California Statewide Election

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]randman wrote:
It’s actually very difficult to fire any tenured teacher. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of people hours to fire a teacher in California. So hspder’s rant on this prop is just bullshit. Don’t listen to it. [/quote]

I call your bluff. Show me a case where it took “hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of people hours to fire a teacher in California”. A link to a newspaper article, or some other documented proof will suffice, but you’ll have to back that up.

(and I mean a TEACHER, not some superintendent, or district lawyer, or something like that – those cases I know about)

[quote]randman wrote:
By the way, the California budget increased from $75 billion in 1998 to over $108 billion in 2004 (a 44% increase) even though California is not taking in enough revenue to cover the budget.[/quote]

That is very true. But the same can be said of the Federal Government, and of many other states…

And, by the way, you forgot to mention the increase in revenue – yes, it is still lower than the expenses, but what was the increase in revenue from 1998 to 2004, hum? You might be surprised…

[quote]randman wrote:
Do you all know what’s going to happen if this prop doesn’t pass? Taxes will be raised.[/quote]

No they won’t. No-one is dumb enough to do that – if Republicans do it, they will never, ever, ever get re-elected, since they will look like lying sore losers. If Dems do it in two years they’ll never be able to recover from that either.

People will get VERY pissed off at anyone who raises taxes.

Now, if we talk about inflation – that’s another, completely different thing, and I’ll agree it is a dramatic problem over here. But I don’t think reducing Education expenses is where we need to focus to reduce inflation, quite the contrary…

[quote]randman wrote:
Do you know that $50 billion out of the $108 billion of California’s 2005 budget goes to education spending? Almost half of our entire budget goes to education! $50 billion! We rank 23rd out of 50 states on per pupil spending.[/quote]

Absolutely. And you know why? Because a) we have a lot of young people that we need to properly educate and b) have (one of) the highest cost of living in the country – not because teachers are selfish hogs like you make them out to be. Salaries and bills need to be paid.

[quote]randman wrote:
And you know how we raise the quality of our education in this state? Not by throwing more money at the problem to fund hspder’s retirement (I’m sure he’s employed in the California education system in one form or another)[/quote]

That was low and uncalled for. And untrue – I’m not, in any way, employed in the California education system. All my income comes directly from private funds. My retirement will be funded by my 401(k). I get absolutely zero money from California, although I probably pay more State tax than what most people in this State make in a year… and I’m not complaining.

[quote]randman wrote:
it’s to cut the multiple layers of bureaucracy that gets in the way of spending money on actually improving education instead of lining bureaucrat’s pockets. Right now, our education spending is on autopilot to automatically increase every year whether California has enough revenue to pay for the budget or not! Prop 76 will fix this issue![/quote]

You know what? Two years ago I believed that crap. I voted for the guy. In the past two years he has delivered absolutely zero of the promises he’s made in thar respect. I’m sorry, but I’m done believing in him.

[quote]randman wrote:
This is a cricital election for California. It’s time the people speak up and say we’ve had enough of our legislature and the unions that control them to stop spending money like it grows on a tree.[/quote]

Yes, it is a critical election for California. It’s time the people decide if they want this to continue to be California, or if they want this to become Texas… :wink:

[quote]randman wrote:
Also vote yes on 75. Proposition 75, also known as ?Paycheck Protection,? gives workers like police officers, firefighters and teachers the right to choose whether or not union dues money from their paychecks should be used for political purposes. It simply requires public labor unions to get consent from employees before deducting money from their paychecks for political purposes. That’s why you see dozens of commercials funded by unions trying to defeat Arnold’s agenda because it cuts into their power. Research the issues people, and don’t believe everything you see on tv.

Lastly, vote yes on 77. It is a blatant conflict of interest to have politicians draw the boundaries of the districts in which they run. Proposition 77 will allow independent judges to draw election districts instead of the politicians and allow voters to approve or reject those districts.
[/quote]

I won’t disagree here. I’ll actually agree with you on 77. In regards to 75, I honestly haven’t made a decision yet. I need to research more – I do know for a fact what you describe is not all of it, but I haven’t figured out the extent of it yet, so I won’t comment for now on 75.

22

[quote]doogie wrote:
Do teachers with 5 years experience make THAT much more than those with two? Enough that weeding out good teachers with 5 years experience could actually save THAT much money?

The difference here between a teacher with 2 years experience and one with 5 years comes out to $307/month. That seems like a really odd way to go about saving money.
[/quote]

Things over here are different: much like with the corporate world, starting salaries are plummeting. Also, you need to understand that if you fire, say, 3 old, experienced teachers the school might be pressured to only hire one young new teacher to replace all of them, by increasing the student-to-teacher ratio, and increasing the number of hours worked per week – something the older guys won’t put up with, but the younger ones will be hired into.

Trust me, there’s a lot of money to be saved with this – problem is, of course, the consequences to the students…

23

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
I even remember you claiming you were a professor of history

I know you’re not really in touch with reality, but I have to call that one out. Show me where I ever said such a thing (claimed I was a professor of history). Seriously. Show me – post the URL to the thread where I made such a claim.

More effort then I would spend on a loser like you sport but if I get some time I’ll look for it. Heading back to the Gulf Coast next week to actually contribute to the rebuilding efforts.

You don’t remember your French revolution comments? Your jail the wealthy comments? It’s why I don’t take you seriously anymore. Maybe it was when I called you a Stalisnist for suggesting that wealthy folks were guilty of a crime for being rich. Or mayber it was around the time you were paraphrasing a “confidential report” that the common folk were not entitled to read to justify your socialist views.
[/quote]

Hspder sounds like reality is swirling around you but you are frightned to grasp it? I am in touch with it everyday while you can only read about it.

Have a nice evening. I’d prefer to stay on this interesting topic. Have anything besides hate speech or rhetoric to add or are you too busy trying to figure out how the world goes on without your input.

Seriously though please keep posting. Your like Howard Dean to the conservatives here.

24

[quote]hedo wrote:
Hspder sounds like reality is swirling around you but you are frightned to grasp it? I am in touch with it everyday while you can only read about it.[/quote]

You’re not getting away that easily. You made some pretty serious accusations – now you’re trying to get away from backing them up with actual facts. C’mon, where did I say I was a history professor? Where did I say “jail the wealthy”? Or even implied that people should be jailed just for being wealthy? Show us…

You’re actually making my point on why I do not trust Arnold any more: you need to back up your claims with proof and with action. The only thing I hear from Republicans these days are a lot of accusations, “common sense” ideas and sweeping claims – but when it comes to put actions behind the words: somehow they all start changing the subject…

25

hspder

Seems like I struck a nerve by pointing out some of your more comical statements?

Intellectual dishonesty at Stanford? Stanford HS more likely? Perhaps you would be taken more scholarly if you in fact tried to present an argument that wasn’t some blatantly biased but presented as God given fact. (sorry for the use of the word God, would probably get you censured at Stanford wouldn’t it?)

26

Here’s a good one from 1/20/05…classic.

Hedo:

Do you realize that at the time France had a monarchy and the French Revolution happened some 20 years after the American Revolution.

Hspder:

"Actually it was in 1792, so it’s 16 years.

I didn’t say that the French had the system up and running at the time of the US Independence. They came up with the system we later adopted, they just took longer to implement it than we did.

The whole thing got started much before that. It’s not like you come up with a new goverment model overnight.

Even over here it took a while to implement - GW was only elected president in 1788… "

Hspder wrote on 9/13/05:

“b) Most rich people are not “achievers”. The overwhelming majority either inherited the money, are career criminals, are slave drivers, or amassed their fortune at the expense of society as a whole through pyramid schemes (aka speculators). Not all of them of course, but the overwhelming majority (about 95% according to the latest numbers I have) is part of one of those groups.”

I am not a career criminal and rich. Guess I fit into the other 5%, since I didn’t inherit my money and have a mostly union workforce.

However I may be guilty of paraphrasing you. You called the rich career criminals, not to have them jailed. Locking up career criminals is more of a conservative stance I guess.

Hspder I hate ongoing personal attacks since I don’t think they add to the discussion of the topic at hand. However since you felt the need to go there first I responded. I’ve made my point, and I am sure in your mind you have made yours, whatever it was. Why don’t we let the folks who have an interest in the topic discuss it?

27

[quote]hspder wrote:
…

If it gets passed, as it becomes evident that the objective is to fire the more expensive people (not the worst ones), nobody will see teaching as an actual lifetime career and people will only go into teaching if they have no other choice, and only for a limited period of time. What kind of teachers do you think that’ll create?
…

[/quote]

This is already reality in the business world.

The old are squeezed out to make room for the young at significantly lower costs.

There are good and bad things about this.

The good is not just saving money.
Fresh blood is needed. The last union place I worked the average age in the manufacturing facility was over 50.
Not really an ideal workforce.

I am not sure how it is in CA, but in many places teachers get paid a hell of a lot of money once they have been there a long time. There is little incentive to leave and make room for the next generation.

How good does a teacher need to be? Present the material accoring to the district guidelines, give tests try to keep class room order etc. It is up to the students to learn. A good teacher can’t force them. Bad teachers of course are horrible.

I would rather have a school full of mediocre teachers than a school with one bad teacher.

This is not heart surgery where excellence is required.

It is hard on the teachers that have been somewhere a long time and are forced out, but that is the reality of life. They have made their money it is someone elses turn.

It is not like they are being replaced by people off the streets. The replacement teachers have their degrees and teaching certificates too.

28

[quote]hedo wrote:
However I may be guilty of paraphrasing you. You called the rich career criminals, not to have them jailed. [/quote]

How about the part where you said that I claimed to be a history professor? Where you “paraphrasing” me also?

Anyway, moving on… Nothing to see here…

29

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
However I may be guilty of paraphrasing you. You called the rich career criminals, not to have them jailed.

How about the part where you said that I claimed to be a history professor? Where you “paraphrasing” me also?

Anyway, moving on… Nothing to see here…

[/quote]

Well I did see the numerous times you listed your credentials, in lieu of a supported argument. Wonder where that degree went…any thoughts?

Career criminals…subtle nuance perhaps?

So as not to be called a stalker, yes time to move on.

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I would rather have a school full of mediocre teachers than a school with one bad teacher.[/quote]

Well, I just hope your kids will agree…

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is not heart surgery where excellence is required.[/quote]

Are you sure? Then why every single European or Asian student that comes to the US invariably is the best student in class here, even students that were mediocre at best in their home countries, and even with the language barrier? Why do our students constantly get their asses kicked in international high-school level non-sports competitions? Why even our companies say that it is much easier to find qualified people in many countries abroad than it is here?

I’ve said before that I blame that mostly on the parents, but unless you’re willing to personally take custody of every single kid with bad parents out there, the only other people that can help are teachers that a) are excellent at their jobs and b) are motivated. Which most of them aren’t these days, for a good reason.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is hard on the teachers that have been somewhere a long time and are forced out, but that is the reality of life. They have made their money it is someone elses turn.[/quote]

I honestly can’t believe you just said that. What do you propose we do with these people then? Send them to the streets? How are they going to live?

Better yet, what’s the point of investing millions upon billions of dollars in R&D to improve the quality of life and life expectancy, if you’re going to be unemployed and out on the street by the time you’re 50?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is not like they are being replaced by people off the streets. The replacement teachers have their degrees and teaching certificates too.[/quote]

In teaching, as with many other things, there’s no substitute for experience. You don’t learn how to teach kids – or adults, for that matter – by reading books, trust me. It takes years to become good at it.

31

Since we’re on to the whole employment issue…

I’m very troubled by the recent trend away from guaranteed retirement and pensions and toward minimal retirement packages such as IRAs that are minimally funded by corporations. And really, that doesn’t bother me so much as the fact that this is occurring in both the public and the private sector; at least I used to be able to depend on a reasonable retirement if I worked for the government. Not so much, anymore. Granted, it’s still better than private industry, and government salaries have recently been increased to remain competitive with the private sector, but I think the country is going to have some major problems in the next twenty to thirty years.

I’m well aware that people take advantage of the system (which is why the federal government now has an internship system)… and I’m somewhat ambivalent as I am a proponent of personal responsibility. Ultimately, it is one’s own responsibility to plan for retirement. However, one of the primary draws for government positions has always been job security and a good pension. If you take those away, and don’t replace them with a high salary, why would anyone ever choose to work for the government?

32

My wife is a college professor.

Her department is full of older tenured professors.

Most of them teach the minimum 15 credit hours a semester and get paid more than my wife. They do not work summer. They do not research or publish. They do minimal advising.
Basically they contribute very little to the school.

My wife is classified as “temporary full time”. There is no room in her department for a tenured full time position until one of these old professors retires.

She teaches between 22 and 25 credit hours a semester. She teaches in the summer. She has developed 2 new course the school has never offered before. The list of innovations she has brought goes on and on.

She does a lot more work, higher quality work and she gets paid less.

She is incredibly valuable to the school.

Some of these old professors do a good job, some are pretty weak.

How does this possibly help anyone except for the weak professor that reaps the benefits of an unfair system?

Why should we bring down the quality of the system because we don’t want the weak professor standing on the unemployment line?

While truly evil/horrible teachers can be fired, merely weak/bad one typically are not.

Tenure has been a huge mistake at her school. I suspect it is the same everywhere.

Teachers should be like everyone else. Sink or swim. Do good work or face consequences.

I want the bad teachers out of my school system. I do not much believe in the mythological good teacher that changes kids lives. That is my job.

33

One more point. If a teacher with 20 years experience is making $ 90,000 a year and they are a decent teacher they should certainly have the opportunity to work at a lower salary rather than be let go just to save money.

There is no reason they should be penalized just because they have experience.

Of course I think we pay far too much for experience in our school systems.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
One more point. If a teacher with 20 years experience is making $ 90,000 a year and they are a decent teacher they should certainly have the opportunity to work at a lower salary rather than be let go just to save money.

There is no reason they should be penalized just because they have experience.

Of course I think we pay far too much for experience in our school systems.

[/quote]

$90,000? Dear god, here 20 years (or more) gets you a state-minimum of $41,770/year.

35

[quote]hspder wrote:

Are you sure? Then why every single European or Asian student that comes to the US invariably is the best student in class here, even students that were mediocre at best in their home countries, and even with the language barrier? Why do our students constantly get their asses kicked in international high-school level non-sports competitions? Why even our companies say that it is much easier to find qualified people in many countries abroad than it is here?

[/quote]

I think a big part of this is that:

  1. parents who bring their kids to this country are looking for a better life. They are generally motivated to work their butts off to acheive here what they couldn’t in their homeland, and this filters through their kids. Little Johnny who’s sat on the couch playing PS2 his entire life doesn’t have the same motivation.

  2. most countries don’t allow everyone into college like we do here. There is no need for anyone to bust ass in high school, because you can ALWAYS go to a local community college and then a state school if you later decide you want to.

36

How about if we let the experienced teachers earn their money with a performanced based incentive program.

That way if they demonstrate they are better than the young ones they make more money?

Sounds like a win/win situation for the decent teachers and the students.

37

[quote]doogie wrote:
…

$90,000? Dear god, here 20 years (or more) gets you a state-minimum of $41,770/year.[/quote]

I don’t think they get quite that in my district, but they make a lot.

My uncle earned more than $ 90,000 as a math teacher and coach in upstate NY.

38

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
doogie wrote:
…

$90,000? Dear god, here 20 years (or more) gets you a state-minimum of $41,770/year.

I don’t think they get quite that in my district, but they make a lot.

My uncle earned more than $ 90,000 as a math teacher and coach in upstate NY. [/quote]

There’s really no point in making cross-country comparisons of absolute salaries. The cost of living varies wildly between regions – even inside states. If you must make a comparison, index it, say, to the price of a two-bedroom, 2000 sq ft single family home.

39

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How does this possibly help anyone except for the weak professor that reaps the benefits of an unfair system?

Why should we bring down the quality of the system because we don’t want the weak professor standing on the unemployment line?[/quote]

Look, I can perfectly understand your frustration. The way people abuse the system is very troubling. Fraud and abuse are rampant everywhere in the world, and the US are no exception. That frustrates hard-working, honest professionals like ourselves. I get it.

I also get your wife’s frustration. Stanford tries its best to get rid of bad professors – mostly by using ridicule and boredom as tools first, and if that doesn’t work, by firing them – but through this process some pretty bad professors stick around for a while, and this too upsets me.

However, taking away retirement or even experience benefits will do more harm than good. Having these people in the unemployment line is, in fact, very, very bad. Not only because less and less people will want to go into teaching, but because you really, really, REALLY don’t want to have more elderly people with little or no income. As much as you hate it, public pressure will eventually force the Government to kick in and pay for their retirement anyway – at 50 years old – and basically feed them for the next 50 years of their extended life. Who’s going to pay for that? Well, we all are. Dearly.

Basically, our SS system is broke because we have too many elderly people living off it, essentially because the rest of the population just can’t stand seeing old people living on the streets. And whatever government is in power, they will cave – much like Bush caved on the New Orleans situation, and is now spending much more money on fixing this than he would have spent on prevention.

And before you say it: much like it was indeed pointless to expect people to hear what the scientists and the military had to say about the danger in NO, it is indeed pointless to expect people to save for their retirement themselves. People are quite simply, too dumb for that. They really don’t get it. It’s “burn the money today, think about the consequences tomorrow”.

That is why libertarianism will never work and is so dangerous: people are so stupid, that, if left to their own devices, will basically not only hurt themselves, they will make sure they take everyone else with them. Even if they know there won’t be a government there to save their asses.

40

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

ZEB,

Do you live in CA?

If not then drop the ‘we’.

Ha ha…didn’t like my answer huh? “We” is used as in the “collective” sense.

I hope “we” understand each other better now.[/quote]

…just a mouse in your pocket.

Thought so.

Stop being a Freeptard.