Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford

Boo Radley said:

I would bet very few. Schools are bled pretty dry. If anything, it would be in administration costs. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

The problem with public schools is that more money does not equate to better education. I would support a system in which the money a child is given to go to school (ie the tax dollars that would be spent on them at public school) are attached to the child, and not the school. The child can then pick whatever school they want. Bad schools would simply "go out of business" because students would not stay at them.

There is a lot of money that can probably be saved in on our education system, and firing bad teachers is not a bad place to start.

Public schools (at least in LA) spend more money per student than private schools, yet the better education is in private schools. Why are vouchers a bad idea?

NolaMan said:

The problem with public schools is that more money does not equate to better education. I would support a system in which the money a child is given to go to school (ie the tax dollars that would be spent on them at public school) are attached to the child, and not the school. The child can then pick whatever school they want. Bad schools would simply "go out of business" because students would not stay at them.

There is a lot of money that can probably be saved in on our education system, and firing bad teachers is not a bad place to start.

Click to expand...

While I would argue that wealthier schools likely do better than poorer schools, I am not arguing more money equates to a better education. In fact, I would argue the variables for success in school are many and involve more than just the school. And we have that system in Iowa. Works reasonably well, but I do see some drawback. There will still be students unable to move for one reason or another and will be stuck in a poor school. I think this would be more pronounced in larger cities. It's much the same problem with vouchers.

Bad schools would not go out of business. In fact, with unregulated competition, we'd likely see the growth of the "rent to own" version of education. By this I mean, it would be pared down to the point of proving very little but a grade. Poorer people seeking a bargin will go that route. In the end, we make the inequaties more pronounced.

I think that standardized tests would show how well a school is or is not doing. It's a lot more than just a letter grade that can be used to judge a school.

phattonez said:

I think that standardized tests would show how well a school is or is not doing. It's a lot more than just a letter grade that can be used to judge a school.

Click to expand...

Actually, they really don't. The worse type of measuremnt is the stnadardized test. And at best, it can only show how an individual student is doing. It really can't measure the instructor. Unlike a shoe, children act independently, have other factors other than the teacher and the school effecting their potential outcomes. A great teacher can look worse than a poor teacher based on the conditions and student population they work in. And tests, like we see with NCLB, can be dumbed down to make things look better while actually being worse.

Boo Radley said:

I would bet very few. Schools are bled pretty dry. If anything, it would be in administration costs. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Funny the last few years I see schools adding on to their buildings. Yet you claim no money for teachers

ptif219 said:

Funny the last few years I see schools adding on to their buildings. Yet you claim no money for teachers

Click to expand...

Like at hospitals, money for building usually come from some other place, forbidden to be used to pay teachers or anyother bill.

However, that isn't what I claimed at all. I claimed that nothing involving a school goes down, and that the largest area that can be controlled is teacher pay, thus teachers get cut during hard times.

Boo Radley said:

Like at hospitals, money for building usually come from some other place, forbidden to be used to pay teachers or anyother bill.

However, that isn't what I claimed at all. I claimed that nothing involving a school goes down, and that the largest area that can be controlled is teacher pay, thus teachers get cut during hard times.

Click to expand...

Then the majority is at fault for not directing enough money to teachers

Boo Radley said:

Actually, they really don't. The worse type of measuremnt is the stnadardized test. And at best, it can only show how an individual student is doing. It really can't measure the instructor. Unlike a shoe, children act independently, have other factors other than the teacher and the school effecting their potential outcomes. A great teacher can look worse than a poor teacher based on the conditions and student population they work in. And tests, like we see with NCLB, can be dumbed down to make things look better while actually being worse.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that parents are completely helpless when trying to figure out what the best school would be for their child so they need the government to make the choice for them? Do you really believe that?

phattonez said:

So are you saying that parents are completely helpless when trying to figure out what the best school would be for their child so they need the government to make the choice for them? Do you really believe that?

Click to expand...

No. But many won't even look. And no where did I say the government needed to make the choice. Where you live makes the choice, even with open enrollment. If you live in Mississippi you can't go to a school in Iowa, realistically. The best chance for the most students is to work on fixing all schools. And we don' need the catering to the poor the market place too often does, whihc would be the "rent to own" version of education.

ptif219 said:

Then the majority is at fault for not directing enough money to teachers

Click to expand...

Maybe, but costs have to be cut somewhere, and it won't be in utility or maintance costs.

Boo Radley said:

No. But many won't even look. And no where did I say the government needed to make the choice. Where you live makes the choice, even with open enrollment. If you live in Mississippi you can't go to a school in Iowa, realistically. The best chance for the most students is to work on fixing all schools. And we don' need the catering to the poor the market place too often does, whihc would be the "rent to own" version of education.

Click to expand...

Right now, without vouchers or anything like that, it is the government making the choice about what school you go to. The best chance we have is to give good schools all of the business so that competition forces higher quality.

phattonez said:

Right now, without vouchers or anything like that, it is the government making the choice about what school you go to. The best chance we have is to give good schools all of the business so that competition forces higher quality.

Click to expand...

No. Your neighbor hood decides that. You go to school where you live, and what you can afford. Like medicine, and I think I explained why, the market doesn't work. The market works for profit, not standards. Profit can be gained by lowering standards. We can see in the market people will pay for crap.

Boo Radley said:

No. Your neighbor hood decides that. You go to school where you live, and what you can afford. Like medicine, and I think I explained why, the market doesn't work. The market works for profit, not standards. Profit can be gained by lowering standards. We can see in the market people will pay for crap.

Click to expand...

People don't buy from places with no standards. To get profit, you need standards.

ptif219 said:

How does a bailout that Ford did not take save ford?

Reid Says this after he said Illegals do not work construction in Nevada. He also says his energy bill is not cap and trade and that is not in his vocabulary. Reid is showing he can not be trusted and he is not believable.

Click to expand...

All politicians are opportunistic liars with a gift of gab. They have to be to get elected.
The only reason they can get away with is... Dumb, gullible voters.

ricksfolly

Boo Radley said:

Maybe, but costs have to be cut somewhere, and it won't be in utility or maintance costs.

Click to expand...

Lets see in the last couple years the High School I live behind built a law school building and a new cafateria. I am not refering to maintenance Iam referring to new buildings. They also made a new retention pond that butts up to my property. Does this mean I now have waterfront property?

Boo Radley said:

Like at hospitals, money for building usually come from some other place, forbidden to be used to pay teachers or anyother bill.

However, that isn't what I claimed at all. I claimed that nothing involving a school goes down, and that the largest area that can be controlled is teacher pay, thus teachers get cut during hard times.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of costs in a school besides teacher salaries. The town also has costs outside of schools that can be reviewed to see where efficiencies can be made.

ptif219 said:

Lets see in the last couple years the High School I live behind built a law school building and a new cafateria. I am not refering to maintenance Iam referring to new buildings. They also made a new retention pond that butts up to my property. Does this mean I now have waterfront property?

Click to expand...

A high school built a law school building? That must be one helluva high school... talk about AP, I wonder how many credits you get entering the university with a law degree.

upsideguy said:

A high school built a law school building? That must be one helluva high school... talk about AP, I wonder how many credits you get entering the university with a law degree.

Click to expand...

My question is how many law professors are willing to work at highschool teacher's wages.

upsideguy said:

A high school built a law school building? That must be one helluva high school... talk about AP, I wonder how many credits you get entering the university with a law degree.

Click to expand...

My point is schools are building to use money to get more money yet can't pay teachers. What is wrong with this system?

Lord Tammerlain said:

What bias.

Are the following facts or not?

1. Auto sales did collapse did they not?

2. There was a credit crisis at the time was there not?

3. The financial institutions that GM could have gotten debtor in financing from were getting bailout by the government at the time were they not?

The only question would be.

Who could GM and Chrysler have gotten debtor in financing from at that time?

Click to expand...

It's like I've been saying since the crisis came to a head in Oct 2008, Corporate America could not fix itself. The only other source for capital was the federal government (Treasury). Nonetheless, if people would just take off the partisian/political blinders and just dig deeper into the issues rather than relying on sound-bites or the surface news stories, they'd know exactly what when down, how things transpired and why certain decisions were made and why things are the way they are now.

Example:

Banks took out government loans (bailouts), but have paid most, if not all, of that money back. The incentive for the banks was to become more financially stable fast to get the government off their backs. The benefit to the fed was as long as they kept the pressure on the banks to show a profit, the people's investment would be secure and the fed would eventually get their money back and could possibly even make a profit is the financial instruments they took back increased in value.

GM/Chrysler benefits because they were able to remain in business via government loans. At first, I advocated letting them fold as well, but once I started looking at the "domino affect" this would have created across other distribution and commercial sectors, I realized it was smarter to bail them out than to let them fail. Now, granted, through some creative financing GM and Chrysler have been able to pay back their gov't loans. Still, it was in their best interest to do so for the exact same reason it was for the banks - "the sooner we can pay back the government, the sooner we get the government off our backs". And for the government (People), the benefits were the same...turn GM/Chrysler back to profitability soon so that they could buy back their stocks/bonds, etc., or allow same to turn a profit and sell them on the open market. Either way, the government's only risk was if the banks and the U.S. auto industries didn't turn a profit. By all accounts, they seem to be doing fine now.

ptif219 said:

My point is schools are building to use money to get more money yet can't pay teachers. What is wrong with this system?

Click to expand...

You got a problem with that, talk to your local school board. Don't blame the fed for it. Your blame is clearly in the wrong place here.

Objective Voice said:

You got a problem with that, talk to your local school board. Don't blame the fed for it. Your blame is clearly in the wrong place here.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure. It may be the feds allocate how he money is spent

washunut said:

There are a lot of costs in a school besides teacher salaries. The town also has costs outside of schools that can be reviewed to see where efficiencies can be made.

Click to expand...

And no one has thought of these?

Boo Radley said:

And no one has thought of these?

Click to expand...

Just like anything else a new set of eyes might find some areas where savings might be had. I have not looked at a business model where we could not do some things better. Probably why I have been able to retire.