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.
Well, yes, I'm sure there is that consideration too. Hadn't thought about it myself, but I wouldn't doubt it's veracity.
Also, re lowering one's property taxes... we need to realize that when all the grievances for lowering taxes are totalled and given to the local district, the district needs to make up that lost amount to meet the budget that was already passed by the voters. This is why, in the Fall, you will see school boards setting the final tax rate. This is done after the townships have given them the final property assessments for the district's boundaries. If assessments go down then your district's tax rate goes up and you pay more taxes, and vice versa. So much for grieving your taxes!
Now I realize how little you know about the issues. The fact is that Nassau County takes the total hit on all tax assessment reductions. The County is looking to change it in Court...which I hope does happen because it will really exposes the true School Taxes. Currently they are being subsidized through County taxes!
This is done after the townships have given them the final property assessments for the district's boundaries.
In Suffolk County, it's the towns (there are no townships), while in Nassau County, it's the county, that provides each school district with the assessed value of the property within each school district.
The East Williston budget passed by about 40 votes and if it wasn't for the heavy all day rain which kept the seniors home it would have been defeated by a big margin!
By the way the PTO moms were busy stuffing flyers in peoples doors the night before the election.
What is the reason to believe that opponents of school budgets are more rain averse?
Show me statistics that certain demographics avoid polls when there is moisture.
RE:You want to know why teachers are under attack here and elsewhere? Because their salaries haven't dropped like those of everyone else AND because they are predominantly women.
I guess if all else fails...turn to the race or gender card. Silly & childish for even bringing it up and you know it! I'll tell you the real reason that the focus is on teachers and administrators..... its because their bloated salaries and benefits are being paid for real estate tax dollars and about 75% of real estate taxes go to the schools.
CRV, you rarely counter anything I say other than to throw around these dismissals. It belies weakness in your argument. Maybe that's why you and FanofAvatar (someone who could have used some quality schooling) are full of bluster and little supporting material.
It's clear what you are doing. You are trying to turn this into an online campaign. You tried throwing a new thread up every day with a new news story about teacher salaries. You did that until NancyTheReader told you to stop and you were warned.
Contend with the actual arguments.
Walter, you are wrong. If teaching had been done primarily by men until Vietnam, taking the 25 year olds away wouldn't have reversed the gender composition of the teaching force. Source that. Check out the historical treatment of education by Hofstedter in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. In the mid 19th century, when the mechanism for teaching shifted from private to public, male teachers left the profession.
What is the reason to believe that opponents of school budgets are more rain averse?
Show me statistics that certain demographics avoid polls when there is moisture.
Show you statistics? Why, you won't be able to understand them anyway.
How about we use a little common sense. But before we get there, let's clear up an important fact - you posted a number of times that it drizzled, or there was "moisture", implying the rainfall was insignificant. Maybe out in the boonies of Suffolk County it was a drizzle, but it Nassau County it rained ridiculously hard all day.
Now that we've cleared up how strong the rainfall was that day, let's use some common sense. Seniors (ie: those on a fixed income and who are far removed from the school system) would be less likely to vote for the budget. Now if it rains, they would be less likely to go out due to their age/condition. Many seniors don't like to drive in the rain, and many more don't want to risk a fall.
Is this really that hard to fathom, or has your ideology so blinded you that even "Slap you in the face" common sense is not common for you?
CRV, you rarely counter anything I say other than to throw around these dismissals. It belies weakness in your argument. Maybe that's why you and FanofAvatar (someone who could have used some quality schooling) are full of bluster and little supporting material.
It's clear what you are doing. You are trying to turn this into an online campaign. You tried throwing a new thread up every day with a new news story about teacher salaries. You did that until NancyTheReader told you to stop and you were warned.
Contend with the actual arguments.
Walter, you are wrong. If teaching had been done primarily by men until Vietnam, taking the 25 year olds away wouldn't have reversed the gender composition of the teaching force. Source that. Check out the historical treatment of education by Hofstedter in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. In the mid 19th century, when the mechanism for teaching shifted from private to public, male teachers left the profession.
I could have used some quality schooling? Please, this coming from the guy who will copy and paste the definition of statistical significance but has no clue how to apply it to reality. Yea, because a sample cannot be large enough to be statistically signicant.
Here's an idea deadpool, come with an argument that's a little deeper than rhetoric and propoganda from a failed ideology and maybe there will be meaningful debate. Until then you're posts will be treated as the waste of bandwidth they are.
Show you statistics? Why, you won't be able to understand them anyway.
How about we use a little common sense. But before we get there, let's clear up an important fact - you posted a number of times that it drizzled, or there was "moisture", implying the rainfall was insignificant. Maybe out in the boonies of Suffolk County it was a drizzle, but it Nassau County it rained ridiculously hard all day.
Now that we've cleared up how strong the rainfall was that day, let's use some common sense. Seniors (ie: those on a fixed income and who are far removed from the school system) would be less likely to vote for the budget. Now if it rains, they would be less likely to go out due to their age/condition. Many seniors don't like to drive in the rain, and many more don't want to risk a fall.
Is this really that hard to fathom, or has your ideology so blinded you that even "Slap you in the face" common sense is not common for you?
I've never heard of an old person being afraid of the rain. So, that "knowledge" isn't so commonly held. In fact, you seem to suggest that they have more pressing and immediate motivation to vote. That does make sense to me. So, one of two things happened, they DID vote, and caused the budgets to pass. Or, the younger families had less motivation to vote FOR the budget because their benefit was more abstract.
Moreover, seniors ostensibly have the entire day to vote. As such, they can wait for the break in the rain. As you suggest, they HAD to vote these budgets down in order to avoid consuming dog food. So, they had more freedom to find a more ideal time of day compared with the workaday folk who don't know what's good for them.
You want to know why teachers are under attack here and elsewhere? Because their salaries haven't dropped like those of everyone else AND because they are predominantly women.
So, you have men and women making a living in construction or some service industry job making very little - maybe enough to get by. They look around, and see that these educated women are doing rather well. One way to do better, though it will improve life like hardly at all, is to reduce your property taxes (this will, however, cut off your nose because it degrades property values). So you demonize the women because you can traditionally do that with the hopes of driving down salaries and benefits for the people who teach our children.
Children were traditionally taught by men. When the state started to take this responsibility in order to ensure that NO KID would be denied an education, the "industry" was systematically feminized in order to reduce the cost of education - it was once legal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job. There is plenty of evidence for this.
Now, the tables are turned - women are becoming competitive earners and men don't like it.
There is likely to be a female teabagger in here who will tell me I'm nuts, but I don't buy it. The argument wouldn't have traction if it wasn't men predominantly voicing the argument.
1) Your thoughts on why teaching is under attack is pure nonsense. If your twisted logic is correct, what about nursing? That field is predominantly women and their wages haven't decreased. So explain that? Oh wait, your ideology doesn't have an answer for that, does it? Why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
2) Why the need to continually bash people questioning taxes by using a disgusting and vulgar sexual reference? It takes real low life trash to continue to use language like that.
I could have used some quality schooling? Please, this coming from the guy who will copy and paste the definition of statistical significance but has no clue how to apply it to reality. Yea, because a sample cannot be large enough to be statistically signicant.
Here's an idea deadpool, come with an argument that's a little deeper than rhetoric and propoganda from a failed ideology and maybe there will be meaningful debate. Until then you're posts will be treated as the waste of bandwidth they are.
When I explained to you that "statistic significance" dealt with inferential forms of statistics that measure the relationships between things, you more or less said, "Blah, blah, blah, yeah, whatever...."
So, given that you demonstrated the maturity of a 7 year-old in that argument, I'm kind of shocked that you publicly chose to return to it.
1) Your thoughts on why teaching is under attack is pure nonsense. If your twisted logic is correct, what about nursing? That field is predominantly women and their wages haven't decreased. So explain that? Oh wait, your ideology doesn't have an answer for that, does it? Why let facts get in the way of a good story, right?
2) Why the need to continually bash people questioning taxes by using a disgusting and vulgar sexual reference? It takes real low life trash to continue to use language like that.
Nursing isn't publicly funded. That's an important part, I think.
I'm not the one waving tea bags at cameras in Washington. I don't understand what's vulgar about it.
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.
That is stupid.
