Jobs bill failed cause $$ going directly to labor leaders' pockets!

[Ame®icano]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

 

[ba1614]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

Yes

 

[SeekingSanity]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

THAT'S a good question! I'm not sure. I do see where some communities wouldn't be able to afford this... but most do tax & budget for schools, currently. Is it "fair" for some localities to have more money than others for education? Does having more money = better education? I've seen enough instances where throwing money at teaching/learning issues didn't accomplish a thing, except spending money... to seriously question that.

What I don't see, is any obvious success in education, or increased "fairness" from throwing federal dollars at the schools -- or any of the hundreds of federally mandated teaching standards/tests.

Perhaps... like the post office... the basic premises that public education was based on don't exist anymore... the "need" it was created to fill has changed or is filled with some other alternatives. Perhaps... public education needs to evolve at it's most basic levels, instead of merely following the templates of a different place, time and society.

Anyway - this particular initiative remains simply campaign propaganda for me and only throws money that the gov't doesn't have... at the wrong kinds of jobs for the skill-sets of the masses of people who are unemployed.

 

[Warrior102]

Need some tissue asshole?

It must suck to be so easily defeated by an observer.

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

That dumb fuck has Swallows debating skills. LOL !

 

[Warrior102]

Need some tissue asshole?

It must suck to be so easily defeated by an observer.

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

He's a Union fork-lift operator. How brilliant do you think he is? He probably can't operate a fucking vacuum cleaner. LOL

 

[noose4]

Need some tissue asshole?

It must suck to be so easily defeated by an observer.

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

Ironic coming from a sufferer of Down syndrome.

 

[noose4]

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

That dumb fuck has Swallows debating skills. LOL !

Look its the cry baby who can dish it out but not take it.

 

[noose4]

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

He's a Union fork-lift operator. How brilliant do you think he is? He probably can't operate a fucking vacuum cleaner. LOL

This genius apparently can not comprehend analogies.

 

[Full-Auto]

Hey dummy a link to a bing search proves nothing, my god you are stupid.

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

Ironic coming from a sufferer of Down syndrome.

LOL You always insist on reinforcing my point.

In my business it means you are at least at minimum a half a bubble off.

The only card you have left is threatening us.

MAKE MY DAY!!

 

[noose4]

LOL We have seen the pinnacles of your intellect.

Thats what makes it easy to make fun of you.

Now admitting youre a dumb ass that cant read was a real eye opener.

Ironic coming from a sufferer of Down syndrome.

LOL You always insist on reinforcing my point.

In my business it means you are at least at minimum a half a bubble off.

The only card you have left is threatening us.

MAKE MY DAY!!

You feel threatened? poor baby.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The WH said:
"The bill failed because Senate Republicans blocked it. Senate Republicans decided they would not ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more in order to put up to 400,000 teachers in our classrooms teaching our children.”

400,000 teachers at average of $52,000 per year is $20.8 billion.
one year. Union dues average $750/teacher or $300 million to labor unions.
90% of labor unions campaign donations go to Democrats!

So why would ANY one vote for a bill that would put a large portion of that
$ 300 million into the campaign coffers of the Democrats?

As I have said before, CON$ervative lies are neverending. Unions make contributions to political parties through separate funds. Up until the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Extreme Court decision that CON$ worship, it was illegal to use union dues to contribute to political campaigns.

Even the most extreme right wing whackos estimate that the teachers union has given only $60 million in political contributions over the last 20 years, which averages to $3 million per year. Only a lying CON$ervative would exaggerate $3 million into a "large portion" of $300 million!!!

You can believe that if it makes you feel better.
It is widely known and documented that union support for political candidates is almost exclusively democrat. When is the last time a union boss campaigned for a GOP candidate?
Among public sector unions it is almost 100% democrat.
When former NJ Gov John Corzine reluctantly came to the rescue of NJ taxpayers and introduced a 4% annual tax levy cap, public sector union members went ballistic. They vowed to campaign for democrat candidates in the state because they could depend on the democrat party to reinstate free and open availability of tax increases.
Unions are fiercely democrat. Any claim to the contrary is a lie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The WH said:
"The bill failed because Senate Republicans blocked it. Senate Republicans decided they would not ask millionaires and billionaires to pay a little bit more in order to put up to 400,000 teachers in our classrooms teaching our children.”

400,000 teachers at average of $52,000 per year is $20.8 billion.
one year. Union dues average $750/teacher or $300 million to labor unions.
90% of labor unions campaign donations go to Democrats!

So why would ANY one vote for a bill that would put a large portion of that
$ 300 million into the campaign coffers of the Democrats?

As I have said before, CON$ervative lies are neverending. Unions make contributions to political parties through separate funds. Up until the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Extreme Court decision that CON$ worship, it was illegal to use union dues to contribute to political campaigns.

Even the most extreme right wing whackos estimate that the teachers union has given only $60 million in political contributions over the last 20 years, which averages to $3 million per year. Only a lying CON$ervative would exaggerate $3 million into a "large portion" of $300 million!!!

Unlike you I deal with the FACTS!
From 1990 to 2012.. Teachers unions gave:
Democrats $59,469,104 96%
GOP $2,418,411 4%
Teachers Unions | OpenSecrets

So given the extremely hyperbolism people like you generate I don't think it is unfair to ask why WE TAX Payers support labor unions that send 95% of the campaign money to the Democrats!

So let's see, I said $60 million in 20 years and you say $62 million in 22 years. So how are MY facts wrong???

And the American people are free to send their money to whatever Party they wish. There is no law that requires the American people to contribute equally to both Parties. So why would any union worker contribute to the GOP who are hell bent on destroying the unions??????

The GOP is not hell bent on destroying unions. As a matter of fact the GOP is disinterested in private sector unions because they are controlled by business/union relationships.
It is the public sector unions that are under the microscope.
These unions must be reined in. The cost of public worker unions has grown into a monster. The monster must be slain.
Yesterday, I read a story from over a year ago that Newark NJ had to lay off police officers because the city could not afford them. Then I did some checking. The city payroll has no fewer than 600 people who are paid $99,000 per year not including overtime and benefits.
That is outrageous.
So when I hear people like Obama and other lefty politicians scream about how the GOP is opposing the hiring of cops, it's pure political bullshit rhetoric.
Last week VP Joe "Bite Me" Biden said to a Flint. MI audience that because the GOP opposed the Obama stimulus, rapes in Flint increased. What an idiot. There is no correlation between the two. Yet Biden gets away with these insipid ideas.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

Yes. As a matter of fact, educator and administrative wages should be decided by the people who are paying them.
Several states allow this but too few. Local elections are held each year to decide the size and scope of school budgets. Unfortunately the unions also get to go int and extort ridiculous wages and benefits for public employees.
At the end of the day, yes, educators should be paid out of local taxes.

 

[Full-Auto]

Ironic coming from a sufferer of Down syndrome.

LOL You always insist on reinforcing my point.

In my business it means you are at least at minimum a half a bubble off.

The only card you have left is threatening us.

MAKE MY DAY!!

You feel threatened? poor baby.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

THAT'S a good question! I'm not sure. I do see where some communities wouldn't be able to afford this... but most do tax & budget for schools, currently. Is it "fair" for some localities to have more money than others for education? Does having more money = better education? I've seen enough instances where throwing money at teaching/learning issues didn't accomplish a thing, except spending money... to seriously question that.

What I don't see, is any obvious success in education, or increased "fairness" from throwing federal dollars at the schools -- or any of the hundreds of federally mandated teaching standards/tests.

Perhaps... like the post office... the basic premises that public education was based on don't exist anymore... the "need" it was created to fill has changed or is filled with some other alternatives. Perhaps... public education needs to evolve at it's most basic levels, instead of merely following the templates of a different place, time and society.

Anyway - this particular initiative remains simply campaign propaganda for me and only throws money that the gov't doesn't have... at the wrong kinds of jobs for the skill-sets of the masses of people who are unemployed.

"Fair" has nothing to do with it.
When people search for a home one the top priorities is "good schools".
In the reverse, I say it is unjust for those who do the work, pay the taxes for local schools to be told they have to fund other communities that do not do a good job in that area.
There was a trial balloon floated here about that several years ago. There was a town hall meeting called for public comment. 600 people showed up and basically told those who proposed this that they could consider it political suicide. The pro redistribution crowd trotted off with it's collective tail between it's legs never to be heard from again.

 

[cloudy]

LOOK OUT Koch Brothers WHORES! the liberals are on the march!

 

[Ame®icano]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

THAT'S a good question! I'm not sure. I do see where some communities wouldn't be able to afford this... but most do tax & budget for schools, currently. Is it "fair" for some localities to have more money than others for education? Does having more money = better education? I've seen enough instances where throwing money at teaching/learning issues didn't accomplish a thing, except spending money... to seriously question that.

What I don't see, is any obvious success in education, or increased "fairness" from throwing federal dollars at the schools -- or any of the hundreds of federally mandated teaching standards/tests.

Perhaps... like the post office... the basic premises that public education was based on don't exist anymore... the "need" it was created to fill has changed or is filled with some other alternatives. Perhaps... public education needs to evolve at it's most basic levels, instead of merely following the templates of a different place, time and society.

Anyway - this particular initiative remains simply campaign propaganda for me and only throws money that the gov't doesn't have... at the wrong kinds of jobs for the skill-sets of the masses of people who are unemployed.

Financing education is not federal government business. According to US Census Bureau, out of $590B spent on education in 2009, less then 10% were federally funded. See page 13. That's about $55B that feds spend and doesn't really have to.

You asked is it fair for some districts to have more money than others? Well, what fair really means? Is it fair that almost 35% of money schools get for teachers salaries goes to their benefits, while in private industry is less then 30%. Bureau Of Labor Statistics. Would be fair if is equal and therefore cut federal financing for schools in half?

 

[Dragon]

Unlike you I deal with the FACTS!

The hell you do. I've seen some half a dozen threads you've started here, and without exception every one of them presented a complete distortion of the facts, either partial truths where what you left led to misunderstanding, or flat-out lies.

You've already been called on your misstatement here, namely a vast exaggeration of the amount of contributions made by the teachers' union to political campaigns. You really ought to be ashamed.

 

[naturegirl]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

Teachers should be paid according to their teaching skills. The education our children have received in the last 20 years is horrendous. Teachers need to teach and be paid accordingly. I would have no problem paying a special tax for teachers in a school system that produce educated young adults.

Public Sector Unions shouldn't even exist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I got just one question: Should teachers be paid from local taxes?

THAT'S a good question! I'm not sure. I do see where some communities wouldn't be able to afford this... but most do tax & budget for schools, currently. Is it "fair" for some localities to have more money than others for education? Does having more money = better education? I've seen enough instances where throwing money at teaching/learning issues didn't accomplish a thing, except spending money... to seriously question that.

What I don't see, is any obvious success in education, or increased "fairness" from throwing federal dollars at the schools -- or any of the hundreds of federally mandated teaching standards/tests.

Perhaps... like the post office... the basic premises that public education was based on don't exist anymore... the "need" it was created to fill has changed or is filled with some other alternatives. Perhaps... public education needs to evolve at it's most basic levels, instead of merely following the templates of a different place, time and society.

Anyway - this particular initiative remains simply campaign propaganda for me and only throws money that the gov't doesn't have... at the wrong kinds of jobs for the skill-sets of the masses of people who are unemployed.

Financing education is not federal government business. According to US Census Bureau, out of $590B spent on education in 2009, less then 10% were federally funded. See page 13. That's about $55B that feds spend and doesn't really have to.

You asked is it fair for some districts to have more money than others? Well, what fair really means? Is it fair that almost 35% of money schools get for teachers salaries goes to their benefits, while in private industry is less then 30%. Bureau Of Labor Statistics. Would be fair if is equal and therefore cut federal financing for schools in half?

The federal Dept of Education should be abolished as should federal funding for local public schools and all public colleges and universities.
The problem is these entities will gladly accept the money even though the money comes with a bunch of strings attached.