Democratic hypocrisy

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby cartervj » Wed May 14, 2014 5:46 pm

Rodney Carrington ain't bad :lol3:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7188
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL


Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby cartervj » Wed May 14, 2014 7:25 pm

Dylan Byers, Politico’s media reporter, admitted there is a left-wing bias in most political journalism and warned about the “radical, somewhat irresponsible opinion” routinely peddled by liberal cable news network MSNBC.

Byers spoke Tuesday night with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt about Karl Rove’s recent comment suggesting that Hillary Clinton may have brain damage from an earlier fall. Journalists from a variety of outlets condemned the remarks, but Hewitt noted that left-wing commentators often get away with points that are far more offensive.

“Look, I’m not denying it,” Byers agreed. “There is a different sort of reaction among the mainstream media to when conservatives do things, and you know, when liberals or progressives do things.”

“And so I think you could easily have written 30 stories on outrageous things,” Hewitt said. “Ed Schultz posted some crazy thing about gays and Nazi Germany yesterday. Did you see that?”

“No, I did not, but I don’t doubt it,” Byers replied (Schultz tweeted that “Gay people were really the ones being persecuted in Hitler’s Germany”).

“Every day you can go to MSNBC and find just canned crazy, right?” Hewitt asked.

Byers pulled no punches. “Oh, yeah, well, especially I think once you get into the, once you get into that sort of late afternoon hour and you’re talking about your Ed Schultz and your Al Sharptons,” he claimed. “You’re getting into very, very dangerous, very dangerous territory.”

“I mean, you know, it’s terrible,” the media reporter continued. “And I think MSNBC is trying to keep some semblance of news earlier in the day, but it’s just sort of like radical and somewhat irresponsible opinion is invading more and more of their daytime lineup.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/polit ... z31k8n3eg4
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7188
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Indaswamp » Wed May 14, 2014 7:40 pm

Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 8:47 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
nitram wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Well, I guess you're right. Spinner. I can't name even one Fox News journalist since, as you state, they are all talk show hosts, not journalists. Therefore, Fox News should be considered as on par with such luminaries as Glenn Beck (I almost wrote Jeff :lol3: ), Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. We agree on something!!!!! Those who promote themselves as Fox News journalists, are indeed, simply nutjobs! :beer:


You forgot Mark Levin, who happens to be my favorite.


One of my favorites, too, Nitram. Certainly funnier than Robin Williams or George Carlin! :thumbsup: My stomach gets sore from guffaws sometimes when I listen to him!

I didn't know Robin Williams or George Carlin had a talk show. Where can I listen. I'll bet they are both hilarious :yes:

I saw Robin Williams live one time. OMFG. Funniest I've ever seen and I've seen quite a few including Bill Cosby ( :bow: the viagra routine was hilarious), Jim Gaffigan (Hot Pockets still sticks in my mind :mad: ), Dane Cook (the best improv I've ever seen and there is one poor guy that is probably still in therapy, although he had nothing when I told him I was a nuclear engineer :sad: ), and many many others.

:lol3: Dane Cook is a riot. Robin Williams is from a different planet (Ork). Have you seen anything from Amy Shumer? She is a cute little blond that acts vulnerable but has the mouth of a drunken sailor. She's up and coming. :thumbsup:

I don't think so. Her name and face are not familiar. I'll have to keep an eye out for her, but she has nothing scheduled in my area.

Her show is "Inside Amy Shumer" (wink wink) and it's on Comedy Central, Spin.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 8:48 pm

Indaswamp wrote:Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:

How much time have you, or a close friend or relative, spent in a union, Inda?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Indaswamp » Thu May 15, 2014 12:07 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:

How much time have you, or a close friend or relative, spent in a union, Inda?

public sector unions are a whole different breed of cat compared to private sector unions jim. To answer your question, no one in my family on either side has belonged to a union that I know of. This is a right to work state and unions are almost non existent here.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 12:15 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:

How much time have you, or a close friend or relative, spent in a union, Inda?

public sector unions are a whole different breed of cat compared to private sector unions jim. To answer your question, no one in my family on either side has belonged to a union that I know of. This is a right to work state and unions are almost non existent here.

I'll give you that Inda. My experience was in the private sector. I know many who are in the public sector, and I have my opinions, but I don't have first hand experience. I was very impressed with the IBEW. Minor points of disagreement at times, but I sincerely believe that all levels were working for the betterment of the members in my local, and in the district our local was a part of.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Indaswamp » Thu May 15, 2014 12:17 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:

How much time have you, or a close friend or relative, spent in a union, Inda?

public sector unions are a whole different breed of cat compared to private sector unions jim. To answer your question, no one in my family on either side has belonged to a union that I know of. This is a right to work state and unions are almost non existent here.

I'll give you that Inda. My experience was in the private sector. I know many who are in the public sector, and I have my opinions, but I don't have first hand experience. I was very impressed with the IBEW. Minor points of disagreement at times, but I sincerely believe that all levels were working for the betterment of the members in my local, and in the district our local was a part of.

Note that this thread is about SEIU....public sector unions.

IMO-Public sector unions ought to be illegal.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby ScaupHunter » Thu May 15, 2014 8:18 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Democtaric Hypocrisy? Glimmerjim's post on the SEIU thread! :lol3:

How much time have you, or a close friend or relative, spent in a union, Inda?

public sector unions are a whole different breed of cat compared to private sector unions jim. To answer your question, no one in my family on either side has belonged to a union that I know of. This is a right to work state and unions are almost non existent here.

I'll give you that Inda. My experience was in the private sector. I know many who are in the public sector, and I have my opinions, but I don't have first hand experience. I was very impressed with the IBEW. Minor points of disagreement at times, but I sincerely believe that all levels were working for the betterment of the members in my local, and in the district our local was a part of.



Here is the problem with your rosy view Jim. IBEW is not even close to a proper representative group for unions. You were licensed electricians with a proper apprenticeship and journeyman or masters status. You were all held to a standard and based in being professionals can demand a higher price and better pay / benefits. Now lets talk about a union like the Teamsters. There is frankly no reason for most members to be a part of that union. Low skill, low wage worker with no licenses or demands for their labor besides being a good worker. Many if not all the workers are by default forced to be in the union if they want the job. Plenty of other excellent examples of unions that provide no service.

You have a union bias based on a sample of 1.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 10:42 am

ScaupHunter wrote: Here is the problem with your rosy view Jim. IBEW is not even close to a proper representative group for unions. You were licensed electricians with a proper apprenticeship and journeyman or masters status. You were all held to a standard and based in being professionals can demand a higher price and better pay / benefits. Now lets talk about a union like the Teamsters. There is frankly no reason for most members to be a part of that union. Low skill, low wage worker with no licenses or demands for their labor besides being a good worker. Many if not all the workers are by default forced to be in the union if they want the job. Plenty of other excellent examples of unions that provide no service.

You have a union bias based on a sample of 1.


As far as personal experience, granted scaup. However, I can take that experience and extrapolate to see the advantages in union representation in many employer/employee relationships. Any contentious relationship in which one entity controls all the power can't be a fair and balanced relationship. There can be exceptions, but the rule of thumb is that the one in the unbridled, stronger position will eventually take advantage of the one in the weaker position. Its the way of nature.
Unions are simply a means of balancing the playing field a bit. As an employer, if you have 2 equally qualified individuals, one who will work for $10/hr, and one who needs $15/hr, whom would you naturally choose? Of course. It's why you are in business, to maximize profits. The employee is also in the position of maximizing his profits, ergo the contention. The employer utilizes all legal and available means of maximizing his profits. Why should an employee not do the same?
Plus, if you look at our country's history, our best economic times were when union membership was strongest. That is what essentially built a middle class. Now we are losing that middle class. Do you think it is coincidence that union membership is at a low point in its swing? That is the whole idea in raising minimum wages, when people have money to spend, they spend it. When the consumer is spending, the businesses do better. When businesses do better, they are able to hire more people.
And the wheel on the bus goes round and round...
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 11:01 am

Glimmerjim wrote:Any contentious relationship in which one entity controls all the power can't be a fair and balanced relationship.

Exactly.

That is precisely why unions cannot have de facto monopoly control :thumbsup:

That is precisely why pension that tie you to your employer are a bad idea :thumbsup:

That is precisely why school choice is so important :thumbsup:

Ideally both the employer and employ of simply agreeing to disagree and either saying :hi:

And the same for the consumers, whether it is K-12 education, health insurance, or any other product or service.

Glimmerjim wrote:There can be exceptions, but the rule of thumb is that the one in the unbridled, stronger position will eventually take advantage of the one in the weaker position. Its the way of nature.
It is indeed and when government employee unions can collude with politicians, it puts the taxpayers (the employer in the sense of who pays the bills as opposed to the managers in government) at too weak of a position and as we have seen, the unions have taken advantage of the ones in the weaker position to get wages far in excess of free market rates just like any other group with monopoly power.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 11:28 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Any contentious relationship in which one entity controls all the power can't be a fair and balanced relationship.

Exactly.

That is precisely why unions cannot have de facto monopoly control :thumbsup:

That is precisely why pension that tie you to your employer are a bad idea :thumbsup:

That is precisely why school choice is so important :thumbsup:

Ideally both the employer and employ of simply agreeing to disagree and either saying :hi:

And the same for the consumers, whether it is K-12 education, health insurance, or any other product or service.

Glimmerjim wrote:There can be exceptions, but the rule of thumb is that the one in the unbridled, stronger position will eventually take advantage of the one in the weaker position. Its the way of nature.


SpinnerMan wrote: It is indeed and when government employee unions can collude with politicians, it puts the taxpayers (the employer in the sense of who pays the bills as opposed to the managers in government) at too weak of a position and as we have seen, the unions have taken advantage of the ones in the weaker position to get wages far in excess of free market rates just like any other group with monopoly power.

But still, Spinner, you refuse to concede that the employer also colludes with politicians to achieve their desired ends. Why do businesses donate so much money to campaign funding? So, the individual employee can not afford to compete in the acquisition of political influence at the same level as large business. But by grouping together, the individual can make his voice heard. It is simply a game, Spinner. One wants to pay as little as possible to maximize his profits, one wants to maximize his profits by earning as much as possible. Political influence is a large factor in today's world, obviously. Having only one member of this relationship able to influence politics puts the other side at a distinct disadvantage. Collective bargaining can, once again, help to level the playing field.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 12:12 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:But still, Spinner, you refuse to concede that the employer also colludes with politicians to achieve their desired ends.
Not at all. Both groups are likely to be corrupt. You do not try to balance wrongs. You try to eliminate them.

Glimmerjim wrote:Why do businesses donate so much money to campaign funding?
Because the government has too much power and this is easily a profit center for the corrupt.

Also the same reason small businesses paid "protection" money to the mob. Extortion by corrupt politicians.

Glimmerjim wrote:So, the individual employee can not afford to compete in the acquisition of political influence at the same level as large business.
Counter corruption with more corruption is not the solution. That's Chicago, Detroit, ... and a societal death spiral.

Glimmerjim wrote:One wants to pay as little as possible to maximize his profits, one wants to maximize his profits by earning as much as possible.
It applies equally to all people and what easier way to make profits than welfare? It applies equally to employer and employee. Union and business. Politician and taxpayer. It applies to all and therefore it is not an argument for anything but a system that does not allow concentration of power with strict openness and oversight when concentration of power is unavoidable and strict limits on how that power is used.

Glimmerjim wrote:Political influence is a large factor in today's world, obviously.
Because of the massive growth in the central government. It is only possible when the power is given to government and the more concentrated the power, the more valuable having political influence is.

Glimmerjim wrote:Having only one member of this relationship able to influence politics puts the other side at a distinct disadvantage.
What is the ideal? NEITHER side being able to use politics to impose constraints on the other side of the relationship :fingerhead: Both sides equally informed with the ability to walk away. If both sides can't simply say :hi: I'm going to work somewhere else, I'm going to employ someone else, I'm going to buy the product somewhere else, ... It's not the government trying to micromanage all these relationships. That's just insane control freak nonsense.

Glimmerjim wrote:Collective bargaining can, once again, help to level the playing field.
I have ZERO problem with collective bargaining. ZERO. As long as BOTH sides can simply say no and everybody parts ways.

When it comes to government employees, those that are paying the bills do not even have a seat at the table. Their representatives do not have a seat at the table. There are often not even any elected officials at the table. If the people paying are not negotiating, the incentives are seriously misaligned and the union is in a vastly stronger position.

Would you let me negotiate for you if I had no real interest in getting you a good deal, but was driven more by my political aspirations and vacation plans?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 3:56 pm

Democrat ing
Glimmerjim wrote:Plus, if you look at our country's history, our best economic times were when union membership was strongest. That is what essentially built a middle class. Now we are losing that middle class.
And a large part of that is government employee unions, particularly teachers unions.


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/dc-schools-29349-pupil-83-not-proficient-reading

The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year, according to the latest data from National Center for Education Statistics, but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math.


Just to help you with the math, that is over a half million dollars per class of 20. How is that not enough to do far better?

Image

The most expensive private schools in the entire country are only around $40,000 per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/most-expensive-private-schools_n_3875696.html

K-12 education is the mother of all Democratic hypocrisies.

You can fantasize about the good all days, but you need to get your head in the 21st century. This isn't your childhood, when middle class Americans had less wealth than what we would consider poor Americans today. They were not the good old days. However, there is no excuse for teachers getting paid over $100k and results like we see in DC.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Career+Opportunities/Teach+in+Our+Schools/Compensation
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 8:09 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Democrat ing
Glimmerjim wrote:Plus, if you look at our country's history, our best economic times were when union membership was strongest. That is what essentially built a middle class. Now we are losing that middle class.
And a large part of that is government employee unions, particularly teachers unions.


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/dc-schools-29349-pupil-83-not-proficient-reading

The public schools in Washington, D.C., spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year, according to the latest data from National Center for Education Statistics, but in 2013 fully 83 percent of the eighth graders in these schools were not "proficient" in reading and 81 percent were not "proficient" in math.


Just to help you with the math, that is over a half million dollars per class of 20. How is that not enough to do far better?

Image

The most expensive private schools in the entire country are only around $40,000 per year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/most-expensive-private-schools_n_3875696.html

K-12 education is the mother of all Democratic hypocrisies.

You can fantasize about the good all days, but you need to get your head in the 21st century. This isn't your childhood, when middle class Americans had less wealth than what we would consider poor Americans today. They were not the good old days. However, there is no excuse for teachers getting paid over $100k and results like we see in DC.

http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/About+DCPS/Career+Opportunities/Teach+in+Our+Schools/Compensation

First off, there are really no clear correlations between dollars spent and student performance. I have tried to casually study this before, and like most things, the more you learn the more you realize how little you know. My state, CA, is somehow in the bottom 10% of states on per pupil spending, but the reulsts are so mixed up and down the state that is impossible to make any correlation. I can say, from the information I can gather, that your use of DC as an example is extremely misleading.
According to this report, the average K-12 pay across the nation is very close to $50K. From a low of $39 to a high of $73.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenexta ... r-20121016
So DC is most assuredly an anomaly that doesn't portray teacher's incomes accurately.
It DOES seem to me that we could do far better, however. In my immediate area, we have high schools that participate in and win things like the National Science Contests. Within 20 miles there are high schools that I would be willing to wager that the avg senior couldn't SPELL "science." It is a complex problem, not necessarily having anything to do with the teachers. It has far more to do with the lifestyles and income levels of the student's families. Paying the teacher more or less has little effect on that.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 9:25 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:First off, there are really no clear correlations between dollars spent and student performance.
Tell that to your Democrat friends when they argue for more spending.

BTW, don't you think that was my point by showing the insane amount of spending in DC?

And with the huge spending in DC, they could send every kid to top tier private schools with a proven track record of success and have millions of tax dollars left over. Why not do that given the results?

Glimmerjim wrote:It is a complex problem, not necessarily having anything to do with the teachers.
I agree, so what is the argument for paying teachers even $50k if they play such a small role in the outcome? If they add little to no value, their pay should be commensurate with that value.

Glimmerjim wrote: It has far more to do with the lifestyles and income levels of the student's families. Paying the teacher more or less has little effect on that.
So does that not make it unethical and immoral to take money from taxpayers and give to teachers if it has little effect.

You prevent my argument better than I ever did for the reason teacher's unions are ripping off the tax payers. As you say, they have so little effect, so why in the hell do we pay them so much. Apparently, it's primarily just another redistribution scheme from taxpayers to welfare recipients.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 9:40 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:First off, there are really no clear correlations between dollars spent and student performance.


SpinnerMan wrote: Tell that to your Democrat friends when they argue for more spending.

BTW, don't you think that was my point by showing the insane amount of spending in DC?

And with the huge spending in DC, they could send every kid to top tier private schools with a proven track record of success and have millions of tax dollars left over. Why not do that given the results?

There is just one little piece of sand in that vaseline argument Spinner ( :lol3: ). The top performing private schools are not dealing with the same students. Who is to say if we immediately enrolled all the public school students into private schools with the same curriculum that they would do any better with this socio-economic class of students? I would like to see a test case.
Glimmerjim wrote:It is a complex problem, not necessarily having anything to do with the teachers.


SpinnerMan wrote: I agree, so what is the argument for paying teachers even $50k if they play such a small role in the outcome? If they add little to no value, their pay should be commensurate with that value.


Two issues....for one, we live in different parts of the country so the figures don't easily reconcile, but $50K ann is hardly a king's ransom, Spinner. A good electrician in many areas in CA can make $120-150K no sweat. Would I want the responsibility for educating a group of kids from terrible home situations, gangs, absent parents, for $50K/yr? Not on your life! But some try, and they try their best in a lot of cases.
Secondly, we are talking about raising the test scores, which I will stipulate means a better educated child. But in these conditions the best teacher in No America would have extreme difficulty in raising the scores significantly. The best that could be hoped for in many cases is that they influence a minority of kids to want to excel.
Glimmerjim wrote: It has far more to do with the lifestyles and income levels of the student's families. Paying the teacher more or less has little effect on that.


SpinnerMan wrote: So does that not make it unethical and immoral to take money from taxpayers and give to teachers if it has little effect.


See above. Paying $50K/yr is not income redistributuion, Spinner. It is barely enough in many areas to even consider raising a family. I couldn't have done it on $50K/yr. Not and plan for the future, drive reasonably safe vehicles, live in reasonably safe neighborhoods, etc.

SpinnerMan wrote: You prevent my argument better than I ever did for the reason teacher's unions are ripping off the tax payers. As you say, they have so little effect, so why in the hell do we pay them so much. Apparently, it's primarily just another redistribution scheme from taxpayers to welfare recipients.

See above. However, I must candidly ask, Spinner. As a nuclear scientist, I am reasonably confident that you make an income far in excess of $50K/yr. I would contend that teaching is at least as arduous, and requires a different, but not lesser, set of skills and ambition to do well. Why do you begrudge them making a lower middle class living?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby beretta24 » Fri May 16, 2014 3:02 am

I bet if you put the general population in a private school setting you would see one big change, and the result would have a positive impact on the rest of the students. The students that misbehave, disrupt the class or don't try would be failed or removed. As a result I think some fraction of those failed would get their stuff together and not fail a second time. Some would quit.

As a result the remaining students would do better than they otherwise would have because less energy would be wasted on those choosing to fail.

Now the question is what happens to the students that were removed or quit? Is their long term impact on society better or worse, and if worse does it outweigh the positive impact their absence has on the other students. Is there anything that can be done to change things is their impact is worse?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5339
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Indaswamp » Fri May 16, 2014 3:05 am

beretta24 wrote:I bet if you put the general population in a private school setting you would see one big change, and the result would have a positive impact on the rest of the students. The students that misbehave, disrupt the class or don't try would be failed or removed. As a result I think some fraction of those failed would get their stuff together and not fail a second time. Some would quit.

As a result the remaining students would do better than they otherwise would have because less energy would be wasted on those choosing to fail.

Now the question is what happens to the students that were removed or quit? Is their long term impact on society better or worse, and if worse does it outweigh the positive impact their absence has on the other students. Is there anything that can be done to change things is their impact is worse?

the worlds need ditch diggers, brick layers and grocery sackers......
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri May 16, 2014 6:57 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:First off, there are really no clear correlations between dollars spent and student performance.


SpinnerMan wrote: Tell that to your Democrat friends when they argue for more spending.

BTW, don't you think that was my point by showing the insane amount of spending in DC?

And with the huge spending in DC, they could send every kid to top tier private schools with a proven track record of success and have millions of tax dollars left over. Why not do that given the results?

There is just one little piece of sand in that vaseline argument Spinner ( :lol3: ). The top performing private schools are not dealing with the same students. Who is to say if we immediately enrolled all the public school students into private schools with the same curriculum that they would do any better with this socio-economic class of students? I would like to see a test case.

Nobody is saying that "if we immediately enrolled all the public school students into private schools with the same curriculum that they would do any better with this socio-economic class of students."
That's the first flaw in your logic.

Getting the SAME results for less money is a big improvement.

You have to believe that they would in fact do WORSE to justify the higher cost of the DC public schools. We have a huge amount of data on charter schools that prove they can do as well for a lot less. We have a huge number of test cases, but they are non-union schools so they must be destroyed because it doesn't help the politicians. Where is their kickback for educating kids in non-union schools? What's in it for them? To paraphrase the Illinois Governor currently residing in a federal penitentiary, they have this think and it's Image golden and they are not giving it away for nothing.

Do you really think these mostly minority students cannot be better educated than they are in DC? So why is this acceptable to the DC politicians and other community leaders? Why do they accept such high cost to the taxpayers and such poor performance for the students? There must be a reason, what is your theory? Is it really that this is the best they can do with these kids?

Glimmerjim wrote:Two issues....for one, we live in different parts of the country so the figures don't easily reconcile, but $50K ann is hardly a king's ransom, Spinner. A good electrician in many areas in CA can make $120-150K no sweat. Would I want the responsibility for educating a group of kids from terrible home situations, gangs, absent parents, for $50K/yr? Not on your life! But some try, and they try their best in a lot of cases.
Secondly, we are talking about raising the test scores, which I will stipulate means a better educated child. But in these conditions the best teacher in No America would have extreme difficulty in raising the scores significantly. The best that could be hoped for in many cases is that they influence a minority of kids to want to excel.

First, I lived in the DC suburbs for awhile, I travel there often, my in-laws live a couple hours south and my family a couple hours north. I've very familiar with the city.

However, you missed the point. What is a bad electrician worth? What would you pay an electrician if his efforts had little to no impact on the outcome?

Glimmerjim wrote:It is a complex problem, not necessarily having anything to do with the teachers.
If it is a complex problem that does not necessarily have anything to do with the electricians, why would you pay the electricians anything at all? I have no impact on the outcome in DC schools too, so where's my paycheck for doing nothing? And you can make it just $40k/yr and not call it income redistribution if you like. Although, I don't know what else you call giving out tax money for no results.

Glimmerjim wrote:However, I must candidly ask, Spinner. As a nuclear scientist, I am reasonably confident that you make an income far in excess of $50K/yr. I would contend that teaching is at least as arduous, and requires a different, but not lesser, set of skills and ambition to do well. Why do you begrudge them making a lower middle class living?

I would love for them to set their salaries EXACTLY the same way they set mine. I have no union to drive up my salary. It is set by the free market. They actually periodically review salaries and benefits to ensure they are consistent with free market rates. If they did that, we would see a large decline in most union teacher's salaries and benefit packages. These reviews have gone both ways. We got a pretty good raise a few years ago because we were too low and could not attract the people we needed and we also had a cut in our benefits to bring them in line with the norms.

If you are clever, you can probably figure out what I make pretty closely. However, the point is that I could go to a private company and make the same thing. That's the going rate for my skill set in the free market. No union needed just desirable skills that few people have.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby High Sierras » Fri May 16, 2014 11:26 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:First off, there are really no clear correlations between dollars spent and student performance.
SpinnerMan wrote: Tell that to your Democrat friends when they argue for more spending.

BTW, don't you think that was my point by showing the insane amount of spending in DC?

And with the huge spending in DC, they could send every kid to top tier private schools with a proven track record of success and have millions of tax dollars left over. Why not do that given the results?

There is just one little piece of sand in that vaseline argument Spinner ( :lol3: ). The top performing private schools are not dealing with the same students. Who is to say if we immediately enrolled all the public school students into private schools with the same curriculum that they would do any better with this socio-economic class of students? I would like to see a test case.
Glimmerjim wrote:It is a complex problem, not necessarily having anything to do with the teachers.

SpinnerMan wrote: I agree, so what is the argument for paying teachers even $50k if they play such a small role in the outcome? If they add little to no value, their pay should be commensurate with that value.

Two issues....for one, we live in different parts of the country so the figures don't easily reconcile, but $50K ann is hardly a king's ransom, Spinner. A good electrician in many areas in CA can make $120-150K no sweat. Would I want the responsibility for educating a group of kids from terrible home situations, gangs, absent parents, for $50K/yr? Not on your life! But some try, and they try their best in a lot of cases.
Secondly, we are talking about raising the test scores, which I will stipulate means a better educated child. But in these conditions the best teacher in No America would have extreme difficulty in raising the scores significantly. The best that could be hoped for in many cases is that they influence a minority of kids to want to excel.
Glimmerjim wrote: It has far more to do with the lifestyles and income levels of the student's families. Paying the teacher more or less has little effect on that.

In a roundabout way, I think GJ hit the nail on the head. Private school students tend to do better on tests and are ‘smarter’ (for lack of a better word) overall because of "...income levels of the student's families."

Public school costs parents “nothing” out of pocket (it actually does in taxes, if the parents aren’t absolute deadbeats) Private school is expensive, with a gold-plated, capital “E”. When the parents put out a serious financial monetary stake in their child’s education, they expect more of the school, the teachers, and the child. Putting all those Washington DC inner city kids into private school would do little, if anything, to improve their academics unless their parents were also told that all of their future entitlement checks would be commensurate with their child’s academic performance.

I recently made my son an offer -- if he could get the grades in middle school, and pass the entrance exam to get into Jesuit HS down in Sacramento, I’d find a way to pay for it and get him down there each day. Guess what he went and did this year… made honor roll last trimester, he's on track to make honor roll again this trimester, and passed the JHS entrance test last winter. It looks like ALL of my annual out-of-State hunting trips just disappeared for the next 4 years. Do you think I’ll be on his tail 24/7 to study and keep those grades up? With tuition at $14k a year out of my pocket, along with other costs to get him there & back every day, you dang well betcha!

So much for having a freezer always filled with antelope & elk steaks. I suppose I'll eventually get used to the taste of hamburger 'helper' :sad: Anyone need a perpetually broke elk hunting partner? I can shlep out a carcass from some seriously steep nasty terrain!

Unfortunately, we live in an era where the popular culture tells parents that it now somehow “takes a village” to raise a child. In an era where, from the monthly welfare check, to free school lunches, to free school breakfasts, to free childhood immunizations, to free afterschool care, to free preschool, etc. the government is now somehow responsible for raising your child. Between that and the current childbearing generation’s attitude of “me first”, is it any surprise that a large percentage of parents are more than happy to abrogate the raising and educating of their children? And when they have no vested interest in their child’s future and sees the school as a free babysitting service, why would they care about grades?

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: So does that not make it unethical and immoral to take money from taxpayers and give to teachers if it has little effect.

See above. Paying $50K/yr is not income redistributuion, Spinner. It is barely enough in many areas to even consider raising a family. I couldn't have done it on $50K/yr. Not and plan for the future, drive reasonably safe vehicles, live in reasonably safe neighborhoods, etc.
SpinnerMan wrote: You prevent my argument better than I ever did for the reason teacher's unions are ripping off the tax payers. As you say, they have so little effect, so why in the hell do we pay them so much. Apparently, it's primarily just another redistribution scheme from taxpayers to welfare recipients.

See above. However, I must candidly ask, Spinner. As a nuclear scientist, I am reasonably confident that you make an income far in excess of $50K/yr. I would contend that teaching is at least as arduous, and requires a different, but not lesser, set of skills and ambition to do well. Why do you begrudge them making a lower middle class living?

GJ, paying teachers the "fair market rate" for their services is not begrudging them anything. Just as paying hamburger flippers $8 an hour is begrudging them anything. I heard on KFBK radio yesterday that there are a bunch of those same hamburger flippers in Sacto that went on strike yesterday. Their 'spokesperson' said they wanted their wages be raised to $15 an hour, so they can “make a living” out of flipping burgers as a “career” (seriously, a career? :rolleyes: Seriously?). If they succeed, it won't be long before a hamburger meal in Sacramento will cost $15 to keep up with the cost of owning and operating a burger joint.

Start paying anyone more than their intrinsic worth to society, and the rest of society will start to demand that our professions' wages be reflected as a multiple of that minimum wage... based on the amount of time, effort, and money it took to get into that profession (i.e., our intrinsic worth to society). Should a Nuclear Engineer be paid twice as much as an elementary school teacher makes? Three times as much? Five times? How much time, effort, and money does it take to earn a teaching credential vs. how much time effort & money did it take for Spinner to earn his credentials?

As the "effective minimum wage" is raised, the real world result will be: everyone else's wages will go up as a factor of the new minimum, the overall ‘value’ of the dollar will go down commensurately, meaning the real value of our savings will go down, and those that will be hurt the worst??? The unskilled minimum wage earners that demanded a “living wage” in the first place.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri May 16, 2014 11:39 am

I just don't buy this crap that DC kids cannot be well educated. This socio-economic BS is an excuse for failure to defend the teacher's unions, but it's a terrible defense because it provides zero justification for their salaries. If they cannot make a difference, why pay them more than a babysitter?

An interesting read if education is more than just politics.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2014/05/01/will-dunbar-rise-again-n1830522/page/full
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15793
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 16, 2014 9:08 pm

beretta24 wrote:I bet if you put the general population in a private school setting you would see one big change, and the result would have a positive impact on the rest of the students. The students that misbehave, disrupt the class or don't try would be failed or removed. As a result I think some fraction of those failed would get their stuff together and not fail a second time. Some would quit.

As a result the remaining students would do better than they otherwise would have because less energy would be wasted on those choosing to fail.

Now the question is what happens to the students that were removed or quit? Is their long term impact on society better or worse, and if worse does it outweigh the positive impact their absence has on the other students. Is there anything that can be done to change things is their impact is worse?

Good, insightful post, beretta. :thumbsup: Gives me things to consider.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Glimmerjim » Fri May 16, 2014 9:17 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I bet if you put the general population in a private school setting you would see one big change, and the result would have a positive impact on the rest of the students. The students that misbehave, disrupt the class or don't try would be failed or removed. As a result I think some fraction of those failed would get their stuff together and not fail a second time. Some would quit.

As a result the remaining students would do better than they otherwise would have because less energy would be wasted on those choosing to fail.

Now the question is what happens to the students that were removed or quit? Is their long term impact on society better or worse, and if worse does it outweigh the positive impact their absence has on the other students. Is there anything that can be done to change things is their impact is worse?

the worlds need ditch diggers, brick layers and grocery sackers......

That is very true, Inda. A problem is that we have reduced these people to second-class citizens. I can remember the day when the garbagemen enjoyed their work. They had to invest what they wanted to in skills, yet they still made a reasonable living. This is the biggest problem with what I condemn as our turning into an oligarchy, with the country's wealth going to fewer and fewer at the expense of the majority. Even Pope Francis said that we worship the dollar more than anything else in our lives, and that is especially true in the US. And that is what drives my desire to see more equity in wages. If you are making a respectable wage, you can take pride in what you are doing regardless of what it might be. If you are not, you see yourself simply as a pawn and a totally expendable tool of the "haves", and that, without a doubt, breeds resentment.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10669
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Democratic hypocrisy

Postby Gunnysway » Fri May 16, 2014 10:30 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I bet if you put the general population in a private school setting you would see one big change, and the result would have a positive impact on the rest of the students. The students that misbehave, disrupt the class or don't try would be failed or removed. As a result I think some fraction of those failed would get their stuff together and not fail a second time. Some would quit.

As a result the remaining students would do better than they otherwise would have because less energy would be wasted on those choosing to fail.

Now the question is what happens to the students that were removed or quit? Is their long term impact on society better or worse, and if worse does it outweigh the positive impact their absence has on the other students. Is there anything that can be done to change things is their impact is worse?

the worlds need ditch diggers, brick layers and grocery sackers......

That is very true, Inda. A problem is that we have reduced these people to second-class citizens. I can remember the day when the garbagemen enjoyed their work. They had to invest what they wanted to in skills, yet they still made a reasonable living. This is the biggest problem with what I condemn as our turning into an oligarchy, with the country's wealth going to fewer and fewer at the expense of the majority. Even Pope Francis said that we worship the dollar more than anything else in our lives, and that is especially true in the US. And that is what drives my desire to see more equity in wages. If you are making a respectable wage, you can take pride in what you are doing regardless of what it might be. If you are not, you see yourself simply as a pawn and a totally expendable tool of the "haves", and that, without a doubt, breeds resentment.



Shhhhhh...


Didn't you here...? It's Psycho... If any of you call him Francis... He'll kill you...

And don't touch his stuff... He'll kill you

And don't touch him... he'll kill you

Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 2556
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SpinnerMan and 8 guests