goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 15, 2011, 12:41:13 PM
-
Never mind the fiscal year began almost 6 months ago. . .
It's $3.73 trillion. For people who can't count very high that's:
three thousand, seven hundred thirty billion dollars - $3,730 billion or
three million, seven hundred thirty thousand, million dollars - $3,730,000 million
- it also necessarily implies that spending considered material would start around $10 billion
According to Pravda, the new budget will cut $1.1 trillion from the deficit over the next 10 years. Pravda failed to mention that the budget was due prior to OCTOBER 1ST 2010.
No plans to deal with imploding SS or Medicaid, no comments on brand new entitlement Obamacare. Obama says republicans have to deal with that because it would be too unpopular for democrats to be serious and attempt to fix the entitlements they created (paraphrasing).
To summarize in one word how Obama is handling our nations financial woes: PUNT
-
Reaction to President’s funding request for NBAF
February 15th, 2011 in Local by Cathy Dawes 0
President Barack Obama is requesting $150 million dollars for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility being built here in Manhattan near Kansas State. Assistant City Manager, Jason Hilgers says he is very pleased with the President’s request. Hilgers adds things are coming right along for the new facility.
Manhattan Mayor oscar Snead says the President’s support shows the importance of research, although Snead says NBAF construction will take several years.
U-S Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas takes just a bit of the credit, saying the Kansas Delegation, including former Senator now Governor Sam Brownback, and former Congressman/now Senator Jerry Moran, worked on this so long.
Meanwhile, Kansas State Vice President for Research Ron Trewyn reminds us that 2012 had been the plan all along. And Trewyn adds the 150 million still needs to be approved by Congress. He reminds us we still have to get some Fiscal year 2011 funds in to work on the central utility plant. But Trewyn describes the latest news from Washington as “excellent” and a show of commitment in these tough economic times.
Kansas State President Kirk Schulz says the President’s commitment from Washington shows how important research like this is.
If any of those back country tea party hicks you losers voted into office somehow get in the way of this budget I will destroy you.
-
New contract confirmed tonight! :pbj:
-
Ummm, isn't that budget for 2012?
-
Another $55 billion for DHS. Would like to see a breakdown on how much is going to control the American Sheeple and how much is going to actually catch and/or stop real bad guys (like the ones pouring over the Mexican border with the US).
-
FYI, attempted closet liberal Steve Dave -
defense spending =/ discretionary budget
republican leaders brought that project to Kansas (i.e. Pat Roberts referenced in article)
liberals hate defense, obama currently trying to cut defense budget; neo-cons, not teabaggers in favor of endless defense spending
Based on your response I'd say your a neo-con. grats, SD
disclaimer: I don't think this is defense spending
-
Ummm, isn't that budget for 2012?
No :facepalm:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/02/houses_plan_to_slash_from_60_b.html
MSM has successfully covered this up or misreported it. 5+ months of fiscal year 2011 are over. This is an unprecedented dereliction of duties. If he were a CEO of a company, rather than the US, a shareholder could have him fired for breach of fiduciary duty in a derivative suit. It's rough ridin' pathetic
-
Obama "hates" defense, yet his administration just spent more on the war/military/intelligence complex than any other administration in history and more than all of the other nations of the world combined.
The proposed DOD "budget cuts" don't amount to jack, and we are currently getting set up with a whole cadre of new "bogeymen" in the Middle East.
-
Obama (well, Gates/Mullen to be exact) just funded several important defense contracts that had been in serious limbo the past month and half. :ck:
-
Obama "hates" defense, yet his administration just spent more on the war/military/intelligence complex than any other administration in history and more than all of the other nations of the world combined.
The proposed DOD "budget cuts" don't amount to jack, and we are currently getting set up with a whole cadre of new "bogeymen" in the Middle East.
Have you made the same complaint about every modern president?
-
Excited about this budget. Will be nice to see the debt gone by the end of the fiscal year!
-
Obama "hates" defense, yet his administration just spent more on the war/military/intelligence complex than any other administration in history and more than all of the other nations of the world combined.
The proposed DOD "budget cuts" don't amount to jack, and we are currently getting set up with a whole cadre of new "bogeymen" in the Middle East.
Have you made the same complaint about every modern president?
The man was a Nobel Peace Prize winner (OMG, what a load of crap that was), he had the Obamabots and the fake Anti-War movement believing that he was somehow different . . . and for previous presidents, they were not spending more on the military/war/intelligence complex than the rest of the world combined.
-
Weird, Dax is disagreeing with someone. Dude gets his jollies that way. Bet his husband has to feign rape before Daxy can get it up.
-
Obama "hates" defense, yet his administration just spent more on the war/military/intelligence complex than any other administration in history and more than all of the other nations of the world combined.
The proposed DOD "budget cuts" don't amount to jack, and we are currently getting set up with a whole cadre of new "bogeymen" in the Middle East.
Have you made the same complaint about every modern president?
The man was a Nobel Peace Prize winner (OMG, what a load of crap that was), he had the Obamabots and the fake Anti-War movement believing that he was somehow different . . . and for previous presidents, they were not spending more on the military/war/intelligence complex than the rest of the world combined.
Link?
-
I don't understand why the media lets obama get away with his contradictions. If they really think the war against terror is unjust or "fear mongering", why allow obama to get away with it? I thought the media was just liberal, it's looking more like it's just an arm of the democrat party, like the ACLU. They have no principles, they just want the dems to win and are willing to go bankrupt over it.
Really sad. The only reason the press was given first amendment rights was to provide an adequate check on the government. Just like the 3/5th compromise, this provision has become rather irrelevant.
-
Link to what '06??
-
Dear Obama-
Thanks for the extra money again today.
Your friend,
felix
-
I love when people get all riled up about discretionary spending items and someone breaks out a simple pie chart showing how small a part of our total expenditures it really is.
It was discussed earlier but unless folks are going to go to the table to talk about how we can slash defense, the whole conversation is nothing but a bunch of people arguing about the fuel efficiency for the type of tires on a car when the overall gas mileage is six miles a gallon.
And before everyone gets all up in arms about Social Security and Medicare, let's talk about something that we actually have the ability to cut. Old people vote, so it's going to take a titanic effort to ever fix that.
-
And before everyone gets all up in arms about Social Security and Medicare, let's talk about something that we actually have the ability to cut. Old people vote, so it's going to take a titanic effort to ever fix that.
You are right, but until we are willing to discuss that, the whole discussion is generally one big :flush:
-
Well the fun part is we can now discuss cutting senior's entitlement programs, just not for anyone 55+. They get grandfathered in.
-
Link to what '06??
If you read my previous post real close you might just be able to figure it out.
-
Well the fun part is we can now discuss cutting senior's entitlement programs, just not for anyone 55+. They get grandfathered in.
Eh, it sucks, but they'll most likely die before we do, so it will all balance out.
In my opinion, if we want to get serious about the budget, we should do it in this order:
1) Defense
2) Discretionary
3) Social Security
4) Medicare
I put Medicare at four because Medicare is simply the end result of a massively screwed up system. There's so much that needs to be fixed there before we can even begin to address it.
If you get serious about cutting the defense budget and start tightening the belt on discretionary spending, while increasing the tax rate for the richest 2%, we'd start to dig out of the hole a lot more quickly. Then the next great battle would be figuring out how to make Social Security solvent in the long run. After that, we can address Medicare.
-
I love when people get all riled up about discretionary spending items and someone breaks out a simple pie chart showing how small a part of our total expenditures it really is.
It was discussed earlier but unless folks are going to go to the table to talk about how we can slash defense, the whole conversation is nothing but a bunch of people arguing about the fuel efficiency for the type of tires on a car when the overall gas mileage is six miles a gallon.
And before everyone gets all up in arms about Social Security and Medicare, let's talk about something that we actually have the ability to cut. Old people vote, so it's going to take a titanic effort to ever fix that.
That's why we need messiahcare. We can then decide anyone over 55 is no longer a productive citizen in relation to the cost of keeping them healthy. No one over 55 = 85-95% of medicare and ss can be safely axed.
-
Link to what '06??
If you read my previous post real close you might just be able to figure it out.
Tell me, which previous "modern day" presidents started and expanded ongoing perpetual wars?? Bush, LBJ and now Obama. When you combine the defense budget, the war budget, DHS and Intelligence expansion . . . no one comes close to Obama in terms of spending.
-
Link to what '06??
If you read my previous post real close you might just be able to figure it out.
Tell me, which previous "modern day" presidents started and expanded ongoing perpetual wars?? Bush, LBJ and now Obama. When you combine the defense budget, the war budget, DHS and Intelligence expansion . . . no one comes close to Obama in terms of spending.
I wasn't aware Obama started a war...going to need that link. You do realize we actually have fewer troops serving overseas right now than when Obama took office right?
-
Link to what '06??
If you read my previous post real close you might just be able to figure it out.
Tell me, which previous "modern day" presidents started and expanded ongoing perpetual wars?? Bush, LBJ and now Obama. When you combine the defense budget, the war budget, DHS and Intelligence expansion . . . no one comes close to Obama in terms of spending.
I wasn't aware Obama started a war...going to need that link. You do realize we actually have fewer troops serving overseas right now than when Obama took office right?
Undeclared wars in Pakistan and Yemen is what I believe he is referring to.
-
Table 1. Average Monthly Boots On the Ground in Afghanistan and Iraq:
FY2002-FY2012
Reported FY02-FY08, Estimated FY09-FY12, Rounded to Hundreds
Fiscal Percentage Change
Year/Country
Afghanistan
Iraq
Total
Annual Since
FY2003
Since
FY2008
FY2002 5,200 0 5,200 NA NA NA
FY2003 10,400 67,700 78,100 1402% NA NA
FY2004 15,200 130,600 145,800 87% 87% NA
FY2005 19,100 143,800 162,900 12% 109% NA
FY2006 20,400 141,100 161,500 -1% 107% NA
FY2007 23,700 148,300 172,000 7% 120% NA
FY2008 30,100 157,800 187,900 9% 141% NA
FY2009 50,700 135,600 186,300 -1% 139% -1%
FY2010 63,500 88,300 151,800 -19% 94% -19%
FY2011 63,500 42,800 106,200 -30% 36% -43%
FY2012 63,500 4,100 67,500 -36% -14% -64%
Holy crap, we're actually ending the wars? Unfucking possible since Obama is all about perpetual war right Dax. :users:
Oh, and here's the rough ridin' link (.pdf): http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf)
-
Link to what '06??
If you read my previous post real close you might just be able to figure it out.
Tell me, which previous "modern day" presidents started and expanded ongoing perpetual wars?? Bush, LBJ and now Obama. When you combine the defense budget, the war budget, DHS and Intelligence expansion . . . no one comes close to Obama in terms of spending.
I wasn't aware Obama started a war...going to need that link. You do realize we actually have fewer troops serving overseas right now than when Obama took office right?
Undeclared wars in Pakistan and Yemen is what I believe he is referring to.
Meh...we're in a lot more places doing the same crap or worse. Throw every rough ridin' president on there since the beginning of the "War on Drugs" on that list too.
-
I wish someone would just hit the reset button and launch the nukes.
-
I wish someone would just hit the reset button and launch the nukes.
They would but the reset button is mislabeled.
-
Table 1. Average Monthly Boots On the Ground in Afghanistan and Iraq:
FY2002-FY2012
Reported FY02-FY08, Estimated FY09-FY12, Rounded to Hundreds
Fiscal Percentage Change
Year/Country
Afghanistan
Iraq
Total
Annual Since
FY2003
Since
FY2008
FY2002 5,200 0 5,200 NA NA NA
FY2003 10,400 67,700 78,100 1402% NA NA
FY2004 15,200 130,600 145,800 87% 87% NA
FY2005 19,100 143,800 162,900 12% 109% NA
FY2006 20,400 141,100 161,500 -1% 107% NA
FY2007 23,700 148,300 172,000 7% 120% NA
FY2008 30,100 157,800 187,900 9% 141% NA
FY2009 50,700 135,600 186,300 -1% 139% -1%
FY2010 63,500 88,300 151,800 -19% 94% -19%
FY2011 63,500 42,800 106,200 -30% 36% -43%
FY2012 63,500 4,100 67,500 -36% -14% -64%
Holy crap, we're actually ending the wars? Unfucking possible since Obama is all about perpetual war right Dax. :users:
Oh, and here's the rough ridin' link (.pdf): http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf)
l
Their playing all kinds of games with numbers, and who is and isn't a "combat troop". There is no end in sight with wars, and Biden is running around saying we'll be in Afghanistan well beyond 2014.
Sorry 06 . . . http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a89214ac-3ac4-11e0-9c1a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EYEzj600
Sorry again 06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/20/AR2011022002975.html
:facepalm:
I suppose you think ending a two wars can be done at the push of a button. If Obama ordered every troop out of Afghanistan tomorrow, you'd still be looking at 4-6 months to get them out. And that would mean leaving a shitload of equipment behind to facilitate that.
Of course we're still going to have troops there, doesn't change the fact that you don't know what the eff you're talking about. Fort Riley will have every major unit on post by November. Only one unit will be deployed (about 200 soldiers, all in non-combat roles). It will be the first time that's happened since the Iraq war began.
Obviously Obama is expanding these wars beyond belief. :users:
-
Giving Obama credit for "ending the wars" because we have fewer troops in Iraq and Afgan after two successful "surges" (one of which he was adamently against) is the most Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) thing I've read on here in a while.
You can't end a war with the push of a button, but you can win one by virtue of being President when all the hard work and tough decision making fianally yields an acceptable result???
FYI - the topic is the conflict in Pakistan
-
Giving Obama credit for "ending the wars" because we have fewer troops in Iraq and Afgan after two successful "surges" (one of which he was adamently against) is the most Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) thing I've read on here in a while.
You can't end a war with the push of a button, but you can win one by virtue of being President when all the hard work and tough decision making fianally yields an acceptable result???
FYI - the topic is the conflict in Pakistan
Iraq may have a chance at a functional government in the next couple decades because of the surge. Afghanistan was and will always be a clusterfuck for the foreseeable future.
As for Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Do you get your panties in a wad over the sometimes quasi-legal actions our para-military agencies take in the narc wars?
Dax's main point isn't necessarily wrong, he's just using bullshit reasons for getting to the conclusion. If anything, the reason defense and intelligence spending keep growing has more to do with mission creep than whoever is president.
-
Reaction to President’s funding request for NBAF
February 15th, 2011 in Local by Cathy Dawes 0
President Barack Obama is requesting $150 million dollars for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility being built here in Manhattan near Kansas State. Assistant City Manager, Jason Hilgers says he is very pleased with the President’s request. Hilgers adds things are coming right along for the new facility.
Manhattan Mayor oscar Snead says the President’s support shows the importance of research, although Snead says NBAF construction will take several years.
U-S Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas takes just a bit of the credit, saying the Kansas Delegation, including former Senator now Governor Sam Brownback, and former Congressman/now Senator Jerry Moran, worked on this so long.
Meanwhile, Kansas State Vice President for Research Ron Trewyn reminds us that 2012 had been the plan all along. And Trewyn adds the 150 million still needs to be approved by Congress. He reminds us we still have to get some Fiscal year 2011 funds in to work on the central utility plant. But Trewyn describes the latest news from Washington as “excellent” and a show of commitment in these tough economic times.
Kansas State President Kirk Schulz says the President’s commitment from Washington shows how important research like this is.
If any of those back country tea party hicks you losers voted into office somehow get in the way of this budget I will destroy you.
QFT steve dave
-
06 never said you can just push a button and end the wars 06 . . . but it's quite clear that Obama is pushing more buttons to keep the wars going and going and going.
But hey, it appears the the Fake Anti-War Movement/Obamabots are quite complicit in standing quietly by as Obama pumps more Hellfire and Maverick missiles into mud huts hoping to hit somebody important every once in awhile. You guys will be all worried about "Blowback" again when you're not in the Whitehouse.
Mission Creep?? Yes, the Mission Creep of this administration allowing the wars to be operated in the backrooms of the CIA/Hired Killers, out of the minds of the sheeple, and out of the domain of normal oversight channels.
So you're against the narco wars then?
-
06 never said you can just push a button and end the wars 06 . . . but it's quite clear that Obama is pushing more buttons to keep the wars going and going and going.
But hey, it appears the the Fake Anti-War Movement/Obamabots are quite complicit in standing quietly by as Obama pumps more Hellfire and Maverick missiles into mud huts hoping to hit somebody important every once in awhile. You guys will be all worried about "Blowback" again when you're not in the Whitehouse.
Mission Creep?? Yes, the Mission Creep of this administration allowing the wars to be operated in the backrooms of the CIA/Hired Killers, out of the minds of the sheeple, and out of the domain of normal oversight channels.
So you're against the narco wars then?
Dax is right. Obama is a hawk. That dude loves him some war. It's one of the things that I'm very critical about in regards to him, but I'm pretty much against any mission that keeps troops in an area for longer than a fortnight. It's just too damn expensive, and you don't get any value from it.
And the war on drugs is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). You want to see drug use and crime drastically decrease while helping to secure our borders? Legalize all sorts of crap. Tax the Hell out of it.
-
06 never said you can just push a button and end the wars 06 . . . but it's quite clear that Obama is pushing more buttons to keep the wars going and going and going.
But hey, it appears the the Fake Anti-War Movement/Obamabots are quite complicit in standing quietly by as Obama pumps more Hellfire and Maverick missiles into mud huts hoping to hit somebody important every once in awhile. You guys will be all worried about "Blowback" again when you're not in the Whitehouse.
Mission Creep?? Yes, the Mission Creep of this administration allowing the wars to be operated in the backrooms of the CIA/Hired Killers, out of the minds of the sheeple, and out of the domain of normal oversight channels.
So you're against the narco wars then?
Dax is right. Obama is a hawk. That dude loves him some war. It's one of the things that I'm very critical about in regards to him, but I'm pretty much against any mission that keeps troops in an area for longer than a fortnight. It's just too damn expensive, and you don't get any value from it.
And the war on drugs is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). You want to see drug use and crime drastically decrease while helping to secure our borders? Legalize all sorts of crap. Tax the Hell out of it.
Taxing the hell out of it will create a black market, too.
-
06 never said you can just push a button and end the wars 06 . . . but it's quite clear that Obama is pushing more buttons to keep the wars going and going and going.
But hey, it appears the the Fake Anti-War Movement/Obamabots are quite complicit in standing quietly by as Obama pumps more Hellfire and Maverick missiles into mud huts hoping to hit somebody important every once in awhile. You guys will be all worried about "Blowback" again when you're not in the Whitehouse.
Mission Creep?? Yes, the Mission Creep of this administration allowing the wars to be operated in the backrooms of the CIA/Hired Killers, out of the minds of the sheeple, and out of the domain of normal oversight channels.
So you're against the narco wars then?
Dax is right. Obama is a hawk. That dude loves him some war. It's one of the things that I'm very critical about in regards to him, but I'm pretty much against any mission that keeps troops in an area for longer than a fortnight. It's just too damn expensive, and you don't get any value from it.
And the war on drugs is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). You want to see drug use and crime drastically decrease while helping to secure our borders? Legalize all sorts of crap. Tax the Hell out of it.
Taxing the hell out of it will create a black market, too.
Yeah, just like black market booze and cigarettes.
-
06 never said you can just push a button and end the wars 06 . . . but it's quite clear that Obama is pushing more buttons to keep the wars going and going and going.
But hey, it appears the the Fake Anti-War Movement/Obamabots are quite complicit in standing quietly by as Obama pumps more Hellfire and Maverick missiles into mud huts hoping to hit somebody important every once in awhile. You guys will be all worried about "Blowback" again when you're not in the Whitehouse.
Mission Creep?? Yes, the Mission Creep of this administration allowing the wars to be operated in the backrooms of the CIA/Hired Killers, out of the minds of the sheeple, and out of the domain of normal oversight channels.
So you're against the narco wars then?
Dax is right. Obama is a hawk. That dude loves him some war. It's one of the things that I'm very critical about in regards to him, but I'm pretty much against any mission that keeps troops in an area for longer than a fortnight. It's just too damn expensive, and you don't get any value from it.
And the war on drugs is effing Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). You want to see drug use and crime drastically decrease while helping to secure our borders? Legalize all sorts of cac. Tax the Hell out of it.
Well put, sir
-
If the U.S. isn't really going to get tough with the Border, than I'm all for legalization. Because it would end lots of things that are not good for national security.
OK, but if we go the route of "getting tough with the border" that pretty much means expanding the narco wars.
-
I agree w/ Dax 100% on Obama and his wars.
-
Wars:
It's time to expand the wars, invade mexico, and obliterate all american naysayers. clearly the measures the US has taken aren't drastic enough in getting us where we need to be. i'm with Obama, we need to be as hedgemonic as possible
Drugs:
if we start executing people who use drugs, fewer drug users will be around to use them, thus ending all demand and any incentive to manufacture and sell them. it also reduces the need for energy and reduces overall CO2 levels, which is good for global climate warming change fear mongering. it will also end about 90% of violent crime in this country and open up the emergency room for losers that won't get health insurance. 3 birds one stone :gocho:
-
Giving Obama credit for "ending the wars" because we have fewer troops in Iraq and Afgan after two successful "surges" (one of which he was adamently against) is the most Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) thing I've read on here in a while.
You can't end a war with the push of a button, but you can win one by virtue of being President when all the hard work and tough decision making fianally yields an acceptable result???
FYI - the topic is the conflict in Pakistan
Iraq may have a chance at a functional government in the next couple decades because of the surge. Afghanistan was and will always be a clustereff for the foreseeable future.
As for Pakistan, Yemen, etc. Do you get your panties in a wad over the sometimes quasi-legal actions our para-military agencies take in the narc wars?
Dax's main point isn't necessarily wrong, he's just using bullcac reasons for getting to the conclusion. If anything, the reason defense and intelligence spending keep growing has more to do with mission creep than whoever is president.
Please tell me you aren't actually attempting to analogize the "war on drugs" with the conflicts/wars/illegal wars in the middle east :facepalm:
How about the cost of the "war" on the weather?
The cost of the "war" on shitty education?
The cost of the "war" on poverty?
I could be wrong (I'm sure someone will tell me I am), but I don't think the DEA and related law enforcement agency spending comes out of the defense budget. If fact, if you look at the size of the DOJ budget relative to the rest of the federal government, you'll quickly realize what a tard talking point this is.
-
The cost of the "war" on shitty education?
That is more of an investment than an actual cost.
-
The cost of the "war" on shitty education?
That is more of an investment than an actual cost.
The problem is it's a really expensive yet crappy investment that is not paying off.
-
The cost of the "war" on shitty education?
That is more of an investment than an actual cost.
The problem is it's a really expensive yet crappy investment that is not paying off.
It would probably help if the investment wasn't completely half-assed.
-
The cost of the "war" on shitty education?
That is more of an investment than an actual cost.
The problem is it's a really expensive yet crappy investment that is not paying off.
It would probably help if the investment wasn't completely half-assed.
$50 billion for the US dept of education is half-assed? The dept of education isn't even directly involved in the education process, simply bureaucrats. Complete waste of money.
-
calling government spending an investment should be illegal (Securities Fraud type illegal)
-
Ed's structure is pretty messed up.
That said, it is underfunded in it's current form.
When new teacher salaries are anywhere in the $20k's, what kind of people do you think you attract to such salaries? Then you are surprised why more progress can't be made.
I was making more 3 or 4 years out of college than a teacher with 25 yrs experience and their masters makes.
We are getting what we pay for. Simple as that.
Pay better and better teachers will be produced.
-
Ed's structure is pretty messed up.
That said, it is underfunded in it's current form.
When new teacher salaries are anywhere in the $20k's, what kind of people do you think you attract to such salaries? Then you are surprised why more progress can't be made.
I was making more 3 or 4 years out of college than a teacher with 25 yrs experience and their masters makes.
We are getting what we pay for. Simple as that.
Pay better and better teachers will be produced.
do you only work 9 months a year? teachers are civil servants and make a very fine living relative to other civil servants.
-
Ed's structure is pretty messed up.
That said, it is underfunded in it's current form.
When new teacher salaries are anywhere in the $20k's, what kind of people do you think you attract to such salaries? Then you are surprised why more progress can't be made.
I was making more 3 or 4 years out of college than a teacher with 25 yrs experience and their masters makes.
We are getting what we pay for. Simple as that.
Pay better and better teachers will be produced.
do you only work 9 months a year? teachers are civil servants and make a very fine living relative to other civil servants.
You are completely ignoring the "you get what you pay for" part of my comment.
Seriously, it shouldn't be hard for a free market person to understand that a job that pays $30k isn't going to get as high caliber of applicants as a job that pays $60k. It isn't hard.
What's hard is the fact that the current structure is pretty jacked up and that it will probably never get adequately dealt with because, like many other issues, it is almost too big for any politician to tackle and still be re-electable. Given that, either pay teachers better to get better applicants, or quit bitching about "it not working".
-
Not sure any of your figures are even all that accurate, and I'm sure it's relative to the school district, but I get what you're saying. I'm also 100% sure teachers have outstanding benefits which is part of compensation and should be considered.
You certainly get what you pay for. But when the main perks of applying for a job is 1) changing lives, 2) summers off, and 3) "if you don't eff up too bad for the first few years you can never get fired", you're definitely going to attract a certain "type" of worker. One that likely isn't all that motivated by money.
No offense, but I'm not sure having an engineer (or engineer-lite CNS major) teach school is a realistic, viable or better option. Confusing the pool of applicants is all you've really done here. But I get what you're saying and it has some merit. I think you need to think a little harder about the type of person that would want to be a teacher to begin with. Not a lot of people motivated by great wealth, more likely a comfortable life with more altruistic career motives, jmho.
I really think education is best handled at the local level, where community standards can set the proper curriculum. The federal government application of a single standard to myriad communities with myriad demographics is a real stupid way to do things. But that's how its been for a while and its obviously not yielding any real positive results. Putting every child that can breath in a school where they don't belong isn't helping anyone either, but that's a whole another topic. . .