Rnc

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750673
How?
I didn't say to not have lobbyists at all, some are for good causes. And I understand that the corporate lobbyist are necessary to counter act the Union lobbyist, but don't you think education is in a different category? I'm also not saying we should just cater to the education unions either.
I believe the Federal funding of schools is unconstitutional. See the 10th Ammendment.
Your post sure seemed to cater to the NEA.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750676
Yeah, and a good place to spur the production economy. Unfortunately, we do not have a whole lot of production left in this country to spur. Those are exactly the jobs we are losing to have our 6.1 % unemployment.
We pay people 45-80 grand for an assembly line worker then wonder why jobs go overseas. We don't have a comparative advantage when it comes to cost of labor. And our productivity is not enough to when some 3rd world country can find someone to do the job for 1200 dollars a year. IMO what you are seeing is unions killing the golden goose.
btw sunday is an excellent example how artificial market controls (freddy and fanny) don't work and are not sustainable.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750664
But at the same time, most of the people who would be good teachers do something else because it pays more. College isn't cheap, and neither are living expenses. There are many teachers that my wife works with who should be fired, they are lazy and don't really care about the kids. They don't think about how their teaching will affect the future generation of our country, they just do it. But, there are some like my wife, who keep doing it because that is what they want to do. She wonders sometimes why she is, especially when I keep telling her to take the actuary exam (she was education and math, not just education), but when it comes down to it she loves teaching the kids. So I would argue to raise their wages, and then get rid of the bad ones.
This would be great...
For the time they work, teachers already make plenty of money. Education isn't an economic problem. throwing money at the problem doesn't solve anything. One of the highest per student funding for education is in DC and it also boasts some of the worst results. If someone can't teach a kid with 40+ k then they have more problems than money can solve.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750758
For the time they work, teachers already make plenty of money. Education isn't an economic problem. throwing money at the problem doesn't solve anything. One of the highest per student funding for education is in DC and it also boasts some of the worst results. If someone can't teach a kid with 40+ k then they have more problems than money can solve.
40+ K??? HA!!! I wish she made that much. If that is the case in DC, then yeah, there is a problem. I only know about teachers here in Nebraska and in no way think of myself as an expert on the topic. And I don't know about the teachers you know, but my wife is working constantly. The argument that teachers don't work that much is a bunch of BS in my observation. I wouldn't do it. She only has 2 months off in the summer, and DOES NOT get paid for it. Her contract is based off the hours she is in school and then spread over the entire year. This doesn't include all the time she is in early or late with students making up tests, homework etc., because these days...kids have to be able to pass, it will "hurt their self esteem" if they get back grades.....I hate the school systems. I think most of the problems come from the administration rather than the teachers...but again, I'm no expert.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2750689
I believe the Federal funding of schools is unconstitutional. See the 10th Ammendment.
I will look that up.
Your post sure seemed to cater to the NEA.
I have no idea what the NEA pushes for. But that seems like the logical way of weeding out bad teachers too me. If I am saying the same thing, then I guess they have a logical argument. How else would it work, please explain. Decrease the amount they get paid so much that anyone who is interested, loses interest and still hope you can get good teachers? Seems to me you would get a bunch of bad teachers who did not feel like taking courses that were harder than education classes in college.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750775
40+ K??? HA!!! I wish she made that much. If that is the case in DC, then yeah, there is a problem. I only know about teachers here in Nebraska and in no way think of myself as an expert on the topic. And I don't know about the teachers you know, but my wife is working constantly. The argument that teachers don't work that much is a bunch of BS in my observation. I wouldn't do it. She only has 2 months off in the summer, and DOES NOT get paid for it. Her contract is based off the hours she is in school and then spread over the entire year. This doesn't include all the time she is in early or late with students making up tests, homework etc., because these days...kids have to be able to pass, it will "hurt their self esteem" if they get back grades.....I hate the school systems. I think most of the problems come from the administration rather than the teachers...but again, I'm no expert.
40k is per student not what they are paying teachers but with cost of living I'm sure it is around here somewhere.
As for teachers getting paid. They get paid (in houston) around 35 to start out. For a fresh out of college job that isn't bad. There is a pretty big range some of the rural districts start out in the high 20's to low 30's I think HISD (houston) starts around 35. Then you subtract all the holidays, spring break, christmas, thanksgiving. 2 months during the summer. That isn't a bad pay scale. All the teachers I know have the option to be paid in 12 months or just during the school year. Sure they work more than 8 hrs during the year. But you know what so do a lot of people who make the same yearly income without the holidays. For what they work I'm not going to say they are underpaid at all.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750758
Education isn't an economic problem.
Really? if we are losing run of the mill production jobs and the like because of comparative advantage, shouldn't we be building our education system to give us a comparative advantage in something? Or are those who don't go to college (like 65% of the population) just all suppose to work at wal-mart? I would say the only thing that can counter the out sourcing of all low skill level jobs is education.
I know we are switching to the service sector as the largest type of job, but they normally do not pay as much. And as far as our high school test scores show, we are behind several countries in educational standard.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750777
I have no idea what the NEA pushes for. But that seems like the logical way of weeding out bad teachers too me. If I am saying the same thing, then I guess they have a logical argument. How else would it work, please explain. .
They are pretty much against merit based teacher pay and evaluations.
I think oscarduce w as referring to the seeming duplicity of you statement. I don't think you were that far, but if you look at democrat rhetoric they preach the evils of special interests, while embracing special interests who support their ideology. For example when the was last time you saw them go after the NAACP or Pickens and his wind farm pitch? They have lobbyists and financial angle. Just like a corporate lobbyist.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750785
Really? if we are losing run of the mill production jobs and the like because of comparative advantage, shouldn't we be building our education system to give us a comparative advantage in something? Or are those who don't go to college (like 65% of the population) just all suppose to work at wal-mart? I would say the only thing that can counter the out sourcing of all low skill level jobs is education.
I know we are switching to the service sector as the largest type of job, but they normally do not pay as much. And as far as our high school test scores show, we several countries in educational standard.
The reason our education isn't working isn't because of economics. Or money. It is a social issue, laziness, and well the American people have never experienced hunger. That is what I was coming from. As for the people who "choose" to or not to go to college. People make their own life decisions.

 

[sickboy]

I guess you really have no argument from me on this issue. We are getting lazy.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2750664
But at the same time, most of the people who would be good teachers do something else because it pays more. College isn't cheap, and neither are living expenses. There are many teachers that my wife works with who should be fired, they are lazy and don't really care about the kids. They don't think about how their teaching will affect the future generation of our country, they just do it. But, there are some like my wife, who keep doing it because that is what they want to do. She wonders sometimes why she is, especially when I keep telling her to take the actuary exam (she was education and math, not just education), but when it comes down to it she loves teaching the kids. So I would argue to raise their wages, and then get rid of the bad ones.
This would be great...
Anyone who goes into teaching to get rich is too dumb to be a teacher. I think they need to change the way the education system is structured.

 

[stdreb27]

I've asked several unanswered questions, like supply side economics only working in stagflation? How it doesn't work when places like houston are proof that higher profit => more investment =>more jobs on the peon level better local economy. When has on a general level has a government handout ever increased productivity to the recipient or been more efficient distribution than the market place? How today the economy sucks? And the one that is most telling, how in the world you call your professors right wing free traders then call them keynesians?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2750861
Anyone who goes into teaching to get rich is too dumb to be a teacher. I think they need to change the way the education system is structured.
Do you know how much superintendents make? Or big time college professors? Do you know how much they sell school text books for?

 

[reefraff]

Maybe if we don't treat schools like a daycare/babysitting service and make parents responsible for the things parents should be responsible for there would be the money to do education the right way.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750873
Do you know how much superintendents make? Or big time college professors? Do you know how much they sell school text books for?
Some more than others. Run of the mill classroom school teachers don't make great money. For the outlay of education expenses there are a lot better occupations to go into.

 

[1knight164]

Reminds of people who join the military and complain about pay. The military is not a place to get rich.

 

[sickboy]

Sorry for taking so long to answer...I got my xbox back tonight. I'll probably be pretty occupied, but after the debates we have been having, I'm sure I'll still find time...
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750871
I've asked several unanswered questions, like supply side economics only working in stagflation?
I believe I said 'it only works in certain situations, such as stagflation.' This is different than saying it only works in stagflation. To think that supply-side economics works all the time is to say the economy is static. I, however, am arguing that it is dynamic, and that other policies provide tax relief to the lower classes. Why? Because you take a gamble on who will actually spend the money. Supply-side= the rich might spend it, depends on how many HD tv's, etc. they have. Where as if you have a transfer, or tax break for lower classes, they will spend the money. There are always things those who don't have much want to buy. So as far as stimulating our current economy....I think this is better. The rich benefit either way, either they get a tax break, or more people buy their goods and services. This was the goal of the stimulus plan, but that was dumb b/c we now have to pay for that over the next 14 years.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750871
How it doesn't work when places like houston are proof that higher profit => more investment =>more jobs on the peon level better local economy.
Isolated case. Houston is doing awesome, but is the steel belt? No. Macroeconomic policy, as you know, takes the entire economy into account. What houston is experiencing is somewhere between micro and macro. Plus, most of the profit in Houston is off of energy, the very thing that is dragging down the rest of the economy.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750871
When has on a general level has a government handout ever increased productivity to the recipient or been more efficient distribution than the market place?
A handout is one thing, and I agree, free riders ruin it. But an indirect transfer, tax cut, can do nothing but increase productivity. If we didn't have to worry about the budget, I would say tax break for all, but unfortunately, someone has to pay for our gov't, so I say, tax break for middle and lower class. This will guarantee the money will be spent. You have see the Marginal Propensity to Save/Spend figures lately.
v class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750871
How today the economy sucks?
Well, lets start with the misery index. 11 something. We generally want it around 7, 4 for unemployment and 3 for inflation. But considering we have 6.1 unemployment and 5 something inflation...this creates a problem. You posted recent GDP number, it has been on average 2.5% gain, so either way, 3 percent inflation means we are technically shrinking. We will disagree on what should be in the inflation numbers, but people buy fuel and food...ALOT...so you are only playing games to make the economy look better if you don't include them.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2750871
And the one that is most telling, how in the world you call your professors right wing free traders then call them keynesians?
It's not like they were all keynesians. When I was at Nebraska Wesleyan University (small, private college in Lincoln, Ne), my main prof said she would describe herself as neo-keynsian, but that didn't stop her from teaching everything. I transferred, because my, now wife, fiance got a job in Omaha. The University of Nebraska-Omaha profs I've had are not the same. There is much more diversity. At this school, my favorite prof has been a Schumpeterian guy, he taught the econ of technology. Cool class, creative destruction is an interesting concept with no models, yet. Did you take History of Economic thought? What school did you go to?
I'm really surprise that we don't have an economist from any of the other schools of econ thought chiming in on this.....
But thanks for listing your unanswered questions. I get scatter brained sometimes. We should really just start a new thread that is 'the official economic policy thread'.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2750900
Reminds of people who join the military and complain about pay. The military is not a place to get rich.
But at least the people in the military get respect. Parents expect the teachers to pretty much play babysitter and the parents take no responsibility for their child's education.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2750884
Some more than others. Run of the mill classroom school teachers don't make great money. For the outlay of education expenses there are a lot better occupations to go into.
Right, which repels some of the people that would be the best teachers. They are "smart" though and find other, more profitable, work. But there are those like my wife, who teach b/c that is what they feel they should do for our country, even though trash guys and department managers at wal-mart, among others, make more money than they do. (not to dis on those occupations, because they are important too, they just don't have a 'real' influence on the future of our country)

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2748209
Conventions are not about substance, whether they are democrat or republican. They are about the Rah Rah factor; to get their own party to rally around the chosen candidate and no other purpose whatsoever.
Economies don't need "fixing" by governments as a generality. They go in cycles, always have, always will. We, as a nation, had a booming period, time to take a break from it or else inflation will eat us up. A mild recession is good for the economy as a whole, brings growth down so prices will ease which will in turn stimulate growth, but it takes time. There will be some hard times for some, it's just life. Sounds harsh but that is the reality of it. Learn a new skill, move to where there is work, whatever, just don't sit there and complain that someone else isn't doing enough for you, that's your job.
IMO what needs fixing in government is the same as what needs fixing in most homes; accountability and spending. A balanced budget amendment would be a welcomed addition to me but no one wants to talk about it on a public level.
Very few people are in situations that they, themselves, did not get themselves into or cannot get themselves out of, yet refuse to be accountable for that and look to gov't to bail them out. Whether it be corporate welfare or personal welfare, it's usually very much the same situation; someone acted recklessly and wants someone else to take responsibility. To me, it is a sickness in the American culture and needs to be addressed as such.
When folks are in a good place, the status quo is just fine, because they are in a good place. When folks are not in a good place - they cry for change even though the reason they're not in a good place is (usually) their own fault and they have the power to get themselves out of it - just not the initiative, which again - is not the government's responsibility, it's yours.
No government policy is going to improve the quality of your life, that is entirely up to you. OTOH, governmental policy routinely destroys the quality of life for many, on many levels.
/soapbox
If it matters, I'm neither republican nor democrat, they both sicken me. They both run on diametrically opposed platforms for no other reason to be diametrically opposed, this is not a logical response to any situation and the hypocrisy therein is astounding. Most folks are somewhere in the middle with certain tangential beliefs that can/will reach into both extremes.
How did I miss this post earlier???? This is good stuff