The Republican Thread

[Y2HH]

why do you get to just remove expenditures to make someone look better? can we remove Obama's bailout then as well and compare the numbers?

 

A few things...

 

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I'm just pointing out that you're statement is based entirely on a ONE time payment by the previous administration. I take issue with this because you're including a mitigating circumstance to GW's spending, when if GW hadn't spent it, Obama would have had too anyway, and then the "other team" would be saying how much he increased spending, and they'd be doing so unfairly, too. It's a twisting of reality to come to the conclusion YOU want.

 

Base it on any year other than the year TARP was included and the numbers don't hold up.

 

I have no issues with what Obama is spending, he's doing the right thing. In times of trouble, this is exactly what the government is supposed to do. But when times get better, they are supposed to draw back and pay off what they borrowed...not maintain the debt, but pay it off...we just don't bother with this step.

[southsider2k5]

you know, it's funny. i posted an example of WHY democrats support the things they do. I talked about what I think should be done, and instead of any of the GOP'ers present viable alternative options, they just flame away. Why? because they don't actually HAVE alternative options.

 

they just like to yell and scream about communist obama who spent the most of any president ever....oh.... wait... what? he increased spending LESS than any president in the last 60 years? DAMN YOU FACTS!!!

 

After you finish holding your breath, there is a pretty clear alternative here which was said early on, and ignored. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. You could tax the 1% at a 100% tax rate, and we would still have a significant deficit. Assume Balta's numbers are right, and we at currently at $400 billion a year in interest payments. We are estimated to spend $586 billion in Fiscal 2012 on "Pre-primary thru secondary education".

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_s...1n_2021#usgs302

[Reddy]

After you finish holding your breath, there is a pretty clear alternative here which was said early on, and ignored. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. You could tax the 1% at a 100% tax rate, and we would still have a significant deficit. Assume Balta's numbers are right, and we at currently at $400 billion a year in interest payments. We are estimated to spend $586 billion in Fiscal 2012 on "Pre-primary thru secondary education".

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_s...1n_2021#usgs302

right. taxing the rich more wouldn't ENTIRELY fix the problem, so we shouldn't do it. Damn anything that helps but doesn't solve.

 

[southsider2k5]

right. taxing the rich more wouldn't ENTIRELY fix the problem, so we shouldn't do it. Damn anything that helps but doesn't solve.

 

It won't fix the real problem. If you ignore the root cause, you aren't fixing anything.

[Balta1701]

After you finish holding your breath, there is a pretty clear alternative here which was said early on, and ignored. We don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem. You could tax the 1% at a 100% tax rate, and we would still have a significant deficit. Assume Balta's numbers are right, and we at currently at $400 billion a year in interest payments. We are estimated to spend $586 billion in Fiscal 2012 on "Pre-primary thru secondary education".

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_s...1n_2021#usgs302

Except for the obvious fact that tax revenues as a share of GDP are at or near their lowest levels in 60+ years (that's before Medicare, I note), which completely undermines this statement. I'll even go to Heritage:

 

The deficit is, therefore, at least 1/2 a tax problem. Going from the 14% of GDP collected in taxes in 2010 back to the ~18% ish long term average would cut the annual deficit in half. Goinig slightly above that to acknowledge the fact that we're going to deal with an increase in the retirement rate for the next 30 years would remove it even more.

 

Of course, this is all based on the incorrect assumption that this is a problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks, I disagree with you on a lot, but I respect the hell out of you man.

 

You actually respond to things directed at you.

 

Thanks

[Y2HH]

Except for the obvious fact that tax revenues as a share of GDP are at or near their lowest levels in 60+ years (that's before Medicare, I note), which completely undermines this statement. I'll even go to Heritage:

 

The deficit is, therefore, at least 1/2 a tax problem. Going from the 14% of GDP collected in taxes in 2010 back to the ~18% ish long term average would cut the annual deficit in half. Goinig slightly above that to acknowledge the fact that we're going to deal with an increase in the retirement rate for the next 30 years would remove it even more.

 

Of course, this is all based on the incorrect assumption that this is a problem.

 

I think it's safe to say that both spending and low taxation is a problem.

[Balta1701]

I think it's safe to say that both spending and low taxation is a problem.

I agree, spending is too low, particularly given the economic situation.

[Y2HH]

I agree, spending is too low, particularly given the economic situation.

 

Given the current state of things, we should be spending. When times get better, we should then draw it back...issue is we don't bother with that step.

[Reddy]

I think it's safe to say that both spending and low taxation is a problem.

cue SS screaming and yelling about something to distract from the facts.

[southsider2k5]

Except for the obvious fact that tax revenues as a share of GDP are at or near their lowest levels in 60+ years (that's before Medicare, I note), which completely undermines this statement. I'll even go to Heritage:

 

The deficit is, therefore, at least 1/2 a tax problem. Going from the 14% of GDP collected in taxes in 2010 back to the ~18% ish long term average would cut the annual deficit in half. Goinig slightly above that to acknowledge the fact that we're going to deal with an increase in the retirement rate for the next 30 years would remove it even more.

 

Of course, this is all based on the incorrect assumption that this is a problem.

 

Now where is spending as it relates to GDP?

[Jenksismyhero]

all you b****ing about how "easy" it is to be a teacher should be asking yourself why it's impossible to find good teachers for inner-city school districts. If it were easy, they'd be filled no problem right?

 

it means that if you f*** with teachers' pensions or pay them less, fewer qualified, brilliant, incredible people will volunteer to fill the void. People aren't going to sign up to commit there lives to a profession that isn't respected enough to be paid what it deserves. I'm sure you've had fantastic teachers along the way that helped you get to where you are today (unless you're a family business baby, spoon-fed, silver platter type). If what all you GOP'ers are suggesting comes to pass, others wont have the opportunity you did to get great teachers who pushed you to do great things. That would be a travesty.

 

I agree that there is a monumental problem with parenting in this country, but good teachers actually CAN counterbalance that. They can be a positive influence in an otherwise negative world. But not if you don't create incentives for good people to become teachers in the first place.

 

Go back and read my posts. I never claimed teaching was easy. I said teachers are generally already compensated well enough and I get tired when teachers claim they need to be paid more. The bigger point was to combat this fallacy that paying teachers more will somehow make our educational system better. As has been pointed out, we already pay the most and yet our system isn't very good.

 

And the bolded is just not true. Teaching has gotten even more competitive recently. We have an abundance of wannabe teachers out there with not enough good jobs to fill. You not wanting to work in the inner-city has nothing to do with your compensation. Hell, the system already provides you with massive benefits if you do that. So I don't get your point there.

 

[CanOfCorn]

 

When does it turn into an argument for respect? When I was in HS, my district had the longest tenured teachers in the state and I believe it was top 3 in salaries. Those teachers went on strike for a higher percentage pay raise. That has nothing to do with wanting more money, it has to do with respect concerning education level, length of tenure in the district and where the schools were in educating the kids (I believe we were near the top in test scores at the time).

 

Here's the funny thing, and I'm not going to go after GOP or Dem on this...the United States, in the last 20 years, has been talking about growing businesses. More, more, more. Whether it's by buying smaller businesses to get bigger or selling your business to someone to get seed money for another start-up. So now, when teachers or anyone goes on strike to ask for more, there is an uproar. This is what most people strive for. To do better than our parents, to create a better life for our kids. This isn't a professional sports league where millionaires are fighting billionaires over what amounts to be dollar bills. This is about a teacher trying to teach a kid but getting the business from the students or the parents or the district or the taxpayers.

 

I currently live in a school district where the property taxes are very high. I know our schools are good schools. Does it hurt to see that tax bill, you bet it does. Does it make me feel better when I talk to other parents in the area who say, "Oh, you're sending your kid to (local middle school), my kids loved their teachers and learned a lot." Abso-f***ing-lutely. We all have choices. You don't want to pay higher taxes, move somewhere taxes are lower, but be prepared to get fewer local services.

[EvilMonkey]

When does it turn into an argument for respect? When I was in HS, my district had the longest tenured teachers in the state and I believe it was top 3 in salaries. Those teachers went on strike for a higher percentage pay raise. That has nothing to do with wanting more money, it has to do with respect concerning education level, length of tenure in the district and where the schools were in educating the kids (I believe we were near the top in test scores at the time).

They were equating money with respect, so it has everything to do with money. What do they want, statues? Parades? If the district is THAT good as you say, they already get respect from the local parents, and people seek out districts like that to move into (if they can afford it).

[mr_genius]

When does it turn into an argument for respect? When I was in HS, my district had the longest tenured teachers in the state and I believe it was top 3 in salaries. Those teachers went on strike for a higher percentage pay raise. That has nothing to do with wanting more money, it has to do with respect concerning education level, length of tenure in the district and where the schools were in educating the kids (I believe we were near the top in test scores at the time).

 

Here's the funny thing, and I'm not going to go after GOP or Dem on this...the United States, in the last 20 years, has been talking about growing businesses. More, more, more. Whether it's by buying smaller businesses to get bigger or selling your business to someone to get seed money for another start-up. So now, when teachers or anyone goes on strike to ask for more, there is an uproar. This is what most people strive for. To do better than our parents, to create a better life for our kids. This isn't a professional sports league where millionaires are fighting billionaires over what amounts to be dollar bills. This is about a teacher trying to teach a kid but getting the business from the students or the parents or the district or the taxpayers.

 

I currently live in a school district where the property taxes are very high. I know our schools are good schools. Does it hurt to see that tax bill, you bet it does. Does it make me feel better when I talk to other parents in the area who say, "Oh, you're sending your kid to (local middle school), my kids loved their teachers and learned a lot." Abso-f***ing-lutely. We all have choices. You don't want to pay higher taxes, move somewhere taxes are lower, but be prepared to get fewer local services.

 

Or get a new job besides teaching after tax payers shoot down your demands. Or just accept your $100,000 a year salary. If you can't live on that u fail.

[mr_genius]

They were equating money with respect, so it has everything to do with money. What do they want, statues? Parades? If the district is THAT good as you say, they already get respect from the local parents, and people seek out districts like that to move into (if they can afford it).

 

Of course. No statue = strike!

[Reddy]

Or get a new job besides teaching after tax payers shoot down your demands. Or just accept your $100,000 a year salary. If you can't live on that u fail.

do you seriously think teachers make 100k a year?

 

are you insane?

[EvilMonkey]

do you seriously think teachers make 100k a year?

 

are you insane?

Average Teacher Salary in Joliet Township High School District 204

 

The average teacher salary in Joliet Township High School District 204 is $56,092.

Grade Level Average 10th percentile 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 90th percentile

Pre-school $29,350 $19,930 $22,900 $27,970 $34,110 $40,410

Kindergarten $47,800 $27,360 $34,670 $42,890 $59,050 $76,870

Elementary $63,860 $36,450 $45,290 $60,420 $81,490 $99,340

Middle school $64,920 $38,540 $46,660 $62,320 $81,590 $98,810

High school $74,530 $42,210 $54,700 $72,360 $93,200 $113,870

 

The high school out here does pretty good, even if it doesn't reach 6 figures in average. And there is a guy at Joliet West who makes almost $150k (although he also does drivers ed and coaches football).

[Reddy]

Average Teacher Salary in Joliet Township High School District 204

 

The average teacher salary in Joliet Township High School District 204 is $56,092.

Grade Level Average 10th percentile 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 90th percentile

Pre-school $29,350 $19,930 $22,900 $27,970 $34,110 $40,410

Kindergarten $47,800 $27,360 $34,670 $42,890 $59,050 $76,870

Elementary $63,860 $36,450 $45,290 $60,420 $81,490 $99,340

Middle school $64,920 $38,540 $46,660 $62,320 $81,590 $98,810

High school $74,530 $42,210 $54,700 $72,360 $93,200 $113,870

 

The high school out here does pretty good, even if it doesn't reach 6 figures in average. And there is a guy at Joliet West who makes almost $150k (although he also does drivers ed and coaches football).

 

Lets look at the WHOLE country shall we?

 

The average salary for full-time public school teachers in 2010–11 was $56,069 in current dollars (i.e. dollars that are not adjusted for inflation). In constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the average salary was about 3 percent higher in 2010–11 than in 1990–91.

 

3%.

 

How much have athlete salaries increased in the last 20 years?

 

[EvilMonkey]

Lets look at the WHOLE country shall we?

 

 

 

3%.

 

How much have athlete salaries increased in the last 20 years?

Mine has DECREASED 15%. I don't care about athletes, and quit moving the goalposts. Oh, and I bet that $56k didn't factor in generous benefits either, which I don't get.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Alpha Dog

[Reddy]

Mine has DECREASED 15%. I don't care about athletes, and quit moving the goalposts.

what does that have to do with anything? that's just selfish sour grapes.

 

how bout YOU get a new job and stop b****ing.

[EvilMonkey]

what does that have to do with anything? that's just selfish sour grapes.

 

how bout YOU get a new job and stop b****ing.

I like this job. And is has decreased only because this job pays less than the one I previously had before the business closed. You need to pick a point and stay with it. First they are underpaid, then they are underpaid compared to athletes, and even the average numbers you posted to supposedly support your facts show that on average they are in the top tier in the state for income. And those numbers didnt' include generous benefits.

[southsider2k5]

what does that have to do with anything? that's just selfish sour grapes.

 

how bout YOU get a new job and stop b****ing.

 

Why are you getting pissy with him when you mentioned the raise standard?

[EvilMonkey]

Rockdale, Joliet's poor next door neighbor has nice teacher salaries as well.

 

Average Teacher Salary in Rockdale School District 84

 

The average teacher salary in Rockdale School District 84 is $56,092.

Grade Level Average 10th percentile 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 90th percentile

Pre-school $29,350 $19,930 $22,900 $27,970 $34,110 $40,410

Kindergarten $47,800 $27,360 $34,670 $42,890 $59,050 $76,870

Elementary $63,860 $36,450 $45,290 $60,420 $81,490 $99,340

Middle school $64,920 $38,540 $46,660 $62,320 $81,590 $98,810

High school $74,530 $42,210 $54,700 $72,360 $93,200 $113,870

 

Seems like the pre-school teachers bringing the average down.

[EvilMonkey]

Statistics about JOLIET WEST HIGH SCHOOL in JOLIET, IL

 

Average teacher salary: $54,652

Average administration staff salary: $107,383

Dollars spent per student: $11,566

 

You can fix the admin number, I have no problems with that. I have seen what some of the district supers make and it is astronomical. Reform that as well.