline.
Neither situation is probably relevant to upstate NY.
Certainly relelvant to urban schools in places like Rochester and Buffalo.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 11:20:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:16:03 AM
If they are much worse, they will fail. Nobody is going to send their kids to shitty schools that are worse than the alternatives.
Well it is not like there is going to be more money for schools than before. Somebody is going to end up in the shitty schools.
I think the long-term goal is to either close down the shitty schools or force them to compete and become less shitty.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 11:49:51 AM
You know what is scary?
In Rochester, NY, it is pretty much how you are saying - the suburban schools are excellent, and taxes are very high to pay for them.
The city schools stink, at least as far as outcomes are concerned (standard urban problems, low graduation rates, poor college placement, etc., etc.).
However, the kicker is that if you look at how much money is spent per student, the city of Rochester spends more than any of the suburban schools, with the money being provided by the State and Federal governments as at risk aid. Of course, the RCSD hsa a lot more overhead, since it is a lot larger than the suburban districts.
I also think there is a matter of oversight - the suburban districts are held to pretty serious account by the suburban soccer moms and dads. We want to know where our money is going, and if we don't like it, why, we won't vote for that new bond to pay for whatever.
You get the feeling the city mostly spends their political energy fighting about union contracts and who they are going to buy books from and who on the school board is making what, or the latest scandal. It is really very sad.
I think the Cincinnati/Cincy suburbs divide pretty much follows that pattern, though my local school district in the burbs doesn't seem to have exorbitant property taxes and it is one of the best in the state.
My brother lives just a couple miles from my house but he is inside the city limits. His son is set to start kindergarten next fall and they just took a tour of the school he's supposed to attend. I think they're putting their house up for sale later this month ;)
Why can't they just send him to the other one? I thought Ohio kids could switch districts.
Well, given what Alfred, derSpiess and Berkut have said about the demographics of suburban schools versus troubled urban schools, it seems to me that the urban schools are on the front lines of dealing with a number of the biggest social issues facing the US today. If a large part of the student body comes from difficult family situations, don't speak English, are from environments that devalue education, and/or are facing significant issues coming from poverty/ drug abuse/ nutrition etc, it seems that threatening to take away resources from schools with the most challenged student bodies would be counter productive; and isn't that what standards competition is about?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 12:46:57 PM
Why can't they just send him to the other one? I thought Ohio kids could switch districts.
Nope, unless we (I & all the other people I know who moved out of the city when they had kids) are missing something.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 12:54:49 PM
Well, given what Alfred, derSpiess and Berkut have said about the demographics of suburban schools versus troubled urban schools, it seems to me that the urban schools are on the front lines of dealing with a number of the biggest social issues facing the US today. If a large part of the student body comes from difficult family situations, don't speak English, are from environments that devalue education, and/or are facing significant issues coming from poverty/ drug abuse/ nutrition etc, it seems that threatening to take away resources from schools with the most challenged student bodies would be counter productive; and isn't that what standards competition is about?
You know what, you're right. We should definitely throw good money after bad. It can only help, right? Like in Kansas City, for example...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
edit: Some more recent info from what you'll probably consider a more agreeable source:
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147067123/kansas-citys-failed-schools-leave-students-behind
When you talk about schools competing, where's the incentive to be competitive?
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 12:24:40 PM
I think the long-term goal is to either close down the shitty schools or force them to compete and become less shitty.
But how and why? They will still be getting money from the vouchers and they will have all the worst students, the other schools are not going to want them and people are unlikely to start new schools to take such high risk kids.
It may work this was just always my main concern.
Quote from: Maximus on June 06, 2012, 01:02:23 PM
When you talk about schools competing, where's the incentive to be competitive?
Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:05:55 PM
Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.
So...the schools will just keep getting worse for the worst students?
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 01:07:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:05:55 PM
Loss of funding (i.e., pay/jobs) for teachers & administrators in under-performing schools/districts.
So...the schools will just keep getting worse for the worst students?
Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 12:59:57 PMYou know what, you're right. We should definitely throw good money after bad. It can only help, right? Like in Kansas City, for example...
I haven't suggested throwing good money after bad :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 01:04:31 PM
But how and why? They will still be getting money from the vouchers and they will have all the worst students, the other schools are not going to want them and people are unlikely to start new schools to take such high risk kids.
It may work this was just always my main concern.
I think you lost me.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:08:29 PM
Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?
Because the better school wouldn't want them. Unless schools are compelled to take every student who wants to go there somehow but that would not be physically possible...
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:09:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 12:59:57 PMYou know what, you're right. We should definitely throw good money after bad. It can only help, right? Like in Kansas City, for example...
I haven't suggested throwing good money after bad :huh:
Yeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:09:17 PM
I think you lost me.
Good schools will have lots of students wanting to go there. They will take the best applicants and on down the line. The worst schools will get the high risk kids and there we are.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:09:17 PM
I think you lost me.
Good schools will have lots of students wanting to go there. They will take the best applicants and on down the line. The worst schools will get the high risk kids and there we are.
Well, in that case at least the better students will have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. In the meantime, I doubt the worse schools will just sit on their hands and not try to improve to get the better students (and funding) back.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:08:29 PMWhy would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?
Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?
I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.
It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
Well, in that case at least the better students will have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. In the meantime, I doubt the worse schools will just sit on their hands and not try to improve to get the better students (and funding) back.
The first thing you said is true and it is a positive. But it groups all the best students in one location which could encourage mediocrity elsewhere (I mean...not that we need any help with that....)
But I fail to see how these bad schools are going to heroically right the ship, they are bad schools for a reason and have only underperforming and/or behavior problem kids is not going to help.
It will help alot of individual kids, and that is good, but I wonder if the overall situation will be any better. I have my doubts BUT we will see. I just want to see it play out someplace where they try it and see how it goes. Certainly something needs to be done.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:15:18 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:08:29 PMWhy would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?
Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?
I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.
It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.
In the Swedish system all schools (that are in the voucher system, there are still private schools for the rich with tuition and they don't get voucher money) get the same amount of money per student. Students with special needs (disabilities) get a bigger voucher.
The best we can probably hope for is to get the best situation possible for as many kids as possible. There will always be some schools that suck. I don't care about vouchers or whatever mechanism is used. I think the problem schools are not that way primarily because they lack money. The stuff Jake mentioned matters far more. Although, I will say I think the money could do a better job of getting to the classroom. You can't make up for all of the externalities by throwing more cash at it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 01:09:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 01:08:29 PM
Why would the worst students stay in the underperforming schools though, rather than switch to a better school?
Because the better school wouldn't want them. Unless schools are compelled to take every student who wants to go there somehow but that would not be physically possible...
Hmmm, I have never seen this happen so far - the entire point of creating vouchers is to allow private schools to compete with public schools for students.
I don't see why we would assume that no private schools willing to take at risk kids would ever be formed, when they have a pool of potential students (and hence potential vouchers) to draw on.
There is definitely a potential for cream skimming, and that's something that needs to be considered. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that half the public school students are cream, and the other half crap. The cream requires $5,000 of spending per year, while crap requires $15,000.
On average, $10,000 is spent per student. If that's the worth of the voucher, then private schools would try to identify the cream students, get their $10,000 vouchers, and leave the crap to public schools. Public schools would now have $10,000 worth of funding and $15,000 worth of need per student, whereas previously the two numbers were balanced on average. It's pretty much identical to adverse selection problem in insurance.
One way to get around that would be to adjust the size of the voucher to the expected statistical quality of the student, but that's a mine field with nuclear mines.
Don't get me wrong I am pro-vouchers. I just have some skepticism about them.
I guess if the outcome is creating elite schools, middling schools, and bottom feeder schools that wouldn't be too terrible. Most of the countries who kick our ass in educating their kids have a system like that anyway.
A lot of them I've seen use a lottery to decide which kids to take. That would make it hard to skim for the best ones, wouldn't it?
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 09:35:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 09:30:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Oh boy. One group of Republicans and another group of Republicans. That sounds like lots of fun.
Except it wouldn't work that way. The splinters would have to cater to the same interests that used to support the Democrats. Because somebody is going to get those votes....
Nope. All Dems will forcibly convert or emigrate.
That is why we are next door to Canada. :Canuck:
Please leave your guns at the border.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 01:28:36 PM
A lot of them I've seen use a lottery to decide which kids to take. That would make it hard to skim for the best ones, wouldn't it?
Yes, adverse selection is only a problem when there is actual selection going on.
According to Wiki in Sweden voucher schools can only select among students if they have more applicants than capacity and then only by looking at siblings already at the school, queue time and how close they live to the school.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 01:42:39 PM
According to Wiki in Sweden voucher schools can only select among students if they have more applicants than capacity and then only by looking at siblings already at the school, queue time and how close they live to the school.
That's a smart way to do it. Unfortunately, I don't have trust in Americans do it like that.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:46:00 PM
That's a smart way to do it. Unfortunately, I don't have trust in Americans do it like that.
A lot of schools already use entrance exams. An effective way to keep your test scores above public schools while paying your teachers less.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:15:18 PM
Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?
I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.
It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.
Well, duh, Jake. It's been happening for decades, this will just accelerate the problem exponentially.
Because of the way our public education systems are funded, and ever since
San Antonio v Rodriquez decided that an education is not a fundamental right in America, the voucher concept is a fantastic Libertarian-fuck-em-if-they're-poor-niggers approach to maintaining institutionalized inequality in certain areas and demographics.
Sure, a poor kid in an inner city cesspool neighborhood can get a voucher and go to another school out in the 'burbs 28 miles away--but how he gets there is his problem, lulz.
But at least he can, right? A rather convenient way of Pilate hand-washing. A voucher gets you to rationalize away racism, and dance around that nasty
Brown v Board of Ed.
Blaming teachers because they have pensions just happens to be a way cool bonus.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
In the Swedish system all schools (that are in the voucher system, there are still private schools for the rich with tuition and they don't get voucher money) get the same amount of money per student.
Unfortunately, we call that "socialism" here.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
Because of the way our public education systems are funded, and ever since San Antonio v Rodriquez decided that an education is not a fundamental right in America, the voucher concept is a fantastic Libertarian-fuck-em-if-they're-poor-niggers approach to maintaining institutionalized inequality in certain areas and demographics.
I don't see how vouchers help or do not help maintaining the inequality. We have been doing a great job of that awhile I don't see anything changing that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:15:18 PM
Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?
I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.
It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.
Well, duh, Jake. It's been happening for decades, this will just accelerate the problem exponentially.
Because of the way our public education systems are funded, and ever since San Antonio v Rodriquez decided that an education is not a fundamental right in America, the voucher concept is a fantastic Libertarian-fuck-em-if-they're-poor-niggers approach to maintaining institutionalized inequality in certain areas and demographics.
Sure, a poor kid in an inner city cesspool neighborhood can get a voucher and go to another school out in the 'burbs 28 miles away--but how he gets there is his problem, lulz. But at least he can, right? A rather convenient way of Pilate hand-washing. A voucher gets you to rationalize away racism, and dance around that nasty Brown v Board of Ed.
Blaming teachers because they have pensions just happens to be a way cool bonus.
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
Seedy has foresworn sleep while this thread is alive. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:11:10 PMYeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools
But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.
Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
:huh: I don't think that's irrelevant at all. Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have. A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 01:55:56 PM
Seedy has foresworn sleep while this thread is alive. :lol:
:P Ed Schultz and I will not rest until every bratwurst in Wisconsin has its union rights enshrined in law.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.
Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.
This is the meat of the critique of voucher programs. Better students who are forced to stay in crap schools help out the boneheads.
The flip side of course is that the eggheads have to suffer if they can't leave.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
:huh: I don't think that's irrelevant at all. Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have. A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.
Meh, when Jacob does it, it's cogent, lucid and thoughtful. When I do it, it's all ZOMG THERE HE GOES AGAIN EQUATING POOR NIGGERS WITH POVERTY
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
:huh: I don't think that's irrelevant at all. Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have. A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.
Touches on racism is as far as it goes. The current public school system (unless we're talking about magnet schools and the like) systematizes geographic segregation. Vouchers confer mobility.
This discussion drove me to check something in the Cincinnati Public School website. I noticed they proudly identify themselves as "Ohio's Highest Rated Urban School District." Wow!!
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.
I hope your kid knocks up a negress with a voucher.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.
Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.
This is the meat of the critique of voucher programs. Better students who are forced to stay in crap schools help out the boneheads.
The flip side of course is that the eggheads have to suffer if they can't leave.
Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
It helps keep it interesting for him, I guess.
I hope your kid knocks up a negress with a voucher.
Now does he have to use the voucher for that purpose? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 01:58:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 01:55:06 PM
I love how you throw in racism again when that seems largely irrelevant here.
:huh: I don't think that's irrelevant at all. Any discussion of school reform necessarily touches upon de-facto segregation effects current and/or proposed systems will have. A couple of posters before Seedy hinted to that as well.
Wait Yi said as far as touches. Per Seedster's comments - it is like the main contributing factor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent . . .
Pretty strong words. How exactly is democracy being perverted?
In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability). Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.
Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers. And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity. Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc? If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.
Of course no one would object to employees voluntarily coming together to collectively bargain.
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 02:11:33 PM
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
WTF What kind of crap country has this system?
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 02:06:48 PM
Wait Yi said as far as touches. Per Seedster's comments - it is like the main contributing factor.
Maybe, maybe not. I certainly have enough of lack of faith in the Republicans, who are the main champions of the voucher idea, to not dismiss the notion that they see adverse selection as a feature, not a bug. Get all the good kids out of public schools, to avoid contaminating them with the inner city trash, and what happens happens with public schools.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 01:50:16 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:15:18 PM
Isn't the issue that some student demographics tend to drag down overall school performance, rather than terrible teachers and administrators?
I mean, I know that that's a discussion that's pretty landmine filled and all, but if there's something to that - if the social circumstances of the student body makes it harder for them to achieve good results compared to other student bodies - it seems that shuffling those students around (or depriving them of resources because their school is under performing) would do little to address the quality of education.
It's not a guaranteed outcome of course, but it seems to me that one of the risks of such a system is that the students who need the least resources to excel will get the most resources showered on them, while the weakest students in need of the most support will get the least resources. I'm not saying it's inevitable, but I think it's a real risk that any solution should at least attempt to address.
Well, duh, Jake. It's been happening for decades, this will just accelerate the problem exponentially.
Because of the way our public education systems are funded, and ever since San Antonio v Rodriquez decided that an education is not a fundamental right in America, the voucher concept is a fantastic Libertarian-fuck-em-if-they're-poor-niggers approach to maintaining institutionalized inequality in certain areas and demographics.
Sure, a poor kid in an inner city cesspool neighborhood can get a voucher and go to another school out in the 'burbs 28 miles away--but how he gets there is his problem, lulz. But at least he can, right? A rather convenient way of Pilate hand-washing. A voucher gets you to rationalize away racism, and dance around that nasty Brown v Board of Ed.
Blaming teachers because they have pensions just happens to be a way cool bonus.
Oh look, more race baiting. What a shock.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.
I suspect one difference between the US and Swedish system is that the US does not pay the full cost of tuition, it's a set amount. So Ms. Crackhead is going to keep her 8 kids in POS Public High Shool regardless of vouchers and enrollment rules.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 02:11:33 PM
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
WTF What kind of crap country has this system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 02:19:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:13:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 02:11:33 PM
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
WTF What kind of crap country has this system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
:yuk:
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:18:59 PM
Oh look, more race baiting. What a shock.
Somebody has to carry the banner of the Civil Rights Movement around here. The minority fag won't do it.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:11:10 PMYeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools
But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.
Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.
Two points here:
1. The voucher system will not solve the problem of demographics and cultural problems with education. At least, I don't think it is inteded to do that.
2. I would say the current system has failed to address your second point, so I don't see why changing it should be a problem. It's not like right now the educational system solves that problem, so why should the inability of a different system to solve that problem be held against it, as long as it is designed to solve another problem (that in many cases public schools are not performing well even when adjusted for their demographic challenges).
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
Maybe, maybe not. I certainly have enough of lack of faith in the Republicans, who are the main champions of the voucher idea, to not dismiss the notion that they see adverse selection as a feature, not a bug. Get all the good kids out of public schools, to avoid contaminating them with the inner city trash, and what happens happens with public schools.
You're wisely backing off from racism accusation, but not far enough. The good kids and the trash are both minorities.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
2. I would say the current system has failed to address your second point, so I don't see why changing it should be a problem. It's not like right now the educational system solves that problem, so why should the inability of a different system to solve that problem be held against it, as long as it is designed to solve another problem (that in many cases public schools are not performing well even when adjusted for their demographic challenges).
Well that is the thing. The voucher system may not be a magical silver bullet but it seems crazy not to try it. What we are doing is certainly never going to work.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.
I suspect one difference between the US and Swedish system is that the US does not pay the full cost of tuition, it's a set amount. So Ms. Crackhead is going to keep her 8 kids in POS Public High Shool regardless of vouchers and enrollment rules.
Wouldn't US private operators be able to run schools with the same budget that public schools have?
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.
I suspect one difference between the US and Swedish system is that the US does not pay the full cost of tuition, it's a set amount. So Ms. Crackhead is going to keep her 8 kids in POS Public High Shool regardless of vouchers and enrollment rules.
Wouldn't US private operators be able to run schools with the same budget that public schools have?
Why should they? Private schools can charge whatever they like; public schools rely on local property taxes and redirected state funding.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 02:24:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:22:09 PM
2. I would say the current system has failed to address your second point, so I don't see why changing it should be a problem. It's not like right now the educational system solves that problem, so why should the inability of a different system to solve that problem be held against it, as long as it is designed to solve another problem (that in many cases public schools are not performing well even when adjusted for their demographic challenges).
Well that is the thing. The voucher system may not be a magical silver bullet but it seems crazy not to try it. What we are doing is certainly never going to work.
I actually think the best argument against vochers is this:
The current system is not nearly so broken as people make it out to be, and in fact in most cases where people complain about "failed schools" the failure is not on the part of the schools at all, but on the community, society, and cultures that created the disadvantaged groups that habitually fail when it comes to education - whether that be inner city black kids or rural America white trash."
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:25:21 PM
Wouldn't US private operators be able to run schools with the same budget that public schools have?
Probably. But as things stand vouchers are a fraction of the amount spent on public school kids.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 01:56:55 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 01:11:10 PMYeah, pretty much-- by continuing to fund failing schools
But what if the schools are failing because the student body is more problematic rather than because the administrators and teachers suck? Then you end up punishing challenged students and rewarding advantaged students.
Seems to me that you're running the risk of basically giving up on challenged students and increasing the chances that they remain challenged as adults, producing more challenged kids of their own.
Another aspect that is overlooked/not known is that currently disadvantaged schools often receive more money per student than the suburban schools that do well. Which imo makes a lot of sense from a public policy point of view. Cutting every kid a voucher in the same amount, is another way to move funding out of the urban schools and back into the suburbs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:28:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:25:21 PM
Wouldn't US private operators be able to run schools with the same budget that public schools have?
Probably. But as things stand vouchers are a fraction of the amount spent on public school kids.
OK so the US could use the Swedish system.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:27:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:25:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 02:19:16 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
Just use the Swedish system. Even die-hard Socialists like Americans should find it in their hearts to accept it.
I suspect one difference between the US and Swedish system is that the US does not pay the full cost of tuition, it's a set amount. So Ms. Crackhead is going to keep her 8 kids in POS Public High Shool regardless of vouchers and enrollment rules.
Wouldn't US private operators be able to run schools with the same budget that public schools have?
Why should they? Private schools can charge whatever they like; public schools rely on local property taxes and redirected state funding.
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
I think it's probably like that most places in the US too. We don't do
everything wrong.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Elaborate.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Elaborate.
Private schools here will never accept vouchers equal to what the public schools get, because the tuition they charge is always substantially higher. Your universal all-schools-get-the-same-amount-in-Sweden voucher model would never be accepted here.
Take an exclusive school where Richy Rich gets an education and his rich dad has to pay for it at an exorbitant cost; and ask if they will take the voucher instead. Clearly, the answer is no, and Richy's dad will still have to pay his tuition. I'm pretty sure Burroughs would operate exactly the same way in Sweden as it does here. Except with, you know, more Swedes.
My understanding is that tuition at charter schools is lower than spending per capita at public schools, and tuition at parochial schools substantially less.
I don't think anyone is proposing that inner city kids all go to the Deerfield Academy.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:22:09 PMTwo points here:
1. The voucher system will not solve the problem of demographics and cultural problems with education. At least, I don't think it is inteded to do that.
2. I would say the current system has failed to address your second point, so I don't see why changing it should be a problem. It's not like right now the educational system solves that problem, so why should the inability of a different system to solve that problem be held against it, as long as it is designed to solve another problem (that in many cases public schools are not performing well even when adjusted for their demographic challenges).
Fair enough on point 1. I'm not sure point 2 follows, though.
I think that if you're concerned about such things (as I think you are, and as I think derSpiess is not) then the correct thing to do is to make sure that changing the system does not make things worse. Yes, the current system has not solved all those problems, true. But to what extent does changing the system to a voucher system risk making the problem worse?
Like I said, I'm not inherently opposed to a voucher system. I expect that depending on the details of implementation, it could make things worse or improve them. If your intention is for it to help rather than abandon low resource students I think the plan needs to look at the risks that the program might leave them in the lurch and address those. Because I'm pretty sure that if it's just "well, they get a voucher so they can just go to a school where the teachers and administrators don't suck" it's not going to improve things for very many low resource students.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Elaborate.
Private schools here will never accept vouchers equal to what the public schools get, because the tuition they charge is always substantially higher. Your universal all-schools-get-the-same-amount-in-Sweden voucher model would never be accepted here.
I don't follow. People who don't want to run voucher schools wouldn't be forced to do so (at least no one in Sweden is).
The biggest question is the balance:
1: Kids with potential to do much better in a different school, other factors notwithstanding.
2: Kids for whom terrible home/family/social environments are the primary factor in their (lack of) educational success.
Okay, is it better for society to remove the kids in category 1 and let category 2 rot, or is it better to keep them as-is and hope the 1s help the 2s (even if that causes a lot of wasted potential for the 1s)?
Which helps minorities more?
Excellent point MIM. I wish I could have thought of that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 02:24:20 PMWell that is the thing. The voucher system may not be a magical silver bullet but it seems crazy not to try it. What we are doing is certainly never going to work.
Personally, I think if you have a big problem and you want to attempt radical change to fix it, you only have a chance of succeeding of you identify the cause of the problem so you can shape your solution accordingly. Trying different things just because you're unhappy with how things are isn't particularly constructive; you may still make things worse.
I'm not super familiar with the US education systems (there are more than one, right?), so please let me know if there's anything I've misunderstood or have misrepresented. Having said that, I'd be interested in having the problem(s) set out.
1. Is the problem that kids from high resource families* are having their education quality dragged down when they're going to school with too many kids from low resource families? If so, the voucher system is a great solution in that it allows the kids from high resource families to be moved away from the low resource kids.
I mean, I'm pretty sympathetic to the viewpoint. When I have kids, I'm definitely going to do my best to get them the best education they can, and that includes avoiding schools with "big social problems" or "a troubled student body" or whatever the best euphemism is.
2. Is the problem that kids from low resource families tend to do less well in school? If so, the obvious answer is to solve all the social problems that lead to low resource families, but that's probably a pretty tall order. Given that, probably the best we can aim for is a school system and programs that mitigate the problems that kids from low resource families as best as possible.
Apparently that's not the present system, and agreed we shouldn't throw good money after bad. But is there anything that suggests that kids from low resource families will gain any benefit from switching schools? Is there anything that suggests that they have the resources to make the best of that kind of choice? I mean, if the kid is a poor student because he's not eating properly and there's nobody to hang out with after school except troublemakers and gang-bangers I'd think providing school lunches and good after school activities would have a much better chance of having a positive impact than allowing him the choice of going to a school half way across town that he has no reasonable way of getting to anyhow.
... maybe the problem is both (and more besides), but I think it's worthwhile to look at the impact a proposed solution will have on each of defined problems. Saying "it can't be worse than what we've got" suggests that it probably will be for at least some of the people affected. In the case of vouchers, especially combined with fewer resources for lower performing schools, I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
Which helps minorities more?
You're asking the wrong crowd, man.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:27:33 PMI actually think the best argument against vochers is this:
The current system is not nearly so broken as people make it out to be, and in fact in most cases where people complain about "failed schools" the failure is not on the part of the schools at all, but on the community, society, and cultures that created the disadvantaged groups that habitually fail when it comes to education - whether that be inner city black kids or rural America white trash."
I'm not trying to defend the current system - I don't know enough about to be honest - but it seems to me that any attempt to improve the school system should take into account that the schools in many cases are in the front lines of dealing with social problems, and that any fix should attempt to mitigate rather than amplify those problems.
I am confident that a semi-free market like the one in Sweden is better at meeting society's school needs than a Socialist system.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 03:30:49 PM
The biggest question is the balance:
1: Kids with potential to do much better in a different school, other factors notwithstanding.
2: Kids for whom terrible home/family/social environments are the primary factor in their (lack of) educational success.
Okay, is it better for society to remove the kids in category 1 and let category 2 rot, or is it better to keep them as-is and hope the 1s help the 2s (even if that causes a lot of wasted potential for the 1s)?
Which helps minorities more?
Ideally, the system helps kids from high resource families and those from low resource families according to their needs.
Linking school funding to academic success would seem to especially nurture high resource kids while abandoning those from low resource families.
Theoretically, a well executed voucher program would help kids end up in the schools best suited for them and thus help everybody, but a badly executed one would essentially link school funding to academic success and thus further screw the low resource kids.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:22:39 PM
I think that if you're concerned about such things (as I think you are, and as I think derSpiess is not)
Your constant lack of faith in my humanity makes me giggle :D
Anyway, I am sorta concerned about such things. But I'm mostly concerned about helping students and parents who want to help themselves but are unfortunately trapped in crappy school systems. A lot of those who would be left behind in crappy schools are beyond help and frankly don't want help anyway.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 04:07:35 PMYour constant lack of faith in my humanity makes me giggle :D
Anyway, I am sorta concerned about such things. But I'm mostly concerned about helping students and parents who want to help themselves but are unfortunately trapped in crappy school systems. A lot of those who would be left behind in crappy schools are beyond help and frankly don't want help anyway.
That's exactly what I figured, so in this case you're giggling at me being correct :cheers:
The idea that funding is the most important resource for the success of a school is strange to me.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 04:09:02 PM
That's exactly what I figured, so in this case you're giggling at me being correct :cheers:
:hug:
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?
See my cream/crap post. :contrast:
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 04:15:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?
See my cream/crap post. :contrast:
I'm not sure I buy the premise.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?
Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 04:19:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I think it's pretty clear that low resource kids are going to be even worse off since they're likely to be staying put in the schools they're already in, in a self perpetuating cycle of poor performance and ever diminishing resources (at least unless there's some sort of plan for preventing that outcome).
Wouldn't they be the same, rather than worse off if they're staying in the same school?
Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.
In which system is this the case?
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 04:19:33 PM
Not if the school is continually losing funding because funding is linked to school performance.
I'm not aware of any system that awards resources on overall academic performance.
Vouchers withdraw the per capita funding for students that took the charter school route, but that leaves per student spending in the public school unchanged.
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 04:22:08 PMIn which system is this the case?
I am under the impression that it is one of the proposals associated with introducing a voucher system in the US. The idea is that competition for resources would encourage schools to do better.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 02:27:33 PM
I actually think the best argument against vochers is this:
The current system is not nearly so broken as people make it out to be, and in fact in most cases where people complain about "failed schools" the failure is not on the part of the schools at all, but on the community, society, and cultures that created the disadvantaged groups that habitually fail when it comes to education - whether that be inner city black kids or rural America white trash."
Sure, blame the victim.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent . . .
Pretty strong words. How exactly is democracy being perverted?
In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability). Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.
Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers. And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity. Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc? If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.
:yes:
Quote from: mongers on June 06, 2012, 04:44:57 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 11:55:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2012, 09:10:33 AM
The idea that we should preserve the perversion of the democracy (not to mention the incredible expense) that public sector unions represent . . .
Pretty strong words. How exactly is democracy being perverted?
In our society, if groups of people want to pool capital and associate together for the purpose of operating a business enterprise, the law not only permits that but extends special protections and privileges to such group (like limited liability). Thus - among other things - allows these different individuals to act with a single collective voice in their interaction with employees.
Since FDR, the US has given recognition to the rights of the employees to do the same thing - i.e. to bind themselves together as a collective for the purpose of interacting and negotiating with their employers. And from the POV of the employees, the need and value and doing this is the same whether the employer is a private or public entity. Why should an employee lose associational rights just because he or she happens to work for an enterprise ultimately run by the State of X as opposed to the shareholders of X, Inc? If the only answer is the risk of corruption, then IMO Guller and Seedy have a point, and the same argument can be used to attack the raison d'etre of the corporate form, particular in the post-CU era.
:yes:
Since both Minsky's post, and my response, have been overtaken by talk about school vouchers, here's my response:
QuoteOf course no one would object to employees voluntarily coming together to collectively bargain.
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
I agree with Joan to a certain extent. The real fault lies with the Democratic electorate, who have no objection to public employee unions bribing their state representatives to continuously hand over more and more of the state's revenues. Or worse, applaud is as virtuous.
And of course there's Beeb's very good point about the lack of the voluntary aspect.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 04:54:58 PM
The real fault lies with the Democratic electorate, who have no objection to public employee unions bribing their state representatives to continuously hand over more and more of the state's revenues. Or worse, applaud is as virtuous.
Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:05:07 PM
Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.
I imagine the portions of the GOP electorate that are fine with corporations bribing legislators to do those things is not particularly large. I have personally not met a single registered GOP voter who has expressed approval of any of those things. Whereas a Democratic voter who is unhappy with public sector unions buying their own raises is a bit of a rarity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:05:07 PM
Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.
Yes it is. To the barricades, comrades!
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Since both Minsky's post, and my response, have been overtaken by talk about school vouchers, here's my response:
QuoteOf course no one would object to employees voluntarily coming together to collectively bargain.
But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions. Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement). And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union. What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?
IIRC the closed shop is not permitted in the US. It's true that in some situations a worker may face a take it or leave it choice with respect to the collective agreement, but that hardly worse than facing a take it or leave it choice of a non-union employer's unilaterally set work rules and conditions. The obligation to pay dues in those jurisdictions that permit such rules raises more concerns, but the alternative is a big free rider problem. And in the US at least there are plenty of non-union employers out there.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 06, 2012, 11:33:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 10:12:02 AMthe only employment in Jefferson City is state work.
Kinda makes you wonder why the city exists. Has everyone left yet?
A lot of people do leave, many don't know that they are the worst paid in the country. You'd be surprised how much desperate people are willing to take for a paycheck.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:11:31 PM
I imagine the portions of the GOP electorate that are fine with corporations bribing legislators to do those things is not particularly large. I have personally not met a single registered GOP voter who has expressed approval of any of those things. Whereas a Democratic voter who is unhappy with public sector unions buying their own raises is a bit of a rarity.
I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it. Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess . . .
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 12:59:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 12:54:49 PM
Well, given what Alfred, derSpiess and Berkut have said about the demographics of suburban schools versus troubled urban schools, it seems to me that the urban schools are on the front lines of dealing with a number of the biggest social issues facing the US today. If a large part of the student body comes from difficult family situations, don't speak English, are from environments that devalue education, and/or are facing significant issues coming from poverty/ drug abuse/ nutrition etc, it seems that threatening to take away resources from schools with the most challenged student bodies would be counter productive; and isn't that what standards competition is about?
You know what, you're right. We should definitely throw good money after bad. It can only help, right? Like in Kansas City, for example...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
edit: Some more recent info from what you'll probably consider a more agreeable source:
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147067123/kansas-citys-failed-schools-leave-students-behind
Yeah, good example. They didn't close those schools because of poor grades, they closed them because the state was running low on money and wanted to cut in places where Republicans don't vote.
They just closed half the schools in the district http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/11kansascity.html To make up for loses.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2012, 03:58:53 PM
I'm not super familiar with the US education systems (there are more than one, right?)
Yes, each state has its own system, and some of the states have pretty decentralized systems.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:23:53 PM
I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it. Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess . . .
5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos? I'd love to hear their names Joan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 06, 2012, 05:23:53 PM
I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it. Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess . . .
5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos? I'd love to hear their names Joan.
Take a guess. You have a 1 in 9 chance of getting one right.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:04:31 PM
Take a guess. You have a 1 in 9 chance of getting one right.
False premise.
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
*sigh*
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
*sigh*
Says the Landed gentry!
The strawberries aren't going to pick themselves. Get back out there!
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
Yeah Raz, it's only funny when Hansy does it. :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
You're dark. I wouldn't wish that on anyone here.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
:rolleyes: I want to officially declare the distancing of myself from that statement. Raz's despicable low blow does not necessarily represent my own personal views on the desired level of Berkut's employment.
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 06:33:38 PM
:rolleyes: I want to officially declare the distancing of myself from that statement. Raz's despicable low blow does not necessarily represent my own personal views on the desired level of Berkut's employment.
The only way we can certain of your sincerity is if you vote for the Fat Boy this fall.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:35:04 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
*sigh*
Says the Landed gentry!
The strawberries aren't going to pick themselves. Get back out there!
I can't, too busy.
You're fired.
Can't, i'm in a union! :w00t:
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:39:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:35:04 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
*sigh*
Says the Landed gentry!
The strawberries aren't going to pick themselves. Get back out there!
I can't, too busy.
You're fired.
Can't, i'm in a union! :w00t:
We brought in scabs.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
That won't happen to him. His skills are much too valuable to employers.
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:39:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:35:04 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:20:47 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:18:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2012, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2012, 06:16:33 PM
*sigh*
Says the Landed gentry!
The strawberries aren't going to pick themselves. Get back out there!
I can't, too busy.
You're fired.
Can't, i'm in a union! :w00t:
I just called ICE.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
So? I never came here to win popularity contests. Riddle me this, why should I have any warm feelings toward Berkut?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
So? I never came here to win popularity contests. Riddle me this, why should I have any warm feelings toward Berkut?
He's a human being and not particularly evil?
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2012, 06:40:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
That won't happen to him. His skills are much too valuable to employers.
He's a programer. They train people in Thailand to do that shit.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
So? I never came here to win popularity contests. Riddle me this, why should I have any warm feelings toward Berkut?
He's a human being and not particularly evil?
He despises me, why shouldn't I return the favor?
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
You're dark. I wouldn't wish that on anyone here.
Yeah, and nobody goads you to commits suicide here either.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
So? I never came here to win popularity contests. Riddle me this, why should I have any warm feelings toward Berkut?
He's a human being and not particularly evil?
He despises me, why shouldn't I return the favor?
I'm not sure that's the case and in any event not sure why you'd want his children to have to suffer (which they would do if he couldn't find work).
Keep goin', Raz; dig that hole.
I already posted why this is a touchy issue for me. I see you preening motherfuckers toasting the downfall of others. So that maybe they can raise their children in the same way I was raised. I've gotten tired of it here. I'm tired of being people goading me into committing suicide, I'm tired of being insulted by jackasses, I'm tired of people I used to like and respect deciding to ignore me because they lost an argument. I'm tired of your petty bullshit. I'm taking a vacation.
Fuck off.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:54:25 PM
Keep goin', Raz; dig that hole.
Fuck off lettow, and tell your piece of shit brother to stop wearing black face in public.
:lol: I wish I knew what that last bit meant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 06:33:38 PM
:rolleyes: I want to officially declare the distancing of myself from that statement. Raz's despicable low blow does not necessarily represent my own personal views on the desired level of Berkut's employment.
The only way we can certain of your sincerity is if you vote for the Fat Boy this fall.
:unsure: Is Berkut running for office in New Jersey?
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 06:59:41 PM
:unsure: Is Berkut running for office in New Jersey?
:pinch: You're doing the distancing thing wrong.
It was a great victory.
Obama is done. It is time to restore America.
Quote from: Siege on June 06, 2012, 07:17:26 PM
It was a great victory.
Obama is done. It is time to restore America.
Restore it to what? The 1890s?
The argument about telling students to just "go to a different, better school" is simplistic and dumb. There is such a thing as logistics.
Are you guys really gonna run a new bus line for the smart students from the inner-city to your burbs? :)
Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2012, 07:32:33 PM
The argument about telling students to just "go to a different, better school" is simplistic and dumb. There is such a thing as logistics.
Are you guys really gonna run a new bus line for the smart students from the inner-city to your burbs? :)
That's telling 'em Zoupa.
Except that vouchers are typically used at urban charter schools and parochial (Catholic) schools. Using them at suburban public schools is not even an option.
:lol:
Wow. 23 pages already! Pretty interesting vote in Wisconsin, I support them knocking the Public sector unions back. I see in the news that yesterday voters in San Jose and San Diego voted for heavy public sector pension reform, 60s and 70s percent in favor. New York has done some reform, probably not too much, same as Massachusetts. Many states and cities in trouble affording some of this stuff. Fed unions don't have collective bargaining, a law signed by Pres Carter no less.
Quote from: Siege on June 06, 2012, 07:17:26 PM
It was a great victory.
Obama is done. It is time to restore America.
I am not sure how electing the Republicans is going to help much. But sure put them in there again why not? Fool Siege once shame on you but fool him six or seven times....
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 08:51:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 06, 2012, 07:17:26 PM
It was a great victory.
Obama is done. It is time to restore America.
I am not sure how electing the Republicans is going to help much. But sure put them in there again why not? Fool Siege once shame on you but fool him six or seven times....
We'll get it right this time. Trust us :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2012, 07:38:49 PM
:lol:
I know, right? A foreigner interested and trying to understand your dysfunctional and retarded system: hilarious!
Yi: I don't know what charter and parochial schools mean.
My understanding of vouchers was that you give parents "school money coupons" which they then spend wherever they choose. Mistaken?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 07:07:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 06, 2012, 06:59:41 PM
:unsure: Is Berkut running for office in New Jersey?
:pinch: You're doing the distancing thing wrong.
What are you talking about then?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Elaborate.
Private schools here will never accept vouchers equal to what the public schools get, because the tuition they charge is always substantially higher. Your universal all-schools-get-the-same-amount-in-Sweden voucher model would never be accepted here.
Oh look, it's retard-boy again. Inner-city public school spending per pupil is substatially higher than all but the most elite private schools, my daughter's private school spends about half of what the public schools spend.
In the few existing voucher programs the vouchers are substantially lower than what public schools get per students because Union controlled Democrats want to make sure black kids are forever trapped in school systems that leave them without basic skills to survive on their own so that they stay the good little slaves that the Democrats want them to be. The Democrats are still all about controlling black people, nothing has changed on that front.
I was bored...
Baltimore Public Schools: $5000 ($5155 next year)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-pupil-funding-20120313,0,7736671.story
Arlington Baptist School, Baltimore: $6450
http://www.arlingtonbaptistschool.org/Forms/2011-2012_Fee_Schedule.pdf
Archbishop Borders Elementary School, Baltimore: $5100 ($4800 tuition+$300 for books, registration, and archdiocese fees.)
http://www.abbschool.com/about_us.html#tuitplans
And to be equal, lets throw in a Jewish girl's school...
Bais Yaakov School for girls, in Owing Mills: $7855 - $9585 (depending on grade)
http://www.baisyaakov.net/about-bais-yaakov/fact-sheet
But to be fair, I scanned a few others that came in around the $5000 level, and as high as $14-15,000. Point is, certainly not "substantially more".
Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2012, 07:32:33 PM
The argument about telling students to just "go to a different, better school" is simplistic and dumb. There is such a thing as logistics.
Are you guys really gonna run a new bus line for the smart students from the inner-city to your burbs? :)
Why not?
Right now the school bus system in the Rochester area is at least attempted to be somewhat universal - the thinking is that the busses are paid for by taxes, and everyone pays taxes, even those who send their kids to private schools. Someone who lives on my street with a son my sons age and goes to the local Catholic school gets on the bus with my son, takes it to the junior high, then gets on another bus to take him to the private school, which isn't even located in the same school district at all.
Obviously there are limits to this (timing and all) but it is hardly an insurmountable issue.
Also, for fun, I looked up the spending-per-student of one of the high schools in my own home, Bellevue (WA) School District. Bellevue is certainly not "inner-city", and I would say it's a 'rich, white suburb" if it weren't almost 40% Asian (at least, those are the enrollment numbers for said high school). It came in right about at $10,000 per.
Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2012, 10:05:55 PM
I know, right? A foreigner interested and trying to understand your dysfunctional and retarded system: hilarious!
Yi: I don't know what charter and parochial schools mean.
My understanding of vouchers was that you give parents "school money coupons" which they then spend wherever they choose. Mistaken?
A parochial school is a school run by the Catholic parish. A charter school is a private, non-profit school in jurisdictions that allow them. They compete with the public school system for students.
I believe the "wherever they choose" part is mistaken. I've never heard, for example, of parents using vouchers to pay part of the tuition at exclusive New England boarding schools.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 06:51:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2012, 06:47:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 06, 2012, 06:18:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one. I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help. :glare:
I don't think there's anything that can be said in response to this that actually would make your post look even worse than it already is. :)
So? I never came here to win popularity contests. Riddle me this, why should I have any warm feelings toward Berkut?
He's a human being and not particularly evil?
He despises me, why shouldn't I return the favor?
I'm not sure that's the case and in any event not sure why you'd want his children to have to suffer (which they would do if he couldn't find work).
Wow, Raz has really jumped the shark. Every now and again I see his posts in a response like this, and I think "Man, I sure am glad I put him on ignore".
Thanks for the kind sentiment Raz. While I won't take you off ignore, I will say I have never wished anything ill upon you of any kind. Sorry the feeling is not mutual.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 10:59:18 PM
Also, for fun, I looked up the spending-per-student of one of the high schools in my own home, Bellevue (WA) School District. Bellevue is certainly not "inner-city", and I would say it's a 'rich, white suburb" if it weren't almost 40% Asian (at least, those are the enrollment numbers for said high school). It came in right about at $10,000 per.
Monroe County in 2010 averaged just over $18.000/year.
When I was living in DC the spending per pupil was something like 13K.
I'm having a hard time swallowing 5K/year in Baltimore.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 11:08:37 PM
When I was living in DC the spending per pupil was something like 13K.
I'm having a hard time swallowing 5K/year in Baltimore.
Yeah, after doing more looking around, I am seeing wildly varying figures on per-pupil costs. The article cites $5000...a website (that appears to support school choice) cites something like $13,000.
...aaand the best reason I am finding for the discrepancy is: One side takes the entire school budget and divides by students, the other side reports how much is allocated, to each school, in the budget itself "per student". The latter, most likely, ignoring non-student-directed administrative costs and such.
In Sweden many voucher schools are for-profit. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 11:22:14 PM
...aaand the best reason I am finding for the discrepancy is: One side takes the entire school budget and divides by students, the other side reports how much is allocated, to each school, in the budget itself "per student". The latter, most likely, ignoring non-student-directed administrative costs and such.
And "administrative costs" in public schools tend to be horrbily high due to bureaucratic bloat brought on by political patronage and the Unions. About half of public school employment is for administrative staff, a ludicrous amount by any measure. I remember my school in Germany only had two part-time nonteaching employees (secretary and groundskeeper).
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 11:18:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 11:08:37 PM
When I was living in DC the spending per pupil was something like 13K.
I'm having a hard time swallowing 5K/year in Baltimore.
Yeah, after doing more looking around, I am seeing wildly varying figures on per-pupil costs. The article cites $5000...a website (that appears to support school choice) cites something like $13,000.
Education.com cites $14,200.
Note that these costs do not include the cost of employee pension benefits, which can add an additional $10,000 per pupil cost. For example in D.C. per pupil spending including Union pensions is $24,600 per year.
Children are expensive. We should start having less.
Quote from: HVC on June 07, 2012, 12:20:15 AM
Children are expensive. We should start having less.
We have been doing that for awhile now. You can only imagine the public expense if we hadn't.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
About half of public school employment is for administrative staff, a ludicrous amount by any measure.
While I agree that admin employment is generally more than necessary, I think that may be an exaggerated contention. I know that for my home, Bellevue School District, that I cited before, is only about 11% admin, and another 15% being maintenance, transport, and food service. The rest is teaching staff.
But, then again, BSD competes very well nationally for results. And, for the longest time, was the major center of the only congressional district in western Washington that voted Republican (though it has always been more of a Bush Sr./Bob Dole Republicanism). :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 12:23:53 AM
Quote from: HVC on June 07, 2012, 12:20:15 AM
Children are expensive. We should start having less.
We have been doing that for awhile now. You can only imagine the public expense if we hadn't.
Then we should force the older kids to teach the younger kids. Slaves are cheap.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
I remember my school in Germany only had two part-time nonteaching employees (secretary and groundskeeper).
And a cracking job that school did.
And while we're in Union-bashing mode, from BusinessInsider:
QuoteThis Bank Bashing Union Is Making Money With A High-Interest Credit Card
Peter Schweizer, Government Accountability Institute | Jun. 4, 2012, 9:18 AM | 1,090 | 5
With the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFL-CIO spending tens of millions on political activism, including the recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, union members might do well to see where the money is coming from.
Big unions are morphing into the kinds of big businesses and banks they decry, hawking to their members everything from high interest credit cards to home loans.
And contrary to Big Labor's claims, these products offer no real benefit to union members—only to the union bosses.
As the collection of union dues have dipped, union bosses are increasingly looking for ways to bend the revenue curve in their favor by profiting off loans and credit extended to their members.
Consider, for example, the "SEIU New Rewards Visa Card" and the AFL-CIO "Union Plus" card. With each new enrollment and subsequent swipe of the card, the union bags a fee and a percentage respectively.
This turns into huge money: In FY2011, according to its LM-2 filing with the Department of Labor, the AFL-CIO received approximately $28,163,266.00 from credit card revenue.
Given the labor movement's high-wattage rhetoric against the big banks, issuing credit cards to union members seems like an odd revenue source for Big Labor to pursue.
After all, SEIU has blasted the banks for pushing "credit cards and other banking products with unfair rates or traps in the fine print." Furthermore, they've enlisted their members to report banks offering "new products designed to push consumers further into debt."
If banks offer consumers products that ensnare them in deeper debt it's a problem. But when unions do it, suddenly it's a legitimate revenue stream.
Former SEIU Executive Board Member Stephen Lerner has attacked banks for being built on "a business model on screwing customers, pushing dangerous products, and burying customers in more and more debt." Still, that hasn't stopped the union credit card moneymaking gambit.
Indeed, the AFL-CIO goes so far as to encourage their members to consider putting "a portion of your vehicle's down payment" on their union credit card. Oddly, forget to mention that the union will bag a portion of the transaction.)
In fact, the AFL-CIO was so determined to see their credit card program succeed that they hired an executive from Citicorp and American Express who managed corporate card marketing for those firms to head up the effort.
Both the AFL-CIO and SEIU try to give their members the impression that their cards are superior to others on the market, but they're not. The SEIU, for example, offers an introductory rate of 12.24% APR to 22.24%, which is consistent with the industry standards the union have labeled "predatory." The SEIU card boasts that it doesn't charge a late fee. But union members should read the fine print; if they miss a payment, their rate skyrockets to 27.99%.
Nerdwallet, which Money magazine calls the "Best Credit Card Site" on the web, compares the value of more than 1,000 credit cards. They thrashed the Union Plus card's slick advertising and complex fine print.
Worse, Nerdwallet points out that many of the card's so-called benefits are already available by virtue of union membership. "We are appalled at the popularity of the Union Plus Credit Card," says Nerdwallet. "Avoid the Union Plus Credit Card."
Along with credit cards, the AFL-CIO and SEIU hawk "Union Plus" mortgages to their members. The AFL-CIO's Richard Trumpka says his union has held an estimated 200 protests against Chase and other lenders, and the SEIU's website declares: "Chase hurts everybody. They're making a profit by lending taxpayers their own money."
But if you need a mortgage and use the Union Plus mortgage program, the unions direct you to Chase. "Financing a home can be a complicated business, so why not leave it to the experts?" states a local SEIU website. The Union Plus program is nothing special; it offers rates and fees comparable to other programs offered by Chase. The only difference is the fee given to the Union when a member signs up. Thus far, the Union Plus mortgage program has directed more than 80,000 mortgages to Chase.
Beyond the irony and hypocrisy of labor unions being transformed into financial services providers, this new reality creates a massive conflict of interest for union bosses.
By fostering the illusion that union-backed financial products are somehow better and less "predatory" than non-union products, Big Labor is making big bucks. But when union bosses become the middleman, their interests become boosting revenues from banks and credit card companies, not brokering a better deal for union members.
The SEIU credit card grew out of the deep financial crisis the union found itself in 2009. With membership falling and tens of millions in debts as a result of its spending on the presidential election, SEIU needed a way to raise some fast cash. And the unions are increasingly working for the financial institutions and not for their members.
For example, the SEIU pushes its credit cards through SEIU Services and Marketing Inc., a taxable corporation. Its purpose: to provide "technical assistance and support services to financial institutions and financial services firms, aiding those institutions and firms with the promotion and marketing of their products beneficial to our members."
All this means that AFL-CIO and SEIU members have themselves become enormous profit centers for the union bosses who control them. When the banks do it, it's called Wall Street greed at its worst. When the Big Labor does it, it's simply working the union way.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 07, 2012, 12:24:12 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
About half of public school employment is for administrative staff, a ludicrous amount by any measure.
While I agree that admin employment is generally more than necessary, I think that may be an exaggerated contention. I know that for my home, Bellevue School District, that I cited before, is only about 11% admin, and another 15% being maintenance, transport, and food service. The rest is teaching staff.
But, then again, BSD competes very well nationally for results. And, for the longest time, was the major center of the only congressional district in western Washington that voted Republican (though it has always been more of a Bush Sr./Bob Dole Republicanism). :P
It is usually the more urban a school district, the more bloated the staff (and remember, you have to count the school district employees as well, not just the ones actually employed at the schools itself, since they are part of the overhead.)
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
I remember my school in Germany only had two part-time nonteaching employees (secretary and groundskeeper).
And a cracking job that school did.
I scored in the 97% in English and 93% in math percentile on the SAT, as a nonnative English speaker with only 10 years of primary education (and 10 years after having left school). So I put my German education against any US public school any day. Of course I went to school in Bavaria which has by far the best schools in Germany (only Baden-Wuerttenberg was ever able to compete with them, where I went to school until 4th grade).
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 01:56:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
I remember my school in Germany only had two part-time nonteaching employees (secretary and groundskeeper).
And a cracking job that school did.
I scored in the 97% in English and 93% in math percentile on the SAT, as a nonnative English speaker with only 10 years of primary education (and 10 years after having left school). So I put my German education against any US public school any day. Of course I went to school in Bavaria which has by far the best schools in Germany (only Baden-Wuerttenberg was ever able to compete with them, where I went to school until 4th grade).
Those are actually exactly my percentiles as well, except for math and English reversed. :unsure: I'm a non-native speaker as well, and I did go to US public schools.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 01:56:01 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2012, 01:47:48 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
I remember my school in Germany only had two part-time nonteaching employees (secretary and groundskeeper).
And a cracking job that school did.
So I put my German education against any US public school any day. Of course I went to school in Bavaria which has by far the best schools in Germany (only Baden-Wuerttenberg was ever able to compete with them, where I went to school until 4th grade).
I would put US public schools way ahead of your faggoty Euro schools any day in a brawl, knife, or gun fight. :moon:
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 06, 2012, 10:38:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 03:18:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 03:08:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2012, 02:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 06, 2012, 02:34:29 PM
In Sweden private schools can either take vouchers (which are the same amount that the public schools get) or charge tuition (which can be any amount). They cannot do both.
Well, that's just super; I'm sure the Burroughs School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Burroughs_School) will be more than willing to accept vouchers in the same amount as the $4,902 the St Louis public school system receives per student. :lol:
Elaborate.
Private schools here will never accept vouchers equal to what the public schools get, because the tuition they charge is always substantially higher. Your universal all-schools-get-the-same-amount-in-Sweden voucher model would never be accepted here.
Oh look, it's retard-boy again. Inner-city public school spending per pupil is substatially higher than all but the most elite private schools, my daughter's private school spends about half of what the public schools spend.
In the few existing voucher programs the vouchers are substantially lower than what public schools get per students because Union controlled Democrats want to make sure black kids are forever trapped in school systems that leave them without basic skills to survive on their own so that they stay the good little slaves that the Democrats want them to be. The Democrats are still all about controlling black people, nothing has changed on that front.
Yada, yada, yada. Don't you have a PowerPoint to write? Teach Taliban sympathizing Afghani cops how to use pepper spray or something?
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 06, 2012, 10:47:54 PM
I was bored...
Baltimore Public Schools: $5000 ($5155 next year)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-pupil-funding-20120313,0,7736671.story
Arlington Baptist School, Baltimore: $6450
http://www.arlingtonbaptistschool.org/Forms/2011-2012_Fee_Schedule.pdf
Archbishop Borders Elementary School, Baltimore: $5100 ($4800 tuition+$300 for books, registration, and archdiocese fees.)
http://www.abbschool.com/about_us.html#tuitplans
And to be equal, lets throw in a Jewish girl's school...
Bais Yaakov School for girls, in Owing Mills: $7855 - $9585 (depending on grade)
http://www.baisyaakov.net/about-bais-yaakov/fact-sheet
But to be fair, I scanned a few others that came in around the $5000 level, and as high as $14-15,000. Point is, certainly not "substantially more".
Great. So how about the rest of the country, think tanker?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 11:08:37 PM
When I was living in DC the spending per pupil was something like 13K.
I'm having a hard time swallowing 5K/year in Baltimore.
DC's always been fucked up administratively; benefits of not being a state.
And Baltimore city schools don't need fire extinguishers anyway.
Ripple effects from Wisconsin: http://www.waow.com/story/18727519/group-ends-michigan-recall-effort-after-wisconsin-results
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
Ripple effects from Wisconsin: http://www.waow.com/story/18727519/group-ends-michigan-recall-effort-after-wisconsin-results
Good, we do need more think tanks.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2012, 10:35:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 10:35:01 AM
Ripple effects from Wisconsin: http://www.waow.com/story/18727519/group-ends-michigan-recall-effort-after-wisconsin-results
Good, we do need more think tanks.
I hope they make it one of those that has an overly broad or outright deceptive name :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos? I'd love to hear their names Joan.
When you talked about public service unions "bribing" legislators, I assume you didn't mean literally bribery. My response was in the same vein.
The Court (and its supporters) on this issue did not approve stricly quid pro quos, but they were very comfortable with the thinnest of tissues between the quid and the quo. As an example, I read in the FT two days ago that approximately 80% of the negative campaign ads broadcast in April 2012 were ads attacking Obama on energy. The campaign is being funded by various groups created and funded by the members of API. Is there really any doubt that the companies funding these ads are doing it for any other reason than they expect that a Romney adminstration will extend them more favorable regulatory treatment?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 06, 2012, 06:54:59 PM
I already posted why this is a touchy issue for me. I see you preening motherfuckers toasting the downfall of others. So that maybe they can raise their children in the same way I was raised. I've gotten tired of it here. I'm tired of being people goading me into committing suicide, I'm tired of being insulted by jackasses, I'm tired of people I used to like and respect deciding to ignore me because they lost an argument. I'm tired of your petty bullshit. I'm taking a vacation.
Fuck off.
Raz, good luck, but you can't take this stuff so serious. This is an internet message board, nothing that is posted here is going to affect anything, and most of the anti union people are using this as an opportunity to gloat/troll.
There are also two sides to this. Your point of view isn't the only legitimate one out there.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2012, 12:50:14 PM
most of the anti union people are using this as an opportunity to gloat
:o
Stop spiking the football, Spicy.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:06:43 PM
Stop spiking the football, Spicy.
:rolleyes: This is what democracy looks like.
:rolleyes: Democracy died two days ago.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:06:43 PM
Stop spiking the football, Spicy.
Compared to the still-ongoing multiple orgasms Hansy's been having ever since, derfetuss has been downright magnanimous.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
The Court (and its supporters) on this issue did not approve stricly quid pro quos, but they were very comfortable with the thinnest of tissues between the quid and the quo. As an example, I read in the FT two days ago that approximately 80% of the negative campaign ads broadcast in April 2012 were ads attacking Obama on energy. The campaign is being funded by various groups created and funded by the members of API. Is there really any doubt that the companies funding these ads are doing it for any other reason than they expect that a Romney adminstration will extend them more favorable regulatory treatment?
Members of Congress go to fund raising events with their supporters and they get up there and give a speech and what exactly are they saying besides 'hey give money to my efforts and here is how I will take care of you'? It confuses me sometimes because on one hand everybody seems to know there are quid pro quos involved at certain points but refuse to believe it at others. As if we all have to be two faced about it. So Yi here can casually reference bribery involving the Unions but act like the sky is green when it comes to referencing the Supreme Court decision.
Puzzling.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:19:57 PM
:rolleyes: Democracy died two days ago.
Fine. This is what Democracy looks like when it's dead. Happy??
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:19:57 PM
:rolleyes: Democracy died two days ago.
Fine. This is what Democracy looks like when it's dead. Happy??
He isn't a Soviet, so why would he be happy?
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:19:57 PM
:rolleyes: Democracy died two days ago.
Fine. This is what Democracy looks like when it's dead. Happy??
At least you acknowledge it. :P
I think cases like CU are a triumph of legal formalism over common sense. It's true there is no transaction going on: I will give you $X if you vote yea on Bill Y. And there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem in the sense of does Senator A support Bill Y because he knows if he does so he will get (or not lose) the big PAC money, or a Senator A predisposed to support Bill Y anyways, but the reason why Senator A is there in the first place is because he could get financing from the monies interest that support Bill Y?
What really matters IMO is that we have a political system where the available policy options are shaped increasingly by those forces and organizations that are capable of mobilizing significant sums of money to support political campaigns and electioneering ads. Where a policy view can't mobilize such economic support either because the benefits are too diffused across society or not easily exploitable for rents, it gets crowded out. So Sheldon Adelson is going to be able to get airtime for his views on Iran and gambling regs, Hollywood is able to get the adminsitration to focus discussions with the Chinese on treatment of foreign films, the oil industry is able to promote Keystone to the top of the national agenda, and the UAW gets Obama's ear when the adminisration is designing its auto industry bailout plan. But cobbling together a majority to enact basic tax reform is an effective impossibility because while it would provide a generalized benefit to everyone, it would be at the cost of imposing significant losses on a well organized and resourced few.
So we have avoided most instances of specific IbribeUtake corruption, but at the cost of tolerating a more generalized corruption that perverts policy options and outcomes by facilitating access to those interests that can concentrate funds and crowding out everyone else.
That in itself isn't a GOP-DEM issue because both parties benefit and suffer. But the differences is that, if one puts the determined group of McCainiacs aside, there seem to be all too many GOPers that are prepared to tolerate this system and whose response is not to try to reduce the role of concentrated money, but instead fight the unwelcome symptoms of the disease from their POV by trying to destroy those sources of concentrated money that oppose their views.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
When you talked about public service unions "bribing" legislators, I assume you didn't mean literally bribery. My response was in the same vein.
The Court (and its supporters) on this issue did not approve stricly quid pro quos, but they were very comfortable with the thinnest of tissues between the quid and the quo. As an example, I read in the FT two days ago that approximately 80% of the negative campaign ads broadcast in April 2012 were ads attacking Obama on energy. The campaign is being funded by various groups created and funded by the members of API. Is there really any doubt that the companies funding these ads are doing it for any other reason than they expect that a Romney adminstration will extend them more favorable regulatory treatment?
Fair enough Joan. There are some points I could quibble about, but if moderate Democrats can see the public sector union scam iin the same light as say a paid-for earmark, I can live with that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 07, 2012, 01:58:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 07, 2012, 01:19:57 PM
:rolleyes: Democracy died two days ago.
Fine. This is what Democracy looks like when it's dead. Happy??
At least you acknowledge it. :P
Elections have consequences.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos? I'd love to hear their names Joan.
When you talked about public service unions "bribing" legislators, I assume you didn't mean literally bribery. My response was in the same vein.
The Court (and its supporters) on this issue did not approve stricly quid pro quos, but they were very comfortable with the thinnest of tissues between the quid and the quo. As an example, I read in the FT two days ago that approximately 80% of the negative campaign ads broadcast in April 2012 were ads attacking Obama on energy. The campaign is being funded by various groups created and funded by the members of API. Is there really any doubt that the companies funding these ads are doing it for any other reason than they expect that a Romney adminstration will extend them more favorable regulatory treatment?
The only feasable solution is to eliminate the limits of what can be donated to candidates but require full and immediate disclosure so the voters can make up their minds whether they like or dislike from whom the candidates are taking their money and make their choices based on that.
And of course return to an original constitutionalism as far as tthe limits of government power to before FDR assraped it so that it greatly reduces the incentive/compulsion to give money. People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place. Microsoft wa famous for not giving any money until they were attacked by the DOJ after Microsoft's enemies gave a lot of money to influence DC. Microsoft learned real quick that you have to pay to play, or you come under the wheels.
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. The Germans voted less for the Nazis and that result somehow put them in a position of absolute power.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place.
I have made that point many times.
It is a system where nobody is particularly happy but everybody is compelled to act this way for various reasons. But then most corrupt systems are like that. Few peole really like corruption even when it is rampant. The Corporations would much rather keep their money and the Politicians would much rather not have to spend such a huge chunk of their time fund raising.
In my mind that makes the cause for reform greater not less.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2012, 02:16:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 07, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
Elections have consequences.
Not really. The Germans voted less for the Nazis and that result somehow put them in a position of absolute power.
I was just quoting our president. Go take that up with him :angry:
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2012, 05:58:40 PM
5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos? I'd love to hear their names Joan.
When you talked about public service unions "bribing" legislators, I assume you didn't mean literally bribery. My response was in the same vein.
The Court (and its supporters) on this issue did not approve stricly quid pro quos, but they were very comfortable with the thinnest of tissues between the quid and the quo. As an example, I read in the FT two days ago that approximately 80% of the negative campaign ads broadcast in April 2012 were ads attacking Obama on energy. The campaign is being funded by various groups created and funded by the members of API. Is there really any doubt that the companies funding these ads are doing it for any other reason than they expect that a Romney adminstration will extend them more favorable regulatory treatment?
The only feasable solution is to eliminate the limits of what can be donated to candidates but require full and immediate disclosure so the voters can make up their minds whether they like or dislike from whom the candidates are taking their money and make their choices based on that.
And of course return to an original constitutionalism as far as tthe limits of government power to before FDR assraped it so that it greatly reduces the incentive/compulsion to give money. People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place. Microsoft wa famous for not giving any money until they were attacked by the DOJ after Microsoft's enemies gave a lot of money to influence DC. Microsoft learned real quick that you have to pay to play, or you come under the wheels.
Do you really need to throw in the word "assrape" into an otherwise cogent argument?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 01:59:50 PM
I think cases like CU are a triumph of legal formalism over common sense.
Isn't that the world you've been striving to build in your work as a lawyer?
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2012, 10:28:52 AM
See this is all you have to do freak out Republicans on school vouchers. Claim 'we need to have a Swedish-style educational system'.
It's being copied (to some extent - profit schools are banned from using them) by the Tories here and seems to be a hopeful policy. It's not quite the same as the US though - there's no talk of 'defunding' public education or 'escaping' the school system. Not least because regardless of the motives that language makes you sound a little crazy and scares not just teachers but parents.
QuoteDo you really think that communities where almost everyone is from a broken home, high school dropouts are a lot of the parents, crime rates are very high, etc. are going to suddenly produce great students? If you give those kids vouchers, you are going to need to open new private schools--there aren't enough existing private schools to take them, and in any event they wouldn't want those kids. I suspect a lot of the schools that will open are going to be much worse than the schools that currently exist.
That was the experience with New Labour and Academies - they're not private schools but state funded independent schools in deprived areas. They're being expanded across the country right now and the 'free schools' policy from Sweden has worked there. I can't see why it wouldn't work here.
One strange feature of our education system which I've just been reading about is how excellent the state schools in London are compared to the rest of the UK. They're not selective - so it blows the grammar school debate away - but they're really, significantly, extraordinarily better for poor kids.
QuoteIn the Swedish system all schools (that are in the voucher system, there are still private schools for the rich with tuition and they don't get voucher money) get the same amount of money per student. Students with special needs (disabilities) get a bigger voucher.
The UK system will be the same plus a pupil premiums which is extra money for kids on free school meals (very poor). It's interesting that noone over here talks about it as a 'voucher' system though, similarly it's interesting that the emphasis hasn't been on bitching about the teaching unions but about the Local Education Authorities. Teachers are very much praised by the reformers :mellow:
QuoteIn the Swedish system all schools (that are in the voucher system, there are still private schools for the rich with tuition and they don't get voucher money) get the same amount of money per student.
Again that's the same here (already), most of our schools aren't selective except on those grounds. So they can't use tests for example. Some counties have kept grammar schools though, so they do test.
QuoteProbably. But as things stand vouchers are a fraction of the amount spent on public school kids.
Here the system is moving so that x amount of money is attached to each pupil, more money is attached to kids with learning difficulties or from very poor backgrounds. That money follows the pupil if they go to a non-profit school (if the reforms continue probably to for-profit schools too) or to an academy or to a 'free school'. The schools will be competing for pupils because they want the money. Bad ones will close, good ones expand and establish subsidiary schools. That, at least, is the theory. We'll see how it works, but I personally think it's one of the better reforms the government's pushing.
Quote from: Barrister on June 07, 2012, 02:29:28 PM
Do you really need to throw in the word "assrape" into an otherwise cogent argument?
Assrape, assrape, assrape, assrape.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place. Microsoft wa famous for not giving any money until they were attacked by the DOJ after Microsoft's enemies gave a lot of money to influence DC. Microsoft learned real quick that you have to pay to play, or you come under the wheels.
There is some truth to that but then ask yourself who were the "enemies" tormenting Microsoft: to a great extent they were corporate competitors (Sun, Oracle, Netscape, IBM etc). In that respect the Microsoft case was just a later iteration in a lognstanding pattern - recall that in Michael Porter's original book on competitive strategy as published around 1980, he noted the use of antitrust law as a tool for attacking and constraining competitors.
What this story has in common with chasing earmarks, featherbedding government contracts, and writing special breaks into the tax code is that they are all varieties of rent seeking behavior. Corporations are the major players here - not because corporation are uniquely wicked, but because the larger corporations tend to have high levels of resources to dedicate to rent seeking and a coherent centralized management structure that helps them pursue such goals effectively.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place. Microsoft wa famous for not giving any money until they were attacked by the DOJ after Microsoft's enemies gave a lot of money to influence DC. Microsoft learned real quick that you have to pay to play, or you come under the wheels.
There is some truth to that but then ask yourself who were the "enemies" tormenting Microsoft: to a great extent they were corporate competitors (Sun, Oracle, Netscape, IBM etc). In that respect the Microsoft case was just a later iteration in a lognstanding pattern - recall that in Michael Porter's original book on competitive strategy as published around 1980, he noted the use of antitrust law as a tool for attacking and constraining competitors.
What this story has in common with chasing earmarks, featherbedding government contracts, and writing special breaks into the tax code is that they are all varieties of rent seeking behavior. Corporations are the major players here - not because corporation are uniquely wicked, but because the larger corporations tend to have high levels of resources to dedicate to rent seeking and a coherent centralized management structure that helps them pursue such goals effectively.
Which is why the only way to address this is by taking away the politicians ability to hand out candy through limited government. The more powerful government is, the more corrupt rent-seeking you end up with. Attacking political spending is simply attacking the symptoms, not the cause. The problem is that the reality clashes with the left's fantasy of the efficacy of bigger government so they create this fantasy of trying to ban money and free speech of groups they don't like to create some sort of immaculate political dream world .
This is why the left always fails, their ideals have no bearing on reality.
How do you take away politicians' ability to spend? Who gets that ability if not them? I'm just curious how that applies in reality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2012, 08:05:46 AM
How do you take away politicians' ability to spend? Who gets that ability if not them? I'm just curious how that applies in reality.
I would imagine that Hans will tell you that the solution would be to return to an interpretation of the US constitution that prevents the federal government from doing anything, and probably to eliminate a lot of taxation too. In essence, to dismantle the modern state.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 03:24:29 AM
This is why the left always fails, their ideals have no bearing on reality.
So the real and cogent and lucid thing to do here is eliminate the state all together? Interesting solution there Hanarchist.
Granted that would definitely put an end to state corruption.
I continue to be puzzled by the sort of mentality that openly admits there is corruption but says it is holy, sancrosanct free speech corruption that is untouchable by legal means.
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2012, 08:13:54 AMI would imagine that Hans will tell you that the solution would be to return to an interpretation of the US constitution that prevents the federal government from doing anything, and probably to eliminate a lot of taxation too. In essence, to dismantle the modern state.
Either that or technocrats and quangos get to run everything.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 03:24:29 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 07, 2012, 11:34:11 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 07, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
People always assume that corporations give money in order to bribe politicians, when it is probably just as likely that they are being extorted by the politicians in the first place. Microsoft wa famous for not giving any money until they were attacked by the DOJ after Microsoft's enemies gave a lot of money to influence DC. Microsoft learned real quick that you have to pay to play, or you come under the wheels.
There is some truth to that but then ask yourself who were the "enemies" tormenting Microsoft: to a great extent they were corporate competitors (Sun, Oracle, Netscape, IBM etc). In that respect the Microsoft case was just a later iteration in a lognstanding pattern - recall that in Michael Porter's original book on competitive strategy as published around 1980, he noted the use of antitrust law as a tool for attacking and constraining competitors.
What this story has in common with chasing earmarks, featherbedding government contracts, and writing special breaks into the tax code is that they are all varieties of rent seeking behavior. Corporations are the major players here - not because corporation are uniquely wicked, but because the larger corporations tend to have high levels of resources to dedicate to rent seeking and a coherent centralized management structure that helps them pursue such goals effectively.
Which is why the only way to address this is by taking away the politicians ability to hand out candy through limited government.
Yeah, that won't actually work in the real world. Saying we should fix the problem by returning to a time that simply does not exist anymore, and never will, is like saying we should control government spending by cutting out all that waste.
It is in every practical sense, tantamount to saying we should just give up.
I am all for keeping government smaller, but I realize that "smaller" is at best a very relative term. No matter what happens, the basic scope of government in the USA is not going to change fundamentally enough to remove the need to somehow deal with campaign finance.
And frankly, even back when the US government was a fraction of its current size, there was still plenty of corruption.
Some would say much more of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2012, 08:05:46 AM
How do you take away politicians' ability to spend? Who gets that ability if not them? I'm just curious how that applies in reality.
It takes 5 Supreme Court Judges to overturn the reinterpretation of the commerce clause done at the behest of FDR in the 30s. That would wipe out much of the misconduct that has been made possible since then.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 09:38:29 AMIt takes 5 Supreme Court Judges to overturn the reinterpretation of the commerce clause done at the behest of FDR in the 30s. That would wipe out much of the misconduct that has been made possible since then.
I'm English. I don't like judges deciding policy one way or the other.
But also that doesn't remove spending power from politicians which is what you identified as the source of corruption. It limits the scope of legitimate spending, but I think that would expand again - probably through a constitutional amendment. But it doesn't answer my question of how you remove spending power from politicians? As far as I see it's either anarchy or a system without any accountability.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
It takes 5 Supreme Court Judges to overturn the reinterpretation of the commerce clause done at the behest of FDR in the 30s. That would wipe out much of the misconduct that has been made possible since then.
Assrape
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2012, 08:05:46 AM
How do you take away politicians' ability to spend? Who gets that ability if not them? I'm just curious how that applies in reality.
It takes 5 Supreme Court Judges to overturn the reinterpretation of the commerce clause done at the behest of FDR in the 30s. That would wipe out much of the misconduct that has been made possible since then.
They could never decide that though. They're appointed by politicians along ideological lines, and there is no political support whatsoever for reinterpreting the commerce clause.
The fact that America has tried to perfect the union for more than 200 years and are still stuck with the retardo version speaks volumes about its inhabitants.
Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2012, 10:36:45 AM
They could never decide that though. They're appointed by politicians along ideological lines, and there is no political support whatsoever for reinterpreting the commerce clause.
Well maybe if the libertarian Tea Party types are triumphant for a few decades.
Quote from: Hansmeister on June 08, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 08, 2012, 08:05:46 AM
How do you take away politicians' ability to spend? Who gets that ability if not them? I'm just curious how that applies in reality.
It takes 5 Supreme Court Judges to overturn the reinterpretation of the commerce clause done at the behest of FDR in the 30s.
You've got Thomas
The other 2 dissenters in Gonzales v. Raich are gone.
Will be interesting to see how their replacements (Roberts and Alito) deal with this issue in the health care case.