• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unions threaten Business

It doesnt give it to the union, they have to purchase the services of the workers who happen to be in the union. The people in the Union pay for union services I do not

Good gawd........a testament to willfull ignorance.

"The people in the Union pay for union services I do not"

....so where did the people in the union get the money?
.
.
.
 
Good gawd........a testament to willfull ignorance.

"The people in the Union pay for union services I do not"

....so where did the people in the union get the money?
.
.
.

Public unions? The Taxpayers of course....
 
Good gawd........a testament to willfull ignorance.

"The people in the Union pay for union services I do not"

....so where did the people in the union get the money?
.
.
.

Their employer
 
strange, i've never had the government take money from me by gunpoint...try again?

That's the far-right paranoid's fantasy. They all want to live out their own Ruby Ridge.

How many are honest enough to admit they got a copy of Tuner Diaries under the mattress?
 
Public unions? The Taxpayers of course....

What car do you drive, which company do you buy electricity from

Are they union shops, if so did you give the money to the union
 
What car do you drive, which company do you buy electricity from
Are they union shops, if so did you give the money to the union

Did you notice the choice to buy a car or deciding which company to buy electricity from.........

............involves FREE CHOICE?........
.
.
.
 
And where does "their employer" get the money?
.
.
.

From taxes generally, but once the taxes are paid it is no longer your money now is it. In the same way if I buy a ford, once the money leaves my hands it is fords money not mine
 
Let's see your plan, or the one you are referencing here? I must have missed the reallocation of funds in Wisconsin's budget to the students. Are they hiring more teachers? Are they increasing instruction time? The only reallocation I read about was taking about the same amount to be cut from teachers and giving it to corporations in the form of more tax breaks.

I came back into this thread because of your ridiculous comparison of education v military as % of GDP. I am not specifically addressing Wisconsin. Neither were you. However, now that you mention it, by eliminating the teachers' unions jackboot control over administrators and school boards, we just might see some reallocation of funding.


When you cite a link, at least let it corroborate your ascertain that nonunion schools don't have special ed classes. Jeesh.
 
Did you notice the choice to buy a car or deciding which company to buy electricity from.........

............involves FREE CHOICE?........
.
.
.

So your objection should be to the taxes and not the union
 
I came back into this thread because of your ridiculous comparison of education v military as % of GDP. I am not specifically addressing Wisconsin. Neither were you. However, now that you mention it, by eliminating the teachers' unions jackboot control over administrators and school boards, we just might see some reallocation of funding.

The fact that MA was able to increase funding and use it appropriately to raise its level of education without attacking teachers unions and funding like Wisconsin has makes this argument invalid.
 
Last edited:
From taxes generally, but once the taxes are paid it is no longer your money now is it. In the same way if I buy a ford, once the money leaves my hands it is fords money not mine

And where does this tax money come from?
.
.
.
.
 
I have seen you personally attack people all over this board much worse than I've ever done and you play the victim every time. When I was newer, I didn't realize that this is just your M.O.. Even this retort is veiled with personal attacks - you're just more passive about it.

Examples?

1. I never said "money alone" will do the trick and neither has anybody else. Me and others have talked about money as a factor that contributes to a good education particularly when you consider the fact that most states underfund low-income schools which tend to perform worse. You keep making up that claim "money alone" and arguing against. I have argued that increased funding + appropriate use of funding = better education.

2. The fact that you think that the study I provided was "more than beat into the ground by statistics in New York" just means that you are unwilling to acknowledge facts that counter your comfortable world view. Massachusetts increased funding, spent that increased funding on poor schools in places where it was needed and increased its math literacy from 23% to 49%. I am dumbfounded that anyone could look at that and say: "well money isn't a big deal".

Having the state supreme court intervene in your school system indicates to me that it was a dismal failure. Maybe that's what should happen in every state. But throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.

3. What you fail to realize, in your attack of an imaginary argument that "money solves all problems", is that increased money does good things when it is spent appropriately. Underfunded schools need more money just like underfunded schools need to spend their bigger funds appropriately.

Yes, increased money does do good things when it is spent appropriately. So does the same amount of money. Spending money appropriately is the answer...not an endless supply of it.

Although you have provided statistics that show New York's funding has not lead to a quick increase in better education, you have not shown 1. How they used those funds (obviously MA used them appropriately, did NY?) ....and you have not realized 2. New York just began an overhaul of its education system. Massachusetts didn't see the full extent of their reforms' influence for 10-12 years. Reform takes time. It doesn't just happen in 2-4 years.

NY is a beautiful example that more money doesn't mean better educations. New York spends far more per student than Massachusetts yet has absolutely dismal statistics. Proves my point exactly. It's not MORE money that's needed. It's more money spent the right way.
 
Taxing people who use public roads. Use public education.

Go to the public library. And call the police and fire department.

....and taxing the people who do not use......
.
.
.
.
 
Examples?
I'm not going to search for examples for someone who knows how they behave.

Having the state supreme court intervene in your school system indicates to me that it was a dismal failure. Maybe that's what should happen in every state. But throwing more money at the problem is not the answer.
Again bringing up arguments that have nothing to do with my post. Also, Chicago faces lawsuits on education all the time. It's just a matter of when it'll be taken care of.

Yes, increased money does do good things when it is spent appropriately. So does the same amount of money. Spending money appropriately is the answer...not an endless supply of it.
What you're not understanding/admitting is that 1. This "endless supply point" is a straw man because NO ONE has brought it up. It neither takes away nor adds anything to the arguments being made here or anywhere else on this board by anyone. 2. "The same amount of money" point would be relevant if we were talking about rich schools who were not underfunded. The problem is when most people talk about increased funding they are referencing underfunded schools (i.e. schools that get less than rich school) in low-income areas where more funding is needed. ----In other words, nobody ever brings up increasing money for places that have adequate money and are just using it poorly.

We bring it up for places that don't even have enough money to use in the wrong ways.

NY is a beautiful example that more money doesn't mean better educations. New York spends far more per student than Massachusetts yet has absolutely dismal statistics. Proves my point exactly. It's not MORE money that's needed. It's more money spent the right way.

You have still failed to show how NY is a good example of how increased funds does not help because you have not acknowledged these three things:
1. Whether NY's money spent was excess - (Every state spends different amounts of money because every state has different needs. Why is $17,000 too much for NY specifically?)
2. Whether NY spent its funds appropriately - maybe it is spending enough, just not in the right places. Where is NY spending its money?
3. Time - I'll repeat it again since you ignored it - MA took 10-12 years to reap the benefits of its plan. NY has not had as much time, at all, to see the effects of its reform so you have no idea if it worked.

And your last point: there's no need to argue against an argument that I never made.
 
Last edited:
I came back into this thread because of your ridiculous comparison of education v military as % of GDP. I am not specifically addressing Wisconsin. Neither were you. However, now that you mention it, by eliminating the teachers' unions jackboot control over administrators and school boards, we just might see some reallocation of funding.


That's what I thought, there are no proposals except to cut funding and end collective bargaining.



When you cite a link, at least let it corroborate your ascertain that nonunion schools don't have special ed classes. Jeesh.

I thought you wanted to learn what inclusion/mainstreaming was since it sounded like you had never heard of it.

Welcome to Virginia Professional Educators
 
.....because its easier and safer to just let THE MOB take it isnt it. Should you object, they send men with guns to your door.
.
.
.
mob? what mob? still no one here holding me at gunpoint...try again?
 
what mob? you have created an imaginary boogeyman...

Look at the paystub from your government allowance........

.......you must be imagining those taxes.....
.
.
.
.
 
Look at the paystub from your government allowance........

.......you must be imagining those taxes.....
.
.
.
.
mmmm...nope...the government is not the mob....keep trying though, as this is amusing
 
Look at the paystub from your government allowance........

.......you must be imagining those taxes.....
.
.
.
.


Darn republicans I always knew they were crooks and theives
 
I'm not going to search for examples for someone who knows how they behave.

Then pretty much another personal attack from TPD. No problem. I couldn't care any less.

What you're not understanding/admitting is that 1. This "endless supply point" is a straw man because NO ONE has brought it up. It neither takes away nor adds anything to the arguments being made here or anywhere else on this board by anyone. 2. "The same amount of money" point would be relevant if we were talking about rich schools who were not underfunded. The problem is when most people talk about increased funding they are referencing underfunded schools (i.e. schools that get less than rich school) in low-income areas where more funding is needed. ----In other words, nobody ever brings up increasing money for places that have adequate money and are just using it poorly. We bring it up for places that don't even have enough money to use in the wrong ways.

I don't understand this post. Address MY point. NY spends considerably more per student than MA yet is a dismal failure.

1. Whether NY's money spent was excess - (Every state spends different amounts of money because every state has different needs. Why is $17,000 too much for NY specifically?)
2. Whether NY spent its funds appropriately - maybe it is spending enough, just not in the right places. Where is NY spending its money?
3. Time - I'll repeat it again since you ignored it - MA took 10-12 years to reap the benefits of its plan. NY has not had as much time, at all, to see the effects of its reform so you have no idea if it worked.

Jeesh. Bolded phrase above? That's my whole freakin' point. As to ignoring your #3, I ignored it because I don't know whether or not NY just increased its funding....do you?
 
mob? what mob? still no one here holding me at gunpoint...try again?

That's how Fox News like to portray the union teachers and street cleaners. Like a fictional 1940's mafia movie.

They use visuals and music to reinforce the image with their audience. It's called getting ratings with the FEAR factor.
 
Back
Top Bottom