Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a better idea. Let's do away with Social Security and give that money to the schools. Better to spend that money educating the kids who are the future of this country, instead of on cranky old seniors who were too stupid to save for retirement and will be dead soon anyway.
Sounds like another Democrat to me...anytime money is needed for something, the Dems want to attach Social Security.
[quote=kdog;15385963]Just curious, but did you vote for Prop 100 then?
Actually I did. I felt at the time that it was a good way to spread the education tax burden among people who actually use the system instead of just pouring it into the laps of the struggling homeowner. Remember that "do-overs" bond election because the school system didn't get the raises they wanted the first time around? They thought the good dumb voters would automatically pass it just because, well...it's for the kiddies. We went to the polls TWICE to tell the school system to get its own financial house in order because homeowners were tired of carrying their inequitable burden. Act II: along comes this 1% sales tax for "education" that didn't say exactly where the dollars would be going. All the provision said was that two-thirds of the collected revenues would go to public, primary and secondary education. That could mean anything. They got that one from the voters - including me - and frankly I bet the kiddies won't be seeing a dime of it. But I guess that wasn't enough for the kiddies and they're back at the trough again. Now here comes another homeowners' burden from Brewer -- without the public's approval. As far as I'm concerned, "truth-teller" Brewer is OUT. It was dishonest and reprehensible for her to sign off on a Bill basically in secret to make up for what the voters already said TWICE they wouldn't support. The school system needs to be put on a diet and prove that they can handle the money they already have before I will keep signing the checks.
Sounds like another Democrat to me...anytime money is needed for something, the Dems want to attach Social Security.
Wow, you missed the sarcasm of my post? Ok, I will spell it out for you. The person was anti-public schools, which is a cornerstone on which this country was built. I poked them in the eye because I know full well they are nothing but a cranky senior citizen who "got theirs", and now wants to burn the bridge and sell the next generation short.
BTW, you know nothing about me so keep your derogatory comments to yourself.
Wow, you missed the sarcasm of my post? Ok, I will spell it out for you. The person was anti-public schools, which is a cornerstone on which this country was built. I poked them in the eye because I know full well they are nothing but a cranky senior citizen who "got theirs", and now wants to burn the bridge and sell the next generation short.
BTW, you know nothing about me so keep your derogatory comments to yourself.
I apologize for calling you a Democrat. I see now that IS a very derogatory term.
I can see where the poster was coming from. I'm not "anti public schools", but I AM against the schools using my tax money wastefully.
If they want to use my taxes to teach little Johnny how to do calculus or write essays, I'm all for it. When they start using my money for garbage like sports and band, or providing school welfare (free lunches, etc.), then I have a problem with that. Schools need to stick to TEACHING, at least where it involves public funding. If little Johnny wants to play football or the flute, his parents should bear the cost of that instead of me!
Wow, you missed the sarcasm of my post? Ok, I will spell it out for you. The person was anti-public schools, which is a cornerstone on which this country was built. I poked them in the eye because I know full well they are nothing but a cranky senior citizen who "got theirs", and now wants to burn the bridge and sell the next generation short.
BTW, you know nothing about me so keep your derogatory comments to yourself.
Your post may be more prescient than sarcastic. When those kids realize that Greedy Grandma was unwilling to contribute to their education while she now demands 1/3 or more of their third-world wages for her SS and Medicare, they may well decide it is time to dispense with her and her burden on society - or at least pull her back from the trough.
I apologize for calling you a Democrat. I see now that IS a very derogatory term.
I can see where the poster was coming from. I'm not "anti public schools", but I AM against the schools using my tax money wastefully.
If they want to use my taxes to teach little Johnny how to do calculus or write essays, I'm all for it. When they start using my money for garbage like sports and band, or providing school welfare (free lunches, etc.), then I have a problem with that. Schools need to stick to TEACHING, at least where it involves public funding. If little Johnny wants to play football or the flute, his parents should bear the cost of that instead of me!
In all the schools I've seen, the parents do foot most of the bill for extracurricular activities. They buy the uniforms, musical instruments, and supplies, etc. Given that, I have no problem with public school extra-curricular activities.
You guys need to read some history on why the US public school system was created in the first place. Basically the reason is to reduce the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. If education, sports and music are paid for by parents, only the rich will be able to afford them which is what happens in other countries. Instead, we try to afford lesser fortunate children the opportunity to get a basic education and a semblance of social skills needed to lead productive lives. Listening to you, you'd have no playgrounds and ball fields, or anything else. You want to stick the kids in a classroom for six hours and send them home. But public schools are more than that. They provide healthy creative outlets so that kids have interests and activities where they can grow and develop in other ways than strict academics, instead of getting into trouble. And the kids that need it the most are the ones whose parents can least afford it. You people need to realize that the kids are the future of the country. Your generation had the benefit having public education available complete with extra-curricular activities. So quit being so stingy and pay your share for the next generation just like your parents did.
You guys need to read some history on why the US public school system was created in the first place. Basically the reason is to reduce the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. If education, sports and music are paid for by parents, only the rich will be able to afford them which is what happens in other countries. Instead, we try to afford lesser fortunate children the opportunity to get a basic education and a semblance of social skills needed to lead productive lives. Listening to you, you'd have no playgrounds and ball fields, or anything else. You want to stick the kids in a classroom for six hours and send them home. But public schools are more than that. They provide healthy creative outlets so that kids have interests and activities where they can grow and develop in other ways than strict academics, instead of getting into trouble. And the kids that need it the most are the ones whose parents can least afford it. You people need to realize that the kids are the future of the country. Your generation had the benefit having public education available complete with extra-curricular activities. So quit being so stingy and pay your share for the next generation just like your parents did.
I don't like this analogy one bit. You do realize that what you are advocating amounts to pure socialism, don't you? On what criteria do you base your definition of "lesser fortunate children"? Most all children (regardless of wealth class) are plunked in public school ... and if you really looked at the lifestyle of their households, a good share of those parents CAN afford private school if they would simply reduce or eliminate the frivolous perks.
Look at all the unnecessary gadgets (ipods, blackberries, and cell phones with extra bells & whistles) that kids have these days. And do these households really need two or more big SUV type of vehicles, expanded cable/satellite, multiple computers, and all the other expensive perks? These so called "lesser fortunate children" have a lot more than kids in past generations ever did. And if their parents would get some control of their spendthrifty habits, they could afford to send their kids to private schools. As for the truly less fortunate ones (those with very little money or material possessions), they really have no business having kids if they are already so financially strapped. Remember that procreation is not a Constitutional right ... and having children is like anything else: if you can afford it on your own means, fine. If you can't, then you are not entitled to it.
I'll have you know also that I didn't really have the benefit of public school ... at least not during my elementary/junior high years. Even as much as my parents struggled financially, they managed to put us through private school by cutting back on all the unnecessary perks. The private school I attended was the BEST because there were adequate academics, discipline, and extra curricular activities. The public high school I attended was a 180 degree difference: drugs, sex, pregnancies, kids dropping out, etc. Privatizing the system would result in better academics, and better disciplinary methods overall. Plus, schools would be more free to compete with each other for better results.
As for your remark about "quit being stingy": perhaps you should quit being stingy by reaching into your wallet and donating your own money to the school(s) of your choice ... and then use some more of your money to pay for your own kids' education. In other words, stop expecting the taxpayers to subsidize what should be the parents' responsibility! It is not my obligation to pay for a generation of children that isn't mine.
I don't like this analogy one bit. You do realize that what you are advocating amounts to pure socialism, don't you? On what criteria do you base your definition of "lesser fortunate children"? Most all children (regardless of wealth class) are plunked in public school ... and if you really looked at the lifestyle of their households, a good share of those parents CAN afford private school if they would simply reduce or eliminate the frivolous perks.
Look at all the unnecessary gadgets (ipods, blackberries, and cell phones with extra bells & whistles) that kids have these days. And do these households really need two or more big SUV type of vehicles, expanded cable/satellite, multiple computers, and all the other expensive perks? These so called "lesser fortunate children" have a lot more than kids in past generations ever did. And if their parents would get some control of their spendthrifty habits, they could afford to send their kids to private schools. As for the truly less fortunate ones (those with very little money or material possessions), they really have no business having kids if they are already so financially strapped. Remember that procreation is not a Constitutional right ... and having children is like anything else: if you can afford it on your own means, fine. If you can't, then you are not entitled to it.
I'll have you know also that I didn't really have the benefit of public school ... at least not during my elementary/junior high years. Even as much as my parents struggled financially, they managed to put us through private school by cutting back on all the unnecessary perks. The private school I attended was the BEST because there were adequate academics, discipline, and extra curricular activities. The public high school I attended was a 180 degree difference: drugs, sex, pregnancies, kids dropping out, etc. Privatizing the system would result in better academics, and better disciplinary methods overall. Plus, schools would be more free to compete with each other for better results.
As for your remark about "quit being stingy": perhaps you should quit being stingy by reaching into your wallet and donating your own money to the school(s) of your choice ... and then use some more of your money to pay for your own kids' education. In other words, stop expecting the taxpayers to subsidize what should be the parents' responsibility! It is not my obligation to pay for a generation of children that isn't mine.
My goodness. We have had socialized schools in this country since the 1800's. It's one of the things that's made this country great and strong. Welcome to America!
The fact that your parents sent you to private schools makes you one of the "haves" as opposed to the have-nots. Your elitist screw-the-less-fortunate stingy attitude is precisely why we have public schools and is what our founding fathers had in mind to protect us against. You can whine and stamp your feet all you want. But in THIS country, public schools are here to stay.
In all the schools I've seen, the parents do foot most of the bill for extracurricular activities. They buy the uniforms, musical instruments, and supplies, etc. Given that, I have no problem with public school extra-curricular activities.
That's surely not the case here in Flagstaff. The district has a "pay-to-play" fee of around $200 per year. This is per student, per year, for as many activities as they wish to participate in. Obviously, this doesn't even BEGIN to cover all of the expenses incurred by the district. (transportation, field maintenance, extra utilities, uniforms, insurance, etc.) That fee needs to be 4-5 times what it is now to cover the costs involved. If students can't pay that, then they don't participate. I don't owe any other kids but my own a chance to play sports or a band instrument. My tax dollars need to go towards education, not extra fluff.
In all the schools I've seen, the parents do foot most of the bill for extracurricular activities. They buy the uniforms, musical instruments, and supplies, etc. Given that, I have no problem with public school extra-curricular activities.
You guys need to read some history on why the US public school system was created in the first place. Basically the reason is to reduce the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. If education, sports and music are paid for by parents, only the rich will be able to afford them which is what happens in other countries. Instead, we try to afford lesser fortunate children the opportunity to get a basic education and a semblance of social skills needed to lead productive lives. Listening to you, you'd have no playgrounds and ball fields, or anything else. You want to stick the kids in a classroom for six hours and send them home. But public schools are more than that. They provide healthy creative outlets so that kids have interests and activities where they can grow and develop in other ways than strict academics, instead of getting into trouble. And the kids that need it the most are the ones whose parents can least afford it. You people need to realize that the kids are the future of the country. Your generation had the benefit having public education available complete with extra-curricular activities. So quit being so stingy and pay your share for the next generation just like your parents did.
You are ignoring the obvious here, that a great deal of the extra-curricular activities are funded by taxpayers, not paid for by the participants as you suggested. The facilities are all built and maintained by taxpayers. That does not come cheap. Look at KHS football field....it may be used 50 days a year at most...the other 315 days it sits unused, yet it still needs to be maintained and watered daily. Wonder what the bill is for that?. Then there is the matter of coaching...these are all paid positions. Who pays that bill? Then there is transportation. the only contests that would not entail less than a 100 mile round trip are the ones that occur in the BHC area...these buses get less than 10MPG, can you imagine what that bill would look like per year for fuel...all at taxpayer expense. Those are just 3 examples of ways that these programs cost taxpayers money...I am sure if we examine it at more detail we could include dozens in this list. I am quite sure all of these activities require the schools to carry extra liability insurance due to risk of injury...just for one example. You want to know something else? What was done in years past does not necessarily mean it is prudent to do so now. I could list dozens of examples of things that were done just 25 years ago when I was in high school that are no longer done now. The fact of the matter is that here in Az. people are not paid what they are paid in other areas of the country. Sure, some people have extra cash, but the property tax system does not work on a sliding scale...we raise property taxes and it is not just the very rich that pay more...it is all property owners...myself included. We raise sales taxes to pay and it is not just the very rich that pay more...it is everyone. Next year, after several years in a row of property tax increases, my taxes will go down. This past your I have been getting escrow coupons because of taxes and insurance rate rises. Not related to this discussion, but I cannot figure out why my insurance goes up...I have never filed a claim, and I do not live in a high risk area and have been here for 10 years. I cannot afford higher taxes. And the fact is that less than 1/3 of students use extra curricular activities. My daughter is 8 and involved in a girls softball league outside of the school, and takes horseback riding classes outside the school...and both of these are run very well. It seems to me that ALL activities could be run outside of the school and flourish . Europe has been doing it that way for decades and guess what? They put all the money they save into education and it shows...their schools constantly outperform ours on every level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
