Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

[Carter]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

You know who else stands to make (or more accurately, save) a pretty penny? The taxpayers.

No doubt they'll need it after they watch their salaries plummet.

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

You know who else stands to make (or more accurately, save) a pretty penny? The taxpayers.

So the teachers aren't tax payers?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I would much rather see Cstore managers (is that convenience store?) paid a living wage as well, not bring all down to the lowest common denominator. Do owners actually expect honesty from employees who are paid so little? I'm also curious as to how much those owners are making from that store. But I suppose that's nobody's business, eh?

Depends on the store obviously. Some make hundreds of thousands, some don't. Cstore managers working for a decent outfit can get incentives up to 30 grand maybe more around me but its hard to meet and you'll work for it. The CStore business isn't good enough so that Exxon Mobil want any part of it, they sold every store they ran. If you're an owner operator you 'll be in there 6 or 7 days a week if you don't want to get stolen blind, at the end of 20 years if you can sell it you have a chance to have a nice lump sum. Ask Cstore folks if they feel bad for your buddy, they'll laugh at you

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

So the teachers aren't tax payers?

They definitely are.

I'm saying, in Priceless land, he seems to believe that this bill only benefits the Koch brothers. It also benefits all of the taxpayers of Wisconsin- particularly the 85% of whom aren't public workers.

When people paint it as the big evil corporations against the poor public working man, they conveniently forget about the other 85%.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I don't think that's the full story. He certainly made the liability argument about the train. He made the point many times that the train would have been a waste of money, with Wisconsin on the hook for overruns and anything needed to make the train profitable down the line. Considering 2 high speed trains in the entire world are profitable, I think it's a pretty darn good possibility we would have been on the hook.

He also said he would be happy to spend the money on roads (you know, things people actually use) but the DOT said no. I don't think that's the same thing as demanding it goes to the taxpayers.

Edit: Here's a JS Online story from as long ago as last February where he talks about why he doesn't want the train. I think he makes some of the same arguments you say he would have had a point with.

I don't know anything about the railroads in WI, but the argument that someone else will/would have/might do something "anyway" is never a defense of doing something immoral. If you support it, find another argument for it besides "someone else will spend it anyway, might as well be us."

Both fair criticisms of my rant (WWM more than geezer, but I'll get into that in a bit). Walker did (also) go into details about not wanting Wisconsin to pay for the rail upkeep after it was completed.

But it doesn't change the fact that he KNEW we would not get that money for our transportation budget, he KNEW that that money was just going to be used elsewhere if he rejected it. That was **** near a billion dollars, which would have been used to generate jobs in Wisconsin. He rejected it, and now my tax dollars are being spent to fund stimulus projects in other states. geezer, that's not a morality issue. This wasn't stolen money, it was taxpayer money from the federal budget. It's akin to a subsidiary company accepting money from corporate for a major R&D project. If Wisconsin as a state doesn't like the amount of money the feds want to throw around, it's up to Wisconsin to elect representatives in the federal government that will represent that viewpoint.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117192683.html

Walker announced his budget cuts today. The highlights:

State and local funding for general Wisconsin public school operations would drop 5.5% in 2011-'12 and remain flat the following school year under Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to slash $834 million in state K-12 education spending over the next two years.

That's acutally pretty close to the amount that Jim Doyle decreased funding in his last go around. Makes sense. Given the economy, I'm actually a little shocked that he didn't cut more.

Schools still can get money from other sources, such as the federal government and targeted state funding programs. But Walker also introduced plans to eliminate grant programs for Advanced Placement courses, alcohol and drug abuse prevention, nurses, alternative and at-risk education, and science, technology, engineering and mathematics education.

Whoa. Key word is "eliminate". That's a lot of grants to flat out eliminate.

The governor's 2011-'13 budget proposal also could lead to a massive expansion of Milwaukee's private school voucher program by phasing out the income requirements and eliminating enrollment caps on Milwaukee families as well as expanding eligibility to all private schools in Milwaukee County. Walker also hopes to remove a requirement that students in the voucher schools take state tests, possibly scuttling new efforts to gauge whether the private school choice program has any meaningful impact on academic achievement.

Okay, I'm going backwards in the article now, but here's the scary part. Cut spending? Fine. Makes sense. But then to INCREASE spending on private schools (by an untold amount) via vouchers, remove the need-based element of the state paying for said vouchers, while simultaneously removing any accountability for those private schools?? All this under the pretense of "we gotta fix this budget" and "we really need to solve this by making major cuts to public education". Are you ****ing kidding me?

Now my tax dollars (regardless of whether I am rich or poor) will go towards subsidizing rich kids to go to private schools. Private schools which do not have to take in kids with special needs- who will now become an even bigger burden to public schools. Oh yeah, this is totally about balancing the budget and not about partisan bull ****. That "R" next to Walker's name stands for "rhetoric".

The kicker?

Requiring that charter school teachers only have a bachelor's degree to teach, rather than a teacher's license.

Does his proposal for health care include not requiring doctors to go to med school?

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senators in this state are still useless ****ing children, sobbing away their troubles in Illinois. Our long, slow journey towards becoming Mississippi just got fast tracked.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

That's good because science, technology, engineering and mathematics aren't very important.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The kicker?

Does his proposal for health care include not requiring doctors to go to med school?

Before I get too upset about this aspect of the bill, I'd like to hear someone explain what exactly getting a teacher's license requires. I don't think the med school analogy is a great comparison in terms of the work above a bachelor's degree required.

I'm sure some people will be along to yell at me and tell me just how wrong I am, but isn't that licensing requirement just another possible barrier to hiring good teachers? Besides, it's not like that opens things up for charter schools to hire any idiot off the street, I'm sure the interview and vetting process will remain the same.

Edit: Thinking about it, is that all that much different in function than Teach For America? The people accepted into that program don't have the traditional certification either. Although from what I understand they do wind up taking some sort of certification program once accepted.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

They definitely are.

I'm saying, in Priceless land, he seems to believe that this bill only benefits the Koch brothers. It also benefits all of the taxpayers of Wisconsin- particularly the 85% of whom aren't public workers.

When people paint it as the big evil corporations against the poor public working man, they conveniently forget about the other 85%.

They will save what? $10 bucks? Whohoo! Their dreams of early retirement are assured now! Meanwhile two guys who don't even live in the state will make tens of millions. That's equitable.

And it's not the 85% I'm worried about. It's more like the 98% that aren't represented and are being made to sacrifice so that other 2% can get even richer than they are. But you keep defending the 2%. God knows they need it.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

As for removing the cap on incomes for voucher schools, the cap now is currently set at 175% of the poverty line, which to my math works out to somewhere around $38,000.

If that's the case, I can't see a problem with that aspect of the bill either. I'd argue that a family making $40,000 a year could still use a heck of a lot of assistance.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

They will save what? $10 bucks? Whohoo! Their dreams of early retirement are assured now! Meanwhile two guys who don't even live in the state will make tens of millions. That's equitable.

And it's not the 85% I'm worried about. It's more like the 98% that aren't represented and are being made to sacrifice so that other 2% can get even richer than they are. But you keep defending the 2%. God knows they need it.

Ha. What 98% aren't represented?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

They will save what? $10 bucks? Whohoo! Their dreams of early retirement are assured now! Meanwhile two guys who don't even live in the state will make tens of millions. That's equitable.

And it's not the 85% I'm worried about. It's more like the 98% that aren't represented and are being made to sacrifice so that other 2% can get even richer than they are. But you keep defending the 2%. God knows they need it.

That brings up an interesting question, how much money are these criminals stealing from the majority to pay for the jobs that I would hazard to guess are primarily to support or service them?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

As for removing the cap on incomes for voucher schools, the cap now is currently set at 175% of the poverty line, which to my math works out to somewhere around $38,000.

If that's the case, I can't see a problem with that aspect of the bill either. I'd argue that a family making $40,000 a year could still use a heck of a lot of assistance.

The family making 250,000 will be happy to use taxpayer dollars to send Junior to Snobby Prep.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Before I get too upset about this aspect of the bill, I'd like to hear someone explain what exactly getting a teacher's license requires. I don't think the med school analogy is a great comparison in terms of the work above a bachelor's degree required.
...
Edit: Thinking about it, is that all that much different in function than Teach For America? The people accepted into that program don't have the traditional certification either. Although from what I understand they do wind up taking some sort of certification program once accepted.

You're right. I was mostly being snarky on that point. It is kind of shocking, though, to see that requirement be done away with across the board, as opposed to just in certain situation for inner-city schools.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

The family making 250,000 will be happy to use taxpayer dollars to send Junior to Snobby Prep.

I'd be willing to bet there's a decent chance Junior already attends a private school. Also, I'm willing to bet that common sense would prevail in a situation such as that one.

Yet again, it's seizing upon an utterly worst case scenario as a means for deriding the program as a whole.

I mean, if it's a choice between allowing families making $40,000 into the program in exchange for the remotest of possibilities of abuse, that's a risk I'm 100% willing to take.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

You're right. I was mostly being snarky on that point. It is kind of shocking, though, to see that requirement be done away with across the board, as opposed to just in certain situation for inner-city schools.

I don't know about an inner-city only stipulation. Looking at the list of WI charter schools I see a few that probably aren't "inner-city" but could still use some help.

What I did want to note though is that I think my argument applies mainly to high schools. I do think teaching smaller kids is an entirely different animal, that perhaps something more than a bachelor's degree is required.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

As for removing the cap on incomes for voucher schools, the cap now is currently set at 175% of the poverty line, which to my math works out to somewhere around $38,000.

If that's the case, I can't see a problem with that aspect of the bill either. I'd argue that a family making $40,000 a year could still use a heck of a lot of assistance.

And it's still a personal choice for a family to go to private schools when they are already paying for public ones. It's also the same lesson people should have learned over and over again (either from real life or from watching the housing/credit market drop out): there's personal responsibility involved in choosing to pay for luxuries when you don't have the income to back it up. While it's everyone's right to be fiscally irresponsible if they so choose, that doesn't mean I should fund it with my tax dollars.

In my eyes, the only reason to justify vouchers at all is to say that private school attendees relieve some of the burden required to run a public school (by virtue of needing to teach fewer kids). Other than that? It's their choice. Would we encourage vouchers for people who have private security just because they might not need police protection?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

I'd be willing to bet there's a decent chance Junior already attends a private school. Also, I'm willing to bet that common sense would prevail in a situation such as that one.

Yet again, it's seizing upon an utterly worst case scenario as a means for deriding the program as a whole.

Of course Junior already attends private school. Mix with the great unwashed? Ewww. Now taxpayers (the great unwashed) can pay for Junior to go to private school. Or do you think they won't bother to apply for a voucher? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you...

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

What I did want to note though is that I think my argument applies mainly to high schools. I do think teaching smaller kids is an entirely different animal, that perhaps something more than a bachelor's degree is required.

I agree with that. My BS in Mechanical Engineering should be more than sufficient qualification for me to teach, say, high school physics or calculus.

Edit: and a fair point about Teach for America. I know that the MAJORITY of TFA schools are inner city, but it's certainly not exclusive.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XX: Maybe We'll Even Talk About Obama

Meanwhile

The former speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, is planning to formally launch on Thursday his bid for the Republican nomination to take on Barack Obama next year, the first of the candidates to do so.

It has been a slow start this year compared with the same period in recent election cycles. Sarah Palin, the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and other potential Republican candidates are holding back. The announcement by Gingrich, trailed by ABC News, might lead other candidates to join the fray.

Although the presidential election is not until November next year, the caucuses and primaries begin in January and the Republican hopefuls will have to spend much of this year campaigning.

Gingrich is scheduled to announce in Atlanta, Georgia, that he is setting up a presidential exploratory committee, the first stage in the process.

The former speaker is a volatile figure, with a tendency towards unguarded and provocative comments that could be damaging on the campaign trail. His biggest problem may be that, at 67, he will be seen as yesterday's man.