In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:01:28 -0500, said:

I know, Charlie. When money goes out the door in business, it's called a
cost. When it goes out the door in guvmint, it's called an "investment."

LOL.

That's also wildly incorrect.

Guess you haven't been listening to all of the things the Dems want to
"invest" in. Like throwing more money in the direction of the teachers'
unions.

I don't think that anyone in the Dem party is throwing money at the unions. Perhaps throwing money at teachers, who are vastly underpaid.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't think that anyone in the Dem party is throwing money at the unions. Perhaps throwing money at teachers, who are vastly underpaid.

You're missing the purity of Dave's logic. In his little world, the quality of the education system
is inversely proportional to the salary of teachers, ergo if we pay them nothing, we'll have the best
damn education system in the world and our taxes will go down, leaving deep-thinkers like Dave with
more disposable income to spend on the important things in life, like cheap beer and tickets to pro
football games.

On 6 Jan 2008 21:44:02 -0600, Dave wrote:


In Jon's world, on the other hand, the quality of the education system is
directly proportional to the money you throw in the direction of teachers.

S'funny - I thought that it was a tenet of free market economics:
the more valuable an occupation, the more competition to fill a slot?

But I've been wrong before.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

In article , the_bmac wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I don't think that anyone in the Dem party is throwing money at the unions. Perhaps throwing money at
teachers, who are vastly underpaid.

You're missing the purity of Dave's logic. In his little world, the quality of the education system
is inversely proportional to the salary of teachers, ergo if we pay them nothing, we'll have the best
damn education system in the world and our taxes will go down, leaving deep-thinkers like Dave with
more disposable income to spend on the important things in life, like cheap beer and tickets to pro
football games.

Or, maybe I didn't miss it. LOL

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 21:18:02 -0500, the_bmac said:

You're missing the purity of Dave's logic. In his little world, the quality of the education system
is inversely proportional to the salary of teachers, ergo if we pay them nothing, we'll have the best
damn education system in the world and our taxes will go down, leaving deep-thinkers like Dave with
more disposable income to spend on the important things in life, like cheap beer and tickets to pro
football games.

In Jon's world, on the other hand, the quality of the education system is
directly proportional to the money you throw in the direction of teachers.
The more money we throw, the better education our kids get. Don't you see
the results in test scores. (Oh, I forgot that in most states the educators
made sure the state standardized tests were dumbed down enough to insure the
scores would be higher.)

In my world, there's a relationship between how much you pay someone and the quality of the person doing the work.

In article ,
Brian Whatcott wrote:
On 6 Jan 2008 21:44:02 -0600, Dave wrote:


In Jon's world, on the other hand, the quality of the education system is
directly proportional to the money you throw in the direction of teachers.

S'funny - I thought that it was a tenet of free market economics:
the more valuable an occupation, the more competition to fill a slot?

But I've been wrong before.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Dave doesn't actually believe in the free market. I'd suggest that he read Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, but it might hurt.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:18:16 -0000, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Guess you haven't been listening to all of the things the Dems want to
"invest" in. Like throwing more money in the direction of the teachers'
unions.

I don't think that anyone in the Dem party is throwing money at the unions. Perhaps throwing money at teachers,
who are vastly underpaid.

And the teachers aren't "in the direction" of the teachers' unions? Good
point, perhaps. Union folks frequently have their own separate agendas.

No. They're represented by the union for lots of things, but no one advocated giving tax money to the union, which is what you tried to claim.

As to the vastly underpaid matter, I'd say that in many cases they're paid
more than their performance justifies.

Perhaps, but the vast majority are underpaid and do a great job. Sorry you had some bad experiences!

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:18:16 -0000, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I don't think that anyone in the Dem party is throwing money at the
unions. Perhaps throwing money at teachers, who are vastly underpaid.

I don't know where you live, but they're paid pretty well in
Philadelphia, never mind what they get in the 'burbs.

My ex was in that system, was paid a bit more than I was (as a
not-underpaid-by-much senior programmer) AND was given time and money
to pursue "professional certifications" that further increased her pay.
Could likely have retired at 50 with both a pension and 403b (a 401k
for teachers), both heavily subsidized, the pension indexed for
inflation.

And Philly isn't known for being particularly effective in the teaching
biz nor for being able to get rid of the truly, hopelessly clueless
"teachers" or "administrators". Too many had insufficient skills to
make it in the real work-world, but held the expectations of
prima-donnas (as is usual in such cases). Oh, the stories I heard....

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Jan 6, 9:25*pm, Jere Lull wrote:

I don't know where you live, but they're paid pretty well in
Philadelphia, never mind what they get in the 'burbs.

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD


how about some facts...................

I went back to school to get a teaching lisense K-8, self contained
classroom in Oregon. I substute taught for a a year cause the
republicans cut money to the schools. I finaly got a fulltime job
teaching 2nd grade.My first day was August 2001.

My take home after taxes, healthcare ( i paid $500/mo for a ****ty
family of 3 plan , retirement (they paid 1/2), union dues $25
was...............

$1745/mo take home
In my contract I had to work TWO days for free. It was called a
"service day."

After I spent 8 hours in the classroom I spent another 1-2 hours
preparing for the next day. Made for 10 hour days five days a week.
Oh, except on Sunday when I put an additional 2-3 hours in getting
ready for the week.

I lasted two years. Never worked so hard for so little in my life.

Another though............................................ ..
you have blue collar, white collar, and pink collar
jobs.................... The fact still remans that women make $0.72 -
$0.78 to a mans dollar. Why : to quote james Brown. "its a mans
world!"

Free market my ass. Woman could be a nurse , secratary or teacher. So
why do nurses get $25-45/ hr with sign on bonus of $5-10K and teachers
get 30-35K to start? Cause nursing doesnt have a bunch of Republikans
mandating ****ty wages from the state legislature. Nurses work at a
for-proffit business. Teachers have to beg a repubican for money.
Nurses dont. they just go to a better paying hospital. teachers cant
do that when the republicans have created a state wide controlled
industry. Remember.... keep big goventment off our back. well we got
it in Oregon. 10 years ago we had 500 state troopers. We got less than
200 now. that will keep traffic meth off our interstate
freeways....not!

Yep, $1745/month sure is a lot of money for a family of three.
Bob

On Jan 6, 10:48*pm, WaIIy wrote:

Yep, $1745/month sure is a lot of money for a family of three.
Bob

Hmmm, the middle school librarian here makes $80K a year and retires at
90% salary.

Christ, thats good wages! Must have a stron union and some dems
hidding in the bushes. Or maybe the people in Phily value a good
education for their kids, no?


Anyway, if teaching is such a bad job, why did you go into it?- Hide quoted text -

I didnt say it was a bad job. I really enjoyed it but just didnt like
working my ass off for peanuts. Got to be practical bout this.

Why did I go into it???? I enjoy kids, I have some warped since of
civic service. You know, its not what your country can do for you its
what you bla bla bal. I belive in DOING somthign to make our country a
better place. Others just want to bitch, sit on their ass, and make
the government budget smaller and call it their contribution to our
country.

Heck, I still might be a teacher if it payed 80K plus perks.

What really burns my ass is when I read all this public school and
teacher bashing from people who most likley have never spent more than
a 1/2 hour in a school since they were 18 years old.......... and they
have kids! They listen to Limbaug and start to parrot. And
LImbaug..... whats his claim to fame???? Highschool education (self
admitted poor student), drug addicted, failed marrages, no kids, cant
even controll his weight. And he is an expert on public
education !???!?!?!
I bet that fat ass hasnt watched a teacher at work since he was
bullied in highschool. And he is an epert on public education?

Bob