"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ...
On Oct 3, 2:20 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...


Specifically union labor. It's a shame we let them do it.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID
Boatless Harry

On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 12:45:30 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:

On Oct 3, 2:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...

as i've often stated, being a conservative is a learning disability.

timothy noah, in 'slate', has a nice series of articles on current
economics. countries with the strongest unions have the strongest
manufacturing base.

guess what that means about the US?

i've tried to make this as simple as i can for your level of
understanding.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:23:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define
"public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?


Certainly USPS is in the public sector, as are teachers, firemen and
policemen (along with the huge bureaucracy that they drag around
behind them).

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 2:20 pm, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...

Now, that's funny. Without labor how do you think manufacturing gets done?
MORON!

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.


You hit the sauce kind of early today , Pumpkin. You don't make any sense. More than usual, even.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID
Boatless Harry

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Principals are not really managers. They generally have no business
sense or experience yet they are typically running a $5 million dollar
enterprise. (the average "in school" spending per school in our school
system)

So, you think having an MBA as a manager is going to make for a better
education? What do you think this MBA is going to do to promote a better
education vs. someone who is an educator by trade?

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

The failed teachers should just be sent on their way, not made
"managers". The reality is you can't fire a bad teacher so you have to
promote them.

Huh? Who's the manager now?? The principal? You're saying failed teachers
are promoted to ??

The reality is there are no managers in most school systems.School
boards have billion dollar budgets and nobody there seems capable of
efficiently managing that $1.428 billion budget (what my county
spends). We are the #40 school system. 39 spend more than we do.
If I was the king, the first thing I would do to cut education
spending would be to privatize the food, the busses and maintaining
the property. That alone is over a half a billion in our system and
all of them are horribly managed.

Depends on if there enough safeguards in place. That means regulation and
oversight. Who, pray tell, will be doing that?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:58:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.)
is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Principals are not really managers. They generally have no business
sense or experience yet they are typically running a $5 million dollar
enterprise. (the average "in school" spending per school in our school
system)

So, you think having an MBA as a manager is going to make for a better
education? What do you think this MBA is going to do to promote a better
education vs. someone who is an educator by trade?

No but I think a real manager would help.
Someone who has actually been successful running a business

Well, who are you going to call? Ghostbusters? FYI, education isn't a
business. It doesn't need to show a financial profit. It's a societal
imperative.

It was MBAs who ran the economy into the ground.

So, it's people who are trained to run a business who are at fault for
running the economy into the ground. I guess that would include Bush.

"Real educators" are not the people I want running the largest food
outlet in my county or running the largest bus system. I don't want
them running a $100,000,000 maintenance department and I don't want
them making real estate decisions about the two billion dollars worth
of property they own.

Real educators don't "run" any of those things directly. They administer a
system, and most have years of experience doing it. But, you'd rather have
who do it exactly. So far, you've said "real managers." Who would they be?
How are they trained?

Unfortunately the vertical integration caused by the fact that you
can't go very far in the education department without being a teacher
assures we have people running it with absolutely zero management
experience.

? So, how would you structure a $multi-billion system? You have to use
someone?

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then,
you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

The failed teachers should just be sent on their way, not made
"managers". The reality is you can't fire a bad teacher so you have to
promote them.

Huh? Who's the manager now?? The principal? You're saying failed teachers
are promoted to ??


You can't do much of anything in the education establishment if you
are not a former teacher.

And, your point?

The reality is there are no managers in most school systems.School
boards have billion dollar budgets and nobody there seems capable of
efficiently managing that $1.428 billion budget (what my county
spends). We are the #40 school system. 39 spend more than we do.
If I was the king, the first thing I would do to cut education
spending would be to privatize the food, the busses and maintaining
the property. That alone is over a half a billion in our system and
all of them are horribly managed.

Depends on if there enough safeguards in place. That means regulation and
oversight. Who, pray tell, will be doing that?


Busses are regulated by the department of transportation and the
public services administration. Food is regulated by the health
department. EXCEPT IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Busses are beholden to the same regulations that any other vehicle on the
road follows. Food is regulated (not all that well) by the FDA. Not sure
what you're getting at. Are you trying to claim that a school administrator
can feed children uninspected (regulation-wise) chicken????

Is that really oversight? There are as many if not more stories about
tainted food being served in schools and dangerous busses in school
systems as there are in the private sector.

So, what you're really talking about is the decision of WHAT food is
given/sold to kids. That should be up to nutritionists in concert with
budget issues.

The maintenance department is simply a government boondoggle and a
private company could do a better job for half the money, still
returning money to stock holders. That is simple to evaluate. Either
the roof leaks or it doesn't, the light bulbs get replaced or they
don't. Tracking trouble calls, response times, cycle times, cost and
customer satisfaction are very easy to document.
That is a very well developed business model in the private sector
that just seems to baffle government maintenance operations.

So, schools that are underfunded are out of luck I suppose. You're going to
take the budget responsibilities away from the local officials and give it
to who?

This very much sounds like a rant. Who exactly are you angry with and why?
What did they do to you? Do you have any solutions or is it just privatize
everything?

On Oct 3, 3:45*pm, "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:20*pm, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...

Snotty the " non-working leach " thinks that everyone should work for
nothing. This from a poor, uneducated, unemployable leach of a man who
lives off the back of his poor Wife. Panty Liner also gambles with her
hard-earned cash, instead of doing ANYTHING to help her in life.

You really do need a bitch-slap, you ****ing slug.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:58:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.)
is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Principals are not really managers. They generally have no business
sense or experience yet they are typically running a $5 million dollar
enterprise. (the average "in school" spending per school in our school
system)

So, you think having an MBA as a manager is going to make for a better
education? What do you think this MBA is going to do to promote a better
education vs. someone who is an educator by trade?

No but I think a real manager would help.
Someone who has actually been successful running a business

Well, who are you going to call? Ghostbusters? FYI, education isn't a
business. It doesn't need to show a financial profit. It's a societal
imperative.

It was MBAs who ran the economy into the ground.

So, it's people who are trained to run a business who are at fault for
running the economy into the ground. I guess that would include Bush.

"Real educators" are not the people I want running the largest food
outlet in my county or running the largest bus system. I don't want
them running a $100,000,000 maintenance department and I don't want
them making real estate decisions about the two billion dollars worth
of property they own.

Real educators don't "run" any of those things directly. They administer a
system, and most have years of experience doing it. But, you'd rather have
who do it exactly. So far, you've said "real managers." Who would they be?
How are they trained?

Unfortunately the vertical integration caused by the fact that you
can't go very far in the education department without being a teacher
assures we have people running it with absolutely zero management
experience.

? So, how would you structure a $multi-billion system? You have to use
someone?

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then,
you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

The failed teachers should just be sent on their way, not made
"managers". The reality is you can't fire a bad teacher so you have to
promote them.

Huh? Who's the manager now?? The principal? You're saying failed teachers
are promoted to ??


You can't do much of anything in the education establishment if you
are not a former teacher.

And, your point?

The reality is there are no managers in most school systems.School
boards have billion dollar budgets and nobody there seems capable of
efficiently managing that $1.428 billion budget (what my county
spends). We are the #40 school system. 39 spend more than we do.
If I was the king, the first thing I would do to cut education
spending would be to privatize the food, the busses and maintaining
the property. That alone is over a half a billion in our system and
all of them are horribly managed.

Depends on if there enough safeguards in place. That means regulation and
oversight. Who, pray tell, will be doing that?


Busses are regulated by the department of transportation and the
public services administration. Food is regulated by the health
department. EXCEPT IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Busses are beholden to the same regulations that any other vehicle on the
road follows. Food is regulated (not all that well) by the FDA. Not sure
what you're getting at. Are you trying to claim that a school administrator
can feed children uninspected (regulation-wise) chicken????

Is that really oversight? There are as many if not more stories about
tainted food being served in schools and dangerous busses in school
systems as there are in the private sector.

So, what you're really talking about is the decision of WHAT food is
given/sold to kids. That should be up to nutritionists in concert with
budget issues.

The maintenance department is simply a government boondoggle and a
private company could do a better job for half the money, still
returning money to stock holders. That is simple to evaluate. Either
the roof leaks or it doesn't, the light bulbs get replaced or they
don't. Tracking trouble calls, response times, cycle times, cost and
customer satisfaction are very easy to document.
That is a very well developed business model in the private sector
that just seems to baffle government maintenance operations.

So, schools that are underfunded are out of luck I suppose. You're going to
take the budget responsibilities away from the local officials and give it
to who?

This very much sounds like a rant. Who exactly are you angry with and why?
What did they do to you? Do you have any solutions or is it just privatize
everything?



Bottom line Pumpkin, is that you think public school systems are doing fine just the way they are. Watch out fer Obama. He be going to go in and CHANGE everything to suit himself. You be watching out fer it. Ya Heah.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID
Boatless Harry

"*e#c" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 3:45 pm, "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote:
On Oct 3, 2:20 pm, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:03:42 -0400, I am Tosk

wrote:
Really, this has been going on for months.. Both of you need to
understand that there is no difference between "wall st" and "labor".
They are and have always been in bed together to take from the
sweating
members of the group.

if this were true, wall street wouldnt have destroyed labor. labor
unions would be flourishing.

they're not

Exactly, Labor destroyed manufacturing...

Snotty the " non-working leach " thinks that everyone should work for
nothing. This from a poor, uneducated, unemployable leach of a man who
lives off the back of his poor Wife. Panty Liner also gambles with her
hard-earned cash, instead of doing ANYTHING to help her in life.

You really do need a bitch-slap, you ****ing slug.

He's just jealous that most people actually go out and work for a living.