quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Use contact information too. At this point I don't respect anything you have to say enough to actually take your word for any of it. You'd probably just cut and paste a phone book.
I've had well over 1500 people at my place of work this year alone. Since January. Probably 20% MIGHT fit PART of the profile you put forth. And most of them are still fighting serious mental illness.
You are missing the point I was making, Kwea. The person I originally responsed to stated that everyone should have those things. Not everyone wants those things or destroys their own lives by their choice via drugs, alcohol, etc.
Mental illness is NOT a choice. Whether it was a genetic abnormality, the result of injury or abuse is not the same as those who chose to drink or do drugs. You have a choice in that, don't you? Do people force you to do those things or do we actually have free will?
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
Are you sure? This seems like something that would require a heck of a lot more than 3 years (in how many districts? I'm guessing one, but surely no more than 3) in teaching to know firsthand. So is there some study or something that you've seen that substantiates this belief?
Have you ever so much as spent a day with a superintendent to see what they did that day? I mean, at least 9 to 5?
Edit: anyway, surely you know that leaders of organizations aren't paid based on how much raw effort they put in each day.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well they *chose* to get a mental illness, obviously. Or chose not to get help. You believe in predestination or something?
Hey, know what'd work great? Cap a few of those homeless, right in the dome. Lesson to the others. Also a cure for mental illness, *and* endorsed by Sam Kinison!
Grow up, Rakeesh. Are the people coming illegally slaves, Rakeesh? Are they coming at gunpoint against their will? No government official has ever made a statement that would actually solve the problem. Human beings respond best to fear. Fear has always been the greatest motivator in the world. People who believe in God are fearful of Hell, so what do they do? They follow the laws the religion have set out for them. People who have severe allergies are fearful of the reaction, so they take care to make sure they don't expose themselves to the allergen.
Even if the shooting was faked, it would still send the intended message. The country cannot have an open border policy unless we are going to be annexing foreign nations so that we can grow enough food to support the population. The population of the world without population controls will grow until it cannot support it.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:#1, you know absolutely nothing about the role of a superintendent. I was a teacher for three years and went to college for education. My brother is a principal, my father a Supermarket teacher at a VoTech school, my mother is a 4th grade Special Ed. teacher, my uncle works at a school for the mentally handicapped. My aunt works at a college. I have more knowledge of the education system then you will ever have. So, please don't dare to have a pissing match with me on it. Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
I'm not getting in a pissing match with you. You're the one getting in a pissing match. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and fairly obviously so. For instance, picking a random-ish school district in New Jersey that isn't particularly large, the Camden City Public Schools, the budget there is over a third of a million dollars, not counting major construction expenditures, which have in some years totaled another hundred million plus (edit: actually, I'm not sure if that number is already included in the previous number or not; either way, it's a darn big number). So, that's managing the equivalent of a business that does nearly a half a billion dollars in expenditures. And you're saying that's a heck of a lot easier than managing a single school, in large part because there are a whole two vice superintendents to help out? Want to look into what comparable positions in the private sector pay?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Johivin, you do realize that people die trying to cross the border all the time. Right? And yet they are desperate enough to keep trying. Leaving everything and everyone behind and risking their lives to get here to take a job no one else wants.
What the hell makes you so much more worthy?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
Are you sure? This seems like something that would require a heck of a lot more than 3 years (in how many districts? I'm guessing one, but surely no more than 3) in teaching to know firsthand. So is there some study or something that you've seen that substantiates this belief?
Have you ever so much as spent a day with a superintendent to see what they did that day? I mean, at least 9 to 5?
Edit: anyway, surely you know that leaders of organizations aren't paid based on how much raw effort they put in each day.
I grew up in a household where I was exposed to every facet of the educational field. No, I haven't spent a day watching an individual superintendent. My mother-in-law, however, is a secretary at the board office of her district. This houses the superintendent and the TWO vice superintendents. She has frequently complained about the 2-3 hour lunches that are taken and the superintendent's secretary does most of the superintendent's work as the superintendent dictates most of his work via the secretary. The school board won't allow him to even send out announcements without having the secretary reading it over and making corrections because the last time he did, they received dozens of parental complaints from how unorganized and poorly written it was.
Schools are more top heavy then they should be. Teachers and support staff bear the brunt of cutbacks, rarely the administration. Principals are removed only after several years of poor test scores or personal issues. Superintendents generally are only removed for personal reasons.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Johivin, you do realize that people die trying to cross the border all the time. Right? And yet they are desperate enough to keep trying. Leaving everything and everyone behind and risking their lives to get here to take a job no one else wants.
What the hell makes you so much more worthy?
I certainly never said I was, kmbboots. I, however, do not justify people's illegal actions that they did knowingly. Should people not be responsible for their actions? If someone commits a crime, shouldn't they be held accountable for it? or should we continue to make excuses for them?
Responsiblity for your actions. A man just robbed a bank the other day so that he could go to prison and get medical aid that he needed. He did this action willingly and understanding the consequences of his actions. Should he have to go to jail in order to get the medical aid he requires? No. Is that the society that we currently have? Yes. Should that be changed so that people have access to health care without the overwhelming burdens associated with it? Yes.
The fact is that there are many atrocities in the world. These people are coming from nothing and are looking for something better. For that they are willing to risk everything. Do I understand why they do it? yes. Do I still expect people to obey the laws? Also yes. They are making a choice. The consequences must still be applied. Failure to apply substantial consequences to deter the act results in disregard for the law.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:#1, you know absolutely nothing about the role of a superintendent. I was a teacher for three years and went to college for education. My brother is a principal, my father a Supermarket teacher at a VoTech school, my mother is a 4th grade Special Ed. teacher, my uncle works at a school for the mentally handicapped. My aunt works at a college. I have more knowledge of the education system then you will ever have. So, please don't dare to have a pissing match with me on it. Superintendents are highly paid and do a fraction of the work of any teacher. School principals deserve their salary more than any superintendent.
I'm not getting in a pissing match with you. You're the one getting in a pissing match. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong, and fairly obviously so. For instance, picking a random-ish school district in New Jersey that isn't particularly large, the Camden City Public Schools, the budget there is over a third of a million dollars, not counting major construction expenditures, which have in some years totaled another hundred million plus (edit: actually, I'm not sure if that number is already included in the previous number or not; either way, it's a darn big number). So, that's managing the equivalent of a business that does nearly a half a billion dollars in expenditures. And you're saying that's a heck of a lot easier than managing a single school, in large part because there are a whole two vice superintendents to help out? Want to look into what comparable positions in the private sector pay?
But you are not understanding the roles of these people in education. The superintendent is a politician who is often merely the face of the district to the school board. Frequently the superintendent is bypassed and principals and school staff will deal directly with the school board.
Let's look at Camden. What are Camden's largest citywide problems? Drugs and violence. These are due to societal situations that are detrimental and poor family structures, generally speaking. Many of the students are involved in gangs from an early age and due to a continuing trend regarding parental involvement, many of these students will be out until after midnight even as a young child. I did my student teaching in Paulsboro and 2 years of observation in Camden. As well, I have a good friend who works in the Camden school district. Over the course of many years, millions and millions of dollars have been thrown at Camden to improve it's school district, to little avail. They spend roughly $16,000 per student and they still have not made any progress. The solution for Camden is to get caring individuals into the classroom who can be a life support for these students. The solution is also to educate the parents so that the children can improve their education at home as well. Instead of cutting police as was recently done, an effective police staff that works with the populus is also necessary.
Camden can be improved from the current educational pit that it currently is. It requires a much larger role then just throwing money at it. A new building doesn't fix the problems. Money won't solve Camden's problems. Until someone addresses the societal issues that exist in Camden, Camden's school district will not improve.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, can't win the argument so you change the game. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Nobody's been saying throwing money at the problem will solve education. What I've been saying is fairly clear: managing extremely large enterprises (over a third of a billion dollars for a medium-sized school district in a poor area!), be they businesses or schools, is a difficult, time-consuming task that deserves a commensurate salary, especially if you want to get someone competent. I'm not talking some revolutionary superintendent who will make education miraculously better, I'm just talking about not drastically mismanaging everything.
As for principals going directly to the board and whatnot, how large did you say the school district was you were talking about? Also, one or two badly managed districts (as yours apparently are) does not sink the argument in the least. If anything, it strengthens my argument.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: [qb] kmb: You expressed concern over the divide between the wealthiest and the poorest... Why? the poorest in this country are still better off than in most other countries. Heck, the poor in California are doing so well they cash their checks in Casinos. Why should the fact that some people are very rich be a problem? ]
Because, widening gaps in wealth distribution can squeeze the middle class out of existence, and eventually lead to a situation where a small number of the rich dominate politically and economically, which can in turn lead to populist movements and subsequent political oppression. That's part of how Rome fell- the rich became rich enough to vie for total political control of the state, and it became about manipulating the masses through populism, who were poor and disenfranchised, into siding with one faction or the other- always comprised of very rich people.
A widening wealth gap is correlated strongly with a widening gap in political representation. That is something which should concern lovers of democracy. I really can't believe you still need to ask this kind of question- do you not know what the answer will be?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: Grow up, Rakeesh. Are the people coming illegally slaves, Rakeesh? Are they coming at gunpoint against their will? No government official has ever made a statement that would actually solve the problem. Human beings respond best to fear. Fear has always been the greatest motivator in the world. People who believe in God are fearful of Hell, so what do they do? They follow the laws the religion have set out for them. People who have severe allergies are fearful of the reaction, so they take care to make sure they don't expose themselves to the allergen.
Even if the shooting was faked, it would still send the intended message. The country cannot have an open border policy unless we are going to be annexing foreign nations so that we can grow enough food to support the population. The population of the world without population controls will grow until it cannot support it. [/QB]
Your view of the necessity of major fear as a motivator isn't supported by even a *brief* look at human history. As generations pass, things have consistently grown *less* frightening throughout much of the world, yet in the many places where that happens (say, all of the 'Western world'), things don't descend into fearful chaos of scofflaws. The very real fear of death and pain doesn't put a stop or even much inhibit things like the drug trade, or even as you mention illegal immigration. As Kmbboots rightly points out, illegals often deal with much worse than a ridiculous vengeful American policy. It's just fundamentally stupid, and suggesting it puts you in some *really* nasty company; all for law and order, I'm sure *rolleyes*.
And as for the reason we need to better control illegal immigration...let me see if I understand you right: we need to stop it because we *can't feed them?* There are a whole host of reasons why that is just deeply foolish, but here's a quick one: we pay farmers *not* to grow things. Another would be that, yknow, we waste vast amounts of food here in the USA. I have to admit I've heard lots of out-there reasons why we need to be more violent and retaliatory about it, but *lack of food?* Give me a break.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, ignoring everything else, that argument wraps itself up rather handily.
- we can grow enough food to support said population - we can do so without annexing foreign nations - problem solved?!?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Just to give a sense of how much can be gained by increasing income taxes on the wealthy, consider Jan Schakowsky's suggested progressive tax rates, proposed as part of the "People's Budget" from the House Progressive Caucus. They would increase marginal rates to 45% on income over a million dollars and 49% on income over a billion dollars.
The result is about $80 billion a year (according to liberal estimates); again, that's not nothing, but it's nowhere near sufficient to cover deficits. There's just not that much you can do to increase revenues without increasing taxes on the middle class.
Here's another estimate on how much raising income taxes on the wealthy, including reclassifying carried interest as income could impact our deficit. The upshot: total revenue increases (making some heroic assumptions about people's lack of strategic behavior) on the order of about $50B a year.
Not saying it's not a good idea, but it's not in and of itself going to have a real impact on our fiscal outlook.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: I've worn my calculator pad out trying to crunch numbers coming up with a logical and realistic way that our government and we the people can pay off our debt plus interest.
We're running a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit with no plan to eliminate making the debt bigger.
Right now our Inter Rates are being kept at 0% by the Federal Reserve, it's been like this since 2008, when the interest rate rises, each point will represent an extra $200 billion that the USA has to pay in interest.
Almost every major economy has a debt larger than its GDP.
So...
I think this is an important question that needs to be answered...
How does the USA pay off a 15 trillion dollar debt?
I spent 45 seconds with MY calculator and came up with a pretty simple plan, really. Have every American send the government $5000 per month for the next year. The debt will be paid off before the election.
Feel free to send me a thank you card for solving this ostensibly unsolvable enigma.
Thank you, and good nite.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Supposedly the liabilities for social security and medicaid if added to the federal debt would balloon the debt to between 50 and 85 trillion$, supposedly. What is this number about?
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to go ahead and be the guy who skips (most of) the entire discussion and simply leaves a comment.
I don't think we'll ever pay off the debt. It's too much, and the interest is building too steadily, for us to realistically acheive this without completely destroying our economy.
But just out of curiousity (I asked this a few posts into the first page, but here it is again), would anything happen if we didn't pay it off? I mean, we've been in debt since our nation was founded (we borrowed from the French initially), so it's not really anything new.
I feel like the debt is probably just another issue that the two parties use to get votes. You know, by promising to solve the issue and then never doing anything (at least as far as I'm aware). Anyway, I'm not really very informed about the debt issue, so take what I said with a grain of salt (and feel free to correct me).
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Great Depression. Your GDP would drop by 50 or possibly 80%, ALL USD are loaned into existence which are loaned out by fractional banking to create and expand the money supply.
There's a difference between your current debt, and current monetary policy which has only been in existence for the last 27 (37?) years since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system allowing for unlimited inflationary spending. When you were on the gold standard inflation from wars always came back down to baseline levels. The last 20 years of US history has been different from any other period of US history, and the next 20 will be interesting.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'm going to go ahead and be the guy who skips (most of) the entire discussion and simply leaves a comment.
I don't think we'll ever pay off the debt. It's too much, and the interest is building too steadily, for us to realistically acheive this without completely destroying our economy.
But just out of curiousity (I asked this a few posts into the first page, but here it is again), would anything happen if we didn't pay it off? I mean, we've been in debt since our nation was founded (we borrowed from the French initially), so it's not really anything new.
I feel like the debt is probably just another issue that the two parties use to get votes. You know, by promising to solve the issue and then never doing anything (at least as far as I'm aware). Anyway, I'm not really very informed about the debt issue, so take what I said with a grain of salt (and feel free to correct me).
We have not always been *this* much in debt. Having debt isn't a problem, being unable to pay it off is. Way back when the country was founded Alexander Hamilton with sound fiscal policy and a central bank, put us on the road to paying off the debt. As early as Bill Clinton the government was in a very good position to tackle the debt, but it wasn't politically important. So instead we got involved in two major wars, continued to ignore spiraling medicare/medicade costs, cut taxes, and experienced a crash/recession.
While all of that is terrible and absolutely needs to be addressed, we could tackle the debt if we were serious by actually making payments on the principle. We need to have federal budgets that run surpluses, and start making annual 500 billion - 1 trillion payments. With a debt of about 14.5 trillion, and an annual GDP of 14 trillion, that should be entirely doable over the next 30-40 years. Even if we stop short and simply pull the debt back into 5-7 trillion, that in of itself a big deal, and is possible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear Krispy Kreme has fundraising programs. We could all sell donuts. I'd be happy to do my part. Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All we need to do is make more than we are spending, even if the debt is going down 1m a year it's always going to be better than the debt going up.
I am more hung up on HOW do we pay this 'money', do we sell it to other countries as goods and services or do we just straight up give them the dollars O_o they've got no use for dollars.... so what do they do some digital bank transfer where it converts into their money... Unless we intend on paying them in goods & services, I don't understand how exactly this will work........... --------------------------- While also trying not to derail the topic, as I said first, the only thing we should be concerned with is making the debt stop climbing and start falling even if it's a small amount, the biggies are all concerned with trying to pay it off in the shortest amount of time possible which is a mistake itself...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Unless we intend on paying them in goods & services, I don't understand how exactly this will work........... --------------------------- While also trying not to derail the topic, as I said first, the only thing we should be concerned with is making the debt stop climbing and start falling even if it's a small amount, the biggies are all concerned with trying to pay it off in the shortest amount of time possible which is a mistake itself...
The debt is primarily composed of bonds. The US issues the bond, and it is bought by an investor, a fund, or sometimes even directly by a foreign government (though a lot of this activity is not happening directly at the state level, but through intermediary brokerages). The US then spends that money. They owe interest on the bond, until that bond is payed. A large portion of the debt is actually owed to American citizens who are bondholders through their various investments. So not paying off the debt is not paying yourself back, in a way.
The idea is not to pay back the bond as quickly as possible, but to pay back the bond at the right speed, so that you can benefit from the infusion of cash to expand your economy, and then pay the bond back at a rate of interest, over a period of time, that makes it advantageous to have borrowed the money in the first place. Your economy has grown to be worth more than the debt requires to be payed back. The investor gets a safe security, and the economy grows. Bonds are how governments grow when they need to grow, and paying them back (normally by raising taxes) is a way of equalizing some pressure to expand. If the economy isn't expanding fast enough, you raise taxes in order to pay back the bonds, easing pressure on your economy to continue to grow despite lack of demand.
One problem with the whole conservative viewpoint, is essentially that they refuse to accept that taxes, bonds, and debt are equalizing valves for economic expansion. And you have to have some form of control on all the valves for it to make any sense. If you just try to pay back the debt by reducing your spending, you drive the economy further into recession- the bonds are payed back, but less money moves around. Whereas paying back the debt with a mix of cuts and increased taxes allows that transition to happen much more smoothly- and at a much lower overall economic price.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
