• 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

So its not the government.....just everyone who represents the government in the Public Work force.



.....who just all happen to be paid by the government.....to boycott businesses that dont abide by THE MOB's demands.
.
.
.

Does what ever a member of the military do when off duty represent the government?

Why not ask the service members who didnt buy GM because it was bailouted out by the government were they representing the government and boycotting the government at the same time?
 
Does what ever a member of the military do when off duty represent the government?

Why is the military organizing a boycott against the taxpayer?

Why not ask the service members who didnt buy GM because it was bailouted out by the government were they representing the government and boycotting the government at the same time?

I will.....as soon as see a collective effort put forth by the military to boycott GM.
.
.
..
 
Why is the military organizing a boycott against the taxpayer?



I will.....as soon as see a collective effort put forth by the military to boycott GM.
.
.
..

And I when will I see the collective effort by the government to boycott business.

Remember when they are not being paid by the government they are not part of the government. So what they do after or before work does not represent the will of the government but that of their own
 
And I when will I see the collective effort by the government to boycott business.

Remember when they are not being paid by the government they are not part of the government. So what they do after or before work does not represent the will of the government but that of their own

I am not from the US so I don't know if things are different over there but can it really be true that employees of the US State become somehow "Borg'd" into the US State and their personal earnings belong to the US State, even after they have been paid to the private individual? I don't get it? I've never been employed by a government department but I have worked in private companies where my "Union Dues" were paid directly from my pay packet by the private company. Does that mean that in the US, a company that does this is paying the Unions?
 
If you are talking about what is a priority, which was my point, it is the most useful measurement.

not really. my children eating healthy food is a priority for me, and so we spend extra money making sure we buy better stuff. but once you get to a certain point you reach saturation. My child will recieve the same high level of nutrition if i spend $150 on him per month for food as if I were to decide to spend $300; and so spending the $300 doesn't mean i have "health food" as a higher priority - it means i'm wasteful.

so, again, i ask; where are we in raw dollars? are we spending significantly more per child than nations that are spanking us when it comes to quality?

We are #1 in military spending, in fact 6 times ahead of the #1 spot in military spending, yet 37th in education spending. You get what you pay for.

see, you do know what matters; because you grade defense spending in raw dollars while education in percent of GDP.

I'm willing to give up my tax cut if the wealthy give up theirs to increase our revenues, how about you?

nope. i'd rather the US have a better economy than some cheap satisfaction that i "got" the rich.

Is it country first, or personal greed first? That is the question.

country. but the question is easily turned around; are you willing to see the US suffer economically for higher wealth transfer programs?
 
Last edited:
see, you do know what matters; because you grade defense spending in raw dollars while education in percent of GDP.

Thanks for your opinion, even though you don't know what you are talking about.

The US is #1, by far, the top spender on military as a percentage of GDP:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US, just as I said before, is 37th in spending on education as a percentage of GDP:
Education spending (% of GDP) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
 
I am not from the US so I don't know if things are different over there but can it really be true that employees of the US State become somehow "Borg'd" into the US State and their personal earnings belong to the US State, even after they have been paid to the private individual? I don't get it? I've never been employed by a government department but I have worked in private companies where my "Union Dues" were paid directly from my pay packet by the private company. Does that mean that in the US, a company that does this is paying the Unions?

Uh, no. I can't imagine where you got that idea, but it's utterly false.
 
Thanks for your opinion, even though you don't know what you are talking about.

The US is #1, by far, the top spender on military as a percentage of GDP:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:lamo


:D looks like someone can't read their own chart.;)

according to your source, for example, America spends 4.3% of her GDP on defense. Georgia, for another example, spends 8.5%. Jordan spends 5.9%, Chad spends 6.6%... hilariously, this report buys China's claim to only spend 2% (but they actually spend closer to 10)... Saudi Arabia spends 8.2%.....

And the US, just as I said before, is 37th in spending on education as a percentage of GDP:

yes, but i don't care about a percent of GDP because that doesn't tell us anything. simply because something is or is not expensive doesn't make it a larger or smaller priority. again, i want my children to eat. if i had to downgrade my living quarters to feed them, i would do so. the fact that i currently spend more in rent than i do in food does not change that order of priorities.

the logic that claims we must spend more or less as a percent of GDP rather than more or less in terms of raw dollars to effect our quality of education is insane; such an argument would have us believe that, if we woke up tomorrow and our entire healthcare sector (1/6th of our economy) were gone, that the quality of our education would improve as a result. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Since you brought it up and just for clarification... You're not a lawyer.


even though others have edified you about this you persist in your "make a wish come true" denial

amusing.
 
If you had taken the time to read the context of the point made you would have known that the discussion was about US priorities. The point was made that education was a much lower priority than military spending by showing that we are 6 times above the #1 spot in military spending as a percentage of GDP, and 37th in education spending as a percentage of GDP.

Now, if you look at results from almost as much spending as the rest of the world combined on our military, many in this country still seemed to be frigthened of countries with no military capabilities. As compared to the results of our education spending as a % of GDP, 37th behind other countries, we still manage 9th place in academic achievement. So if you compare money spent as a percentage of GDP with the results, Education funding is a far better value for the tax dollar than the money overspent on the military, and optional wars.



It may come as a shock to you but we kept the country safe with less than half what we spend on the military and optional wars today. If we are not educated, we may think there is a boogyman out to get us and commit to a war where there is no threat and spend ourselves into bankruptsy. Good grief.

and we became the greatest nation in the world without a progressive income tax with confiscatory top rates and without a death tax either
 
:lamo:D looks like someone can't read their own chart.;) according to your source, for example, America spends 4.3% of her GDP on defense. Georgia, for another example, spends 8.5%. Jordan spends 5.9%, Chad spends 6.6%... hilariously, this report buys China's claim to only spend 2% (but they actually spend closer to 10)... Saudi Arabia spends 8.2%.....

I stand corrected it appears, there are 6 small countries I missed that spend a higher percentage of GDP on military than the US. So that puts us #6 in military spending as % of GDP and we are still #37 in education spending as % of GDP.

e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png




yes, but i don't care about a percent of GDP because that doesn't tell us anything.

It shows the priority for the US and explains why we have dropped in academic achievement compared to the rest of the world. You get what you pay for.
 
I stand corrected it appears, there are 6 small countries I missed that spend a higher percentage of GDP on military than the US. So that puts us #6 in military spending as % of GDP and we are still #37 in education spending as % of GDP.

e28cfcc56891df08bf32a556eb9d6d90.png






It shows the priority for the US and explains why we have dropped in academic achievement compared to the rest of the world. You get what you pay for.


You both realize that the while they spend more percentage-wise than the US, when that percentage is translated into actual $$$, the US far outspends everyone else
 
and we became the greatest nation in the world without a progressive income tax with confiscatory top rates and without a death tax either

But we never had a strong middle class until progressive taxes.
 
You both realize that the while they spend more percentage-wise than the US, when that percentage is translated into actual $$$, the US far outspends everyone else

Yes, my point in this discussion has been to show the much higher priority in this country for military spending as compared to education.
 
Yes, my point in this discussion has been to show the much higher priority in this country for military spending as compared to education.

Then somewhere in your discussion, you should tell us why you think that's so wrong 'cause just runnin' it up the flagpole isn't doin' it.

And, by the way, prove to us that spending more money will give us smarter kids.
 
Last edited:
Then somewhere in your discussion, you should tell us why you think that's so wrong 'cause just runnin' it up the flagpole isn't doin' it.

And, by the way, prove to us that spending more money will give us smarter kids.

Are you not aware its been proven that a higher teacher to student ratio, increased instruction time, and separate classes for special needs kids, all increase academic achievement?
 
Are you not aware its been proven that a higher teacher to student ratio, increased instruction time, and separate classes for special needs kids, all increase academic achievement?

We're doing all of that. Money isn't the only answer, Catawba. If that were true, then New York public schools would be turning out geniuses. In 2007-08, NY spent $17,000 per student -- 67% higher than the national average. New York public schools top nation in per-student spending - USATODAY.com

Instead, NY students rate 46th in SAT scores. State SAT scores and $ spent per student ranking « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

Instead, NY City students have a less than 50% graduation rate. Study shows New York City has one of the nation's sorriest graduation rates

Instead, in 2006, New York State's high school graduation rate is the third lowest in the nation. 43%. New York's high school graduation rate is far below the national average - April 19, 2006

Their teachers? Second highest paying teacher positions in the U.S. Teacher Salaries by State

The comparison you keep harping on means absolutely nothing.
 
We're doing all of that.

Proof???

Money isn't the only answer, Catawba. If that were true, then New York public schools would be turning out geniuses. In 2007-08, NY spent $17,000 per student -- 67% higher than the national average. New York public schools top nation in per-student spending - USATODAY.com

Instead, NY students rate 46th in SAT scores. State SAT scores and $ spent per student ranking « Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff)

Instead, NY City students have a less than 50% graduation rate. Study shows New York City has one of the nation's sorriest graduation rates

Instead, in 2006, New York State's high school graduation rate is the third lowest in the nation. 43%. New York's high school graduation rate is far below the national average - April 19, 2006

Their teachers? Second highest paying teacher positions in the U.S. Teacher Salaries by State

The comparison you keep harping on means absolutely nothing.

Do you know nothing of the reasons for the lower scores in poputations with higher perencentage of special needs kids? If you want to improve test scores in those locations you have to address the socio-economic causes of them. You are correct that more money alone is not the answer, however more money to hire more teachers, increased instruction time, and separate classes for special needs kids would improve things greatly!

Where is your proof that cutting education funding will result in improved performance?
 
Do you know nothing of the reasons for the lower scores in poputations with higher perencentage of special needs kids? If you want to improve test scores in those locations you have to address the socio-economic causes of them. You are correct that more money alone is not the answer, however more money to hire more teachers, increased instruction time, and separate classes for special needs kids would improve things greatly!

Money is a small part of the problem. There is absolutely no proof that spending more money helps students. NY is my proof. Are you saying the whole state of New York is over-weighted in special needs kids? Kids with socio-economic problems? Even if that were true, which it is not, it is still evidence that money alone will not solve that problem.

Every school district in Illinois has separate classes for special needs kids. I don't know what you're talking about.

Where is your proof that cutting education funding will result in improved performance?

On the contrary. Where did I say that cutting education funding will result in improved performance??

Ya' know, when you don't have anything worthwhile to say, Catawba, you don't have to post.
 
Money is a small part of the problem. There is absolutely no proof that spending more money helps students. NY is my proof. Are you saying the whole state of New York is over-weighted in special needs kids? Kids with socio-economic problems? Even if that were true, which it is not, it is still evidence that money alone will not solve that problem.

Every school district in Illinois has separate classes for special needs kids. I don't know what you're talking about.


On the contrary. Where did I say that cutting education funding will result in improved performance??

Ya' know, when you don't have anything worthwhile to say, Catawba, you don't have to post.

WRONG. There are so many studies on this and it is an accepted fact in the education community. Illinois has always been known as one of the worse states for equal and appropriate funding of its schools. Chicago has been known as a horrible place for equal education funding and racial/economic disparities in education. You should know this. Here's one study that sums it up very well.

In 27 of the 49 states studied, the highest-poverty school districts receive fewer resources than the lowest-poverty districts. Across the country, $907 less is spent per student in the highest-poverty districts than in the most affluent districts.

While the biggest gaps earn the most attention, even small gaps add up to serious inequalities. Take Colorado, for example. Its gap is only $101 per student,one of the smaller gaps in the country. A student in a high-poverty district in Colorado has $101 less spent on him or her than a student in a lowpoverty district in Colorado. That might not seem as though it would mean much, but for a classroom of 25 students it means $2,525, which could pay for a classroom library of 250 books. For a standard elementary school of 400, this translates into $40,400, which would come close to paying for a reading specialist or an additional teacher. For a standard high school of 1,500, it is a difference of $151,500, which could pay for three literacy coaches and additional library books.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that Massachusetts had failed its constitutional duty “to provide education in the public schools for the children there enrolled, whether they be rich or poor and without regard to the fiscal capacity of the community or district in which such children live”.[...] Days later, after a special session of the legislature, the governor signed the Education Reform Act of 1993, which changed the way schools are funded in Massachusetts. During the following 10 years, from 1993 to 2003, state education funding increased by 12 percent a year, with a total price tag of about $30.8 billion. The additional state money was targeted to schools attended by poor students and went for tutoring programs, additional training for teachers, smaller classes, and technology.[...]This year’s results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) demonstrated the effect of such focused efforts. Fourth-graders and eighth-graders in Massachusetts outperformed students in every other state in both reading and math. To give a sense of the improvement, in 1992, just 23 percent of Massachusetts’s fourth-graders were proficient in NAEP’s math standards; in 2005, 49 percent were proficient.

Let me repeat that. After increased funding and appropriate use of such funding:

In 1992, just 23 percent of Massachusetts’s fourth-graders were proficient in NAEP’s math standards; in 2005, 49 percent were proficient.
In other words, equal funding and appropriate use = better education.

Massachusetts is well known for improving low-income education with more funding + appropriate use of funding with tenured teachers in unions.

http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/FundingGap2005.pdf

I suggest you read the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
And I when will I see the collective effort by the government to boycott business.

See Post #1

Remember when they are not being paid by the government they are not part of the government. So what they do after or before work does not represent the will of the government but that of their own

Well they arent ultimately being paid by government.......they are being paid by the taxpayer......the very taxpayers they are trying to inflict pain upon for not toting their political line.


While you may argue it is their "right" to do so..........

.........how do We The Taxpaying People return the favor.....and boycott UNION THUG SERVICES INC.?
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
See Post #1



Well they arent ultimately being paid by government.......they are being paid by the taxpayer......the very taxpayers they are trying to inflict pain upon for not toting their political line.


While you may argue it is their "right" to do so..........

.........how do We The Taxpaying People return the favor.....and boycott UNION THUG SERVICES INC.?
.
.
.
.
.
.

Post 1 shows individuals who are part of a union making a decision to boycott some business, I didnt not see where the Wisconsin governnent decided to boycott those business`s. Perhaps you can show me where the Wisconsin goverment made the decision to boycott those business`s it would be appreciated.

As for boycotting union services, I do that everyday. I am not part of a union and have no current intention on doing so. You I expect are doing the same
 
Thanks for your opinion, even though you don't know what you are talking about.

The US is #1, by far, the top spender on military as a percentage of GDP:
List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the US, just as I said before, is 37th in spending on education as a percentage of GDP:
Education spending (% of GDP) statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

International%20Education%20Spending%20Data_Image.png


And you and The Kenyan Tyrant think were not spending enough.........

.......and the solution is to give more money to subprime Union slob teachers.

We have tried that for the last 50 years, and today our public schools produce functional illiterates.
.
.
.

.
.
.
 
See Post #1

In which you claimed Boycotts are similar to mobster tactics?

And policemen, firemen, public utility workers, and TEACHERS are "piss poor Americans?"

Yeah, we saw it.



Well they arent ultimately being paid by government.......they are being paid by the taxpayer......the very taxpayers they are trying to inflict pain upon for not toting their political line.

More evidence of Fox News misinformation working on their viewing audience.


While you may argue it is their "right" to do so..........

.........how do We The Taxpaying People return the favor.....and boycott UNION THUG SERVICES INC.?

Promise?

Home school your kids.

Don't drive on public roads.

And don't bother the police with complaints.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom