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.
The problem with socialism is we are letting 'the gov't' and the rich pick the winners to the detriment of the masses, the middle/working class (the losers); as opposed to free-markets where the 'demand' picks the winners and losers.
In this case (NY union-heavy socialism which obviously isn't working), the rich let the cops & school admin into the club. The cops are in the club to protect the rich -- in case the middle working class suckers try to eat them all.
This is the Tea Party slight of hand. By that, I mean this phony populism that SAYS it is anti-fat cat, but in the same breath trumpets free-markets. No one wants free markets more than the rich. It means they get to keep their money, and your street lamps (or schools as the case may have it) go unfunded.
There has never been such a thing as a free market, by the way. Markets rely on confidence, and there is no confidence if there are no rules and there is no enforcement. No one trusts that the future will benefit them, so they squirrel their money away - post-Depression style.
This has to do with Long Island schools because the money is here. Tax it. Get rid of corruption, I agree with that too.
I believe per-pupil spending should be uniform state-wide. No one kid is more valuable to the state than any other; I don't know how anyone raised within any permutation of the Judeo-Christian tradition can think otherwise.
For this, I'd trade teacher tenure, provided firing was cause-based and teachers were strictly protected from criticism of teacher content. Last thing I want is some Christer telling a book-reader that she shouldn't be teaching things like science.
I think a lot of teachers and other public servants would do exactly this, but the problem is that even if they took a pay cut, gave back perks, did EVERYTHING that was asked of them, they would still be told IT'S NOT ENOUGH. A school board or gov agency would never say "thanks for taking that freeze 2 years ago so now we're going to make it up to you." The sad reality is that sacrifice is never rewarded, but only seen as a justification of having it too good in the first place.
In one district I know the union offered MANY givebacks including a freeze, increased health costs etc, but were turned down flat by the board. Then the board continues the party line of union bashing, teacher bashing and all the rest.
It seems like saying NO to a good deal makes better politics than accepting it in the eyes of some boards looking to make a political statement.
So, you assume because they were willing to take a wage freeze that it was a "good deal." You know what a good deal would be, don't negotiate a contract, don't try givebacks, just dissolve the union. If teachers are, in fact, paid according to demand then their salaries won't change a dime. But, if I'm right (which I am), market conditions would take over and teachers salaries, like the rest of the area, would drop substantially. Why? Because they have it exceedingly good. Which would be ok by me, if it wasn't significantly hurting my community and putting a huge burden on the average taxpayer to fund this rampant runaway spending.
So, you assume because they were willing to take a wage freeze that it was a "good deal." You know what a good deal would be, don't negotiate a contract, don't try givebacks, just dissolve the union. If teachers are, in fact, paid according to demand then their salaries won't change a dime. But, if I'm right (which I am), market conditions would take over and teachers salaries, like the rest of the area, would drop substantially. Why? Because they have it exceedingly good. Which would be ok by me, if it wasn't significantly hurting my community and putting a huge burden on the average taxpayer to fund this rampant runaway spending.
You don't pay teachers by demand. That would put the least experienced and greenest teacher in every slot. This belies a willful ignorance about how to get good teaching. You wouldn't want that for your kids. Don't insist on it for mine.
Free markets would dissolve accreditation processes - BIG REDISTRIBUTIONIST MONSTERS THAT WANT SALARIES FOR ADEQUATE STAFF AND RESEARCH TO MAKE CERTAIN STATE TEACHER STANDARDS ARE ENSURED - BE SCARED!!! CALIPHAT!!! JIHAD!!! SOROS!!!
Free markets would have your kids taught by town drunks and agenda driven volunteers. Before modern teaching systems, itinerant Christians wandered through towns and taught kids, and in many instances raped them. That was ONE FREE MARKET! And it was SO DARN CHEAP! Never turn down a bargain!
This has a socialist slant to it. I just said communist for a funny factor, but you are illustrating socialist doctrine in your posts. The repositioning of wealth without regard to earnings/output is a tenant of communist/socialist beliefs.
No, all the jobs are gone because someone else will do it for cheaper. Not communist, per se, but extremely protectionist which is very Anti Adam Smith.
"To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless [in the sense of unnecessary] or a hurtful regulation."
-Adam Smith
It's ok. All socialist states want to hide behind the "Republic of ________," "The People's Republic of ________" or the "The Democratic State of ________" in order to hide their socialist views. Quoting Adam Smith and trying to loosely interpret over 1,000 pages of Victorian English is a very similar tactic.
Your pitchfork in hand idea of "Eat the Rich" has already been happening in New York. We are one of the top states when it comes to taxation, which is an economical redistribution of wealth (a pillar of socialist ideals). One of my favorite quote is Margaret Thatcher.
"...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
She said that back in 1976 and NY is learning it in 2011. She was quite prophetic in regards to this topic. Don't you think?
I'd criticize your quotation as unnecessarily dogmatic, but it simply doesn't apply to the discussion.
I'm not talking about giving domestic monopoly to anything or anyone. I'm talking about leveling the playing field. You've got purposely weak money units in China competing with our dollar (the value of which is linked to the dollar, keeping it cheaper than the dollar). Let's not pretend that we play fair and provide a great model to the Chinese so that they may follow along some day. No, we adhere to WTO trading standards and free trade agreements because it increases margin for US manufacturers. It increases their profits. If there was any concern about fair trading we wouldn't be trading will China - and we wouldn't be shopping at Wal-Mart.
But that's irrelevant. Fold into your thinking the likelihood that Smith never had the capacity to imagine than an entire manufacturing base could be stripped of a nation and exported.
Note too that he talks of the "Wealth of Nations," not the "Wealth of the Bourgeoisie." Nations, he insisted, should benefit from the successes of capitalism, and when they don't, it has effectively failed that nation.
State aid for districts is based on their CWR, Combined Wealth Ratio. That number comes from information on NYS income taxes and the property assessments or value in the district. All you need is one person moving in with a multi-million dollar income and it throws off the whole ratio! And if your district doesn't have a good commercial base, you may be taking a hit also.
My district has such a wide variety of incomes, but we are still looked at as wealthy, even though we've got the bulk of the Hispanic population in our town, some commercial but mostly residential.
If your district's CWR is over 1 (state average) you are considered wealthier than most and thus your state aid is less.
Re unions... teacher unions are run by senior staff. They do not want to take pay freezes as that may affect someone's final average salary for pension purposes. Therefore the new teachers end up taking the hit by being let go. It is totally unfair, especially this year, to the bulk of teaching staffs all over the island.
Not every district has a large reserve fund to go to. But even if they did, it would end up costing you the following year. Any reserve monies used to cover state aid losses for next year must be made up for the budget for 2012-13, right when the 2% tax cap would take effect. Double trouble then.
Go to https://stateaid.nysed.gov for your district's aid information. You will have to scroll down through a lot of figures to find the CWR for your district, but it will be there, along with tons of other financial info.
This is the Tea Party slight of hand. By that, I mean this phony populism that SAYS it is anti-fat cat, but in the same breath trumpets free-markets. No one wants free markets more than the rich. It means they get to keep their money, and your street lamps (or schools as the case may have it) go unfunded.
There has never been such a thing as a free market, by the way. Markets rely on confidence, and there is no confidence if there are no rules and there is no enforcement. No one trusts that the future will benefit them, so they squirrel their money away - post-Depression style.
This has to do with Long Island schools because the money is here. Tax it. Get rid of corruption, I agree with that too.
I believe per-pupil spending should be uniform state-wide. No one kid is more valuable to the state than any other; I don't know how anyone raised within any permutation of the Judeo-Christian tradition can think otherwise.
For this, I'd trade teacher tenure, provided firing was cause-based and teachers were strictly protected from criticism of teacher content. Last thing I want is some Christer telling a book-reader that she shouldn't be teaching things like science.
Can't rep you enough. One for each paragraph if I could.
Oh, the guy that extrapolates an entire socialist agenda from a vague Adam Smith sentence. How I love your fuzzy logic. Let's see if I can break this down for you in simpler terms that you can digest.
1.
Quote:
You don't pay teachers by demand
Why not? Oh, that's right, teachers are special.
2.
Quote:
That would put the least experienced and greenest teacher in every slot.
You make a jump in thinking that Evil Kenevil wouldn't attempt. Paying teachers based on demand would cause us to put green teachers in all the slots? You make many so many assumptions it's not even worth going over them. Moving on!
3.
Quote:
This belies a willful ignorance about how to get good teaching.
You used the word belies incorrectly. It means to give a false impression. "You give a false impression of willful ignorance about how to get good teaching." You're saying I am faking stupidity? Yep, doesn't make sense. Let's practice using the word in a sentence. His use of quotes from Adam Smith belies the sophistication of an intellectual, but his butchering of rudimentary logic and language show his true mediocre intelligence. I do love when people try to use words that they don't naturally use to try to sound smart. I'll choose to extend an olive branch and I won't mention what it signifies!
4.
Quote:
Free markets would dissolve accreditation processes - BIG REDISTRIBUTIONIST MONSTERS THAT WANT SALARIES FOR ADEQUATE STAFF AND RESEARCH TO MAKE CERTAIN STATE TEACHER STANDARDS ARE ENSURED - BE SCARED!!! CALIPHAT!!! JIHAD!!! SOROS!!!
Caps makes you more righter. Actually, free markets love accreditation. You see, economically, accreditation is what we call a signaling effect. Meaning, it signals someone is qualified to do something, like we all know a CPA is qualified to conduct an audit. It makes the hiring process easier, which makes hiring more economically efficient. You like to post poorly interpreted quotes from Adam Smith. You should read the chapter on the pin factory, and how a hallmark of classical economics is making things in a more efficient manner. It applies to the hiring process too.
5.
Quote:
Free markets would have your kids taught by town drunks and agenda driven volunteers. Before modern teaching systems, itinerant Christians wandered through towns and taught kids, and in many instances raped them. That was ONE FREE MARKET! And it was SO DARN CHEAP! Never turn down a bargain!
Jeez, where to start? So, I guess we did away with teachers taking advantage of kids?
Female Teachers Who Rape Their Young Students (http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/80-teachers/ - broken link)
Those modern teaching systems at work. But, that would never happen in such a progressive place as Long Island, right?
Note: I don't think teachers on Long Island are rapists, I'm just disproving the idea the modern teaching has ended such issues.
Your posts seem to be more and more sensational. But, this....this mess does nothing to further any of your points. It actually does quite the opposite. I usually just ignore your ridiculous one-sided demands for proof and your abusive use of logic. But, you really need to stop. Teachers don't need help like this, they're having enough trouble under current conditions.
Last edited by NYEconomist; 02-12-2011 at 10:30 PM..
Can't rep you enough. One for each paragraph if I could.
C'mon Avienne. You can't really support Deadpool's poor arguments. I don't always agree with you, Yzette, but I wouldn't recommend supporting this nonsense.
Let me reply to the one that distresses me the most.
Quote:
I believe per-pupil spending should be uniform state-wide. No one kid is more valuable to the state than any other; I don't know how anyone raised within any permutation of the Judeo-Christian tradition can think otherwise.
So, if you believe in uniform per pupil spending then, logically, you believe that special education children should have no more resources than the average student? That would break your extremist mandate of spending in a uniform manner for all students. I would hope that you would admit that this was, at best, not very well thought out. Like many of Dead's thoughts.
Also, you wouldn't invest more in a student that showed above average intelligence or promise? That sounds like a very interesting education system, and a very poor use of resources. I think it would be a pathetic management of money to put as much resources into some lazy kid as someone who has the intelligence and drive to possibly cure cancer.
This is the Tea Party slight of hand. By that, I mean this phony populism that SAYS it is anti-fat cat, but in the same breath trumpets free-markets. No one wants free markets more than the rich. It means they get to keep their money, and your street lamps (or schools as the case may have it) go unfunded.
No one wants socialism more than the poorly skilled; ie- Those that can't cut it in a true supply/demand market.
We all want free markets, unless the socialism benefits us. I'm not worried about the "street lamps going unfunded" hyperbole, they make up such a tiny portion of my tax bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadPool1998
There has never been such a thing as a free market, by the way. Markets rely on confidence, and there is no confidence if there are no rules and there is no enforcement.
No such thing as a free market? What planet are you living on?!
here's 3 out of the millions that are working just fine:
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.
No
