Can we talk about why Public Schools are failing?

[Skip8282]

"We want better teachers.  But we want to pay them less".


Sorry, doesn't work like that.

In general that's true, but since it's public, there has to be a balance.  And benefits have to be factored into the overall pay as well.

[Coach is Back!]

What you're not understanding is that working class families are often paying a higher percentage of taxes than the very well off.

You have some dream scenario where everyone is a mooch and doesn't want to work. Just because you've found comfort in this rage doesn't make it true.

This is why I say Republicans have done such a job on you. You are actually arguing FOR the rich paying less taxes than the struggling middle class.

And BTW, in case you didn't realize it, a lot of money that the very rich "give away" is a tax right off that is simply benefiting themselves.
 
For the love of god, get out of your Fox bubble and pull your head out of your ass.

Seriously, where do you get your info from? It's already been proven that the rich pay twice the effective tax rate as the middleclass. Even my CPA told me ythe same thing. It's a fallacy brought on by left to make you think otherwise. Problem is you believe everything the tell you whether its on on MSNBC or anywhere else. The very people who you listen to are the same people you demonize. Now, back to giving money away, who cares if they take a deduction, its legal and still more than what the rich left give away.

[Coach is Back!]

"We want better teachers.  But we want to pay them less".


Sorry, doesn't work like that.

Who want to pay them less? They want more besides their regular increases and if they don't get it they strike and the kids suffer for it. Welcome to the unions. When they decided to become teachers, they knew what they were in for salary wise. If you're doing it for the money and not to care, the you're in the wrong profession. You chose it, quit bitching about it or find another job.

[tonymctones]

I don't know about the school system with which you are familiar, but in the district were I worked everyone there "worked in education." We all had to abide by the same morals clause and were expected to model behavior to students. To say I was (just) a janitor would be stretching the truth in a different direction. I was responsible for over 85 employees and millions of dollars in products and equipment. I was the onsite project manager for several multi-million dollar remodels at various buildings in the district. In addition, I was our Union President, a position where I represented the interests of over 1,000 classified employees who held a variety of educational positions in negotiations with their supervisors, HR and at the bargaining table. Indirectly, you are judging me without really knowing me or what my work entailed. Incidentally, there was and is no job classification titled "janitor" in the district.   

Im not trying to judge you bro, I actually respect you even though we differ on probably all political and social issues. You seem like a good dude who is responsible and has decently thought out viewpoints.

That fine and dandy but you have to know the impression youre giving when you say "I worked in education" is not that of a maintenance director. It implies you were an educator, not working in maintenance at an educational facility.

dont be ignorant.

[garebear]

Seriously, where do you get your info from? It's already been proven that the rich pay twice the effective tax rate as the middleclass. Even my CPA told me ythe same thing. It's a fallacy brought on by left to make you think otherwise. Problem is you believe everything the tell you whether its on on MSNBC or anywhere else. The very people who you listen to are the same people you demonize. Now, back to giving money away, who cares if they take a deduction, its legal and still more than what the rich left give away.

I don't watch cable news. None of it.

What was Romney's tax rate on the records he chose to release?

[Coach is Back!]

I don't watch cable news. None of it.

What was Romney's tax rate on the records he chose to release?

Around 14.7%, double what the average person is and along with his other charitable givings it came out to about 40% (something like that) of his income.

[Coach is Back!]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-gave-1000-times-much-charity-year-biden-gave-decade_652977.html


The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income).  In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income).  In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.   
Mitt Romney

That’s despite the fact that the Bidens earned well over $2 million over that decade.  In fact, their income was $320,000 in 2008, thereby putting them comfortably over the $250,000-a-year line that marks the entry point for “millionaires and billionaires” in Obama-speak.

Last year, Romney freely gave away more than $10,000 a day to charity — an impressive sum by nearly any standard.  Of course, it’s not too hard to beat Biden’s tally.  Over the span of that decade, or 3,650 days, he gave away $3,690 — an average of $1.01 a day.

[garebear]

Around 14.7%, double what the average person is and along with his other charitable givings it came out to about 40% (something like that) of his income.

Some people just don't get it.

I've already explained it to you, but you just don't get it.

[whork]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-gave-1000-times-much-charity-year-biden-gave-decade_652977.html


The release of Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax returns shows that he freely gave away more than $4 million to charity last year (about 30 percent of his income).  In comparison, when Joe Biden was first running for vice president, his tax returns showed that he had given away just $3,690 to charity over the previous ten years (about 0.2 percent of his income).  In other words, Romney gave away a thousand times as much to charity in one year as Biden gave in a decade.   
Mitt Romney

That’s despite the fact that the Bidens earned well over $2 million over that decade.  In fact, their income was $320,000 in 2008, thereby putting them comfortably over the $250,000-a-year line that marks the entry point for “millionaires and billionaires” in Obama-speak.

Last year, Romney freely gave away more than $10,000 a day to charity — an impressive sum by nearly any standard.  Of course, it’s not too hard to beat Biden’s tally.  Over the span of that decade, or 3,650 days, he gave away $3,690 — an average of $1.01 a day.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Its there policies that have an effect Romney= +military spending and tax cuts for rich= huge deficit.
Biden not so much.

Im sure Romney is a cool guy in private but unlike you we are not seeking a friend to bond with.
You need to fix that shit if you want to debate politics everything else is irresponsible. And i know you value selfresponsibility so get started.

[Primemuscle]

In general that's true, but since it's public, there has to be a balance.  And benefits have to be factored into the overall pay as well.

You might be surprised to know that when you compare the percentage of people getting benefits in the public and private sector, many of them are equal. One that surprised me was health benefits. What I suspect a lot of people don't understand is that in recent years more and more employees in the public sector don't qualify for benefits such as health insurance or retirement plans because the can't get enough hours. Part time positions in the public sector are ever increasing. A lot of times fulltime positions have be split in to two or more part time positions.

Benefits are factored in when considering pay even when the position doesn't qualify for benefits. The way it is factored in is at the bargaining table. When employee groups bargain wages and benefits they frequently do so on behalf of full time employees instead of factoring in the reduced benefit cost for part time employees.

Unfortunately, nothing is ever as simple as it seems. I worked for a large public school district for about 30 years. When I started most classified employees working there made modest salaries and had good benefits. By the time I retired that hourly wages were still comparatively modest (often somewhat less than for comparable jobs in the private sector), but often the positions were part time ones with no benefits. For those qualifying for benefits, they were paying more out of pocket for their health care.

Currently there is talk of requiring public employees to contribute a larger portion towards their PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). In addition changes to PERS have resulted in large reductions in retirement benefits in recent years. It seems whenever the media wants to example how plush public employees benefits are they site someone who has been in the system, like me, for 30 years and thus was or is able to retire with higher benefits than most present and future retirees will have. The media also will pick someone like this fellow in Oregon who was a university coach and who was paid an enormous salary plus enhanced benefits  which resulted in his getting an obscene retirement benefit of $40,000 a month. Of course these examples piss people off. Trust me, my retirement benefit after 30 years isn't even 10% of that figure and yet it is still much better than most retirees are getting.

[Primemuscle]

Im not trying to judge you bro, I actually respect you even though we differ on probably all political and social issues. You seem like a good dude who is responsible and has decently thought out viewpoints.

That fine and dandy but you have to know the impression youre giving when you say "I worked in education" is not that of a maintenance director. It implies you were an educator, not working in maintenance at an educational facility.

dont be ignorant.

I didn't think you were judging me. I do think you are not well-informed when it comes to school employees and how their jobs are viewed from within. If someone said they worked in the auto industry and their position was that of secretary, would you think they were misleading you or implying they built automobiles?

I am not ignorant. I suspect people who are unfamiliar with how the education works simply don't understand that regardless of one's job in a school district they are expected to be role models to the students. I worked in education. In the traditional sense, I was not an educator at least not in the same way that a classroom teacher is. I did however at times work with students, sometimes one on one.

Don't feel bad. You are hardly alone in thinking all people who work in education are teachers or school principals. At the school district where I worked there are about 1,500 certified (teaching) staff and about 1,000 classified (support) staff. In addition to that there are administrators and exempt employees. Exempt staff are folks whose jobs involve dealing with private and sensitive issues such as HR and some payroll folks as well and secretaries to the top administrators.

You will notice that the media generally focuses on teachers when talking about wages and benefits. This is because they are always the largest group of employees in a school district. This is as it should be. In fact, in my opinion, there could be fewer administrators and more frontline employees such as teachers and educational assistants. The teachers' unions, NEA and AFT and the most powerful unions in education.  

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/07/166745290/school-district-owes-1-billion-on-100-million-loan


Omfg.   Typical govt. Thugs. 

[240 is Back]

One Republican governor things teachers are "little bitches" that "already don't work".

Gov. Susana Martinez, R-N.M.


In candid conversations with her closest political aides that were published Wednesday, Martinez dubs her 2010 Democratic opponent “that little bitch,” complains that teachers “already don’t work … 2 1/2 months out of the year” and exhibits a penchant for punishing political opponents similar to the merciless retribution that landed Gov. Chris Christie’s administration in hot water.