u/communcel, what does Marxism-Rogerism-BlackOps2cel-thought make of this? Do schools zone chads into Stacy districts, leaving incels to cope with each other?
We should make rich people pay millions and millions more in our state, and still force their children to go to still-substandard schools. They definitely will not leave!
Well, okay, they might leave, but that's why we need to end school choice on the federal level. They definitely won't leave the country!
Well, okay, they might leave the country, but we just need to get every other country to turn down all the rich people who would want to live there!
Rich people are already paying millions for services they don't use, dude. Their children are already going to private schools. Actually, most people in any given place don't have children currently attending public schools.
Local, property-tax-based school funding is a terrible system, economists have been saying so for half a century plus, America is already moving away from it slowly and piecemeal.
I fucking hate this "status quo warrior" attitude that pops up on /r/drama when people want to show they're so much smarter than le socialists (or whoever) by making up some completely inept handwaving argument like this. Dude, shut up.
Dude this is fucking stupid. You don't seem to understand the issue at all, you've just pegged school-district-based-property-taxes as somehow the "right position" and anything else as the "left position" and now you're issuing generic broadsides about left vs right that don't have any relevance.
Nah, I'm very familiar with the issue and brain damaged democrat solutions to it.
democrats prefer moving funding to the state level or higher as OP of the post in question is doing. You're advocating it yourself above literally two comments ago.
state gets most of its tax revenue from income tax, and when it doesn't that's what democrats would prefer to move it to because they want a * P R O G R E S S I V E * tax rather than a sales tax.
The problem is that when you hit a total state tax burden of around 10%, people start leaving and you pass an inflection point in how much revenue get from the income tax rate.
public unions have a voracious, never-satisfied appetite for public funds (that is their job, to represent their members interest) the problem is that democrat politicians just can't learn to say no at the bargaining table, so states like connecticut end up billions in debt in large part to pension obligations for these awful contracts.
Nah, I'm very familiar with the issue and brain damaged democrat solutions to it.
democrats prefer moving funding to the state level or higher as OP of the post in question is doing. You're advocating it yourself above literally two comments ago.
state gets most of its tax revenue from income tax, and when it doesn't that's what democrats would prefer to move it to because they want a * P R O G R E S S I V E * tax rather than a sales tax.
The problem is that when you hit a total state tax burden of around 10%, some people stay but other people start leaving and you pass an inflection point in terms of raising additional revenue from the income tax rate.
But you still haven't been able to solve the public schooling problem with all that money. True, public unions have a voracious, never-satisfied appetite for public funds (that is their job, to represent their members interest). But the real problem is that democrat politicians just can't learn to say no at the bargaining table, so states like connecticut end up billions in debt in large part to pension obligations for these awful contracts.
This is basically just a more detailed and specific version of what I just said, though. You want local school district funding because Democrats don't want it, and here's a list of things I think are bad about the way Democrats run states. OK.
The problem is you don't understand that there are such things as narrow and technical arguments in public finance, with little or no broader implication for "left vs right" debates. So "schools should be funded from property tax revenues in their local districts" becomes "the Democrat position" to you and you go to your standard broadside arguments about hurrrr Democrats bad. Which is beside the fucking point.
The problem is you don't understand that there are such things as narrow and technical arguments in public finance, with little or no broader implication for "left vs right" debates.
Remember way back when you asserted this:
Local, property-tax-based school funding is a terrible system, economists have been saying so for half a century plus
And I asked you this question
Really? Which economists exactly? Krugman and his neo-keynesian special needs friends?
And you conveniently avoided answering it?
While we're pathologizing here, I think you're trying to discredit me on some psychological and rhetorical ground as "too partisan! you don't understand nuance!" because my view conflicts with one you hold; but you're unable to actually to defend your view.
You could lazily a google a few friendly papers on why "property tax for schools = bad! everyone knows!" but it's easier to just attack me.
I'm not sure where you get the state funding argument from. If anything, the liberal position tends to be that we shouldn't be sending public money to charter schools, and even getting agreement there is tough.
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a teacher's union negotiation before, so I'm also just going to point out that local officials generally do a pretty good job at making bargaining a living hell for everyone involved. And if you really want to advocate a hard line attitude, go ask the people of Illinois how well that worked out...
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a teacher's union negotiation before
I've been in private and public union negotiations before on the union side. Believe it or not, I used to actually think public unions were the way to go. It's why I'm passionate about the topic.
I'm also just going to point out that local officials generally do a pretty good job at making bargaining a living hell for everyone involved
Well, apparently not good enough this time. Teacher pensions are an unworkable financial burden on CT. I work in New England so I get exposed to plenty of news stories of unions whose leash has been given a little bit too much slack by the public. See: subway systems.
I'm not sure where you get the state funding argument from. If anything, the liberal position tends to be that we shouldn't be sending public money to charter schools, and even getting agreement there is tough.
You say that as if your second sentence contradicts your first.
It doesn't. Democrats dislike vouchers for charter schools and they prefer funding occurs on higher levels of government than on lower levels.
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a teacher's union negotiation before
I've been in private and public union negotiations before on the union side. Believe it or not, I used to work for a union and thought public unions were the way to go. It's why I'm passionate about the topic.
I'm also just going to point out that local officials generally do a pretty good job at making bargaining a living hell for everyone involved
Well, apparently not good enough this time. Teacher pensions are an unworkable financial burden on CT (granted partly due to financial mismanagement). I live in New England so I get exposed to plenty of news stories of public unions whose leash has been given a little bit too much slack by the public govt - I'm really not about to buy the "waste is firmly under control!" argument. See: subway systems.
I'm not sure where you get the state funding argument from. If anything, the liberal position tends to be that we shouldn't be sending public money to charter schools, and even getting agreement there is tough.
You say that as if your second sentence contradicts your first.
It doesn't. Democrats dislike vouchers for charter schools and they typically prefer funding occurs on higher levels of government than on lower levels.
Local, property-tax-based school funding is a terrible system, economists have been saying so for half a century plus
As opposed to pouring the money into a big federal bucket and redistributing it evenly across the nation? You think that's what economists advocate for? Not in my experience.
Economists tend to be much more open to the notion that parents should be able to buy advantages for their children than socialists.
The fallacy here is in thinking that district-based school systems equate to private purchasing. In fact it's much less efficient than private provision / voucher systems because it effectively 'bundles' the purchase of housing together with the "purchase" of a child's school.
The funding system doesn't seem to have much, if any, effect on educational outcomes. Utah does just fine with per-pupil expenditures about half of the national average while Newark, NJ; Washington, DC; and Detroit throw tons of money down the drain with little to show for it. Of all the problems with American education, funding is pretty far down the list.
To be fair, Utah is like the whitest, most homogeneous state in the union. They don't exactly have the same sort of intra-state stratification that places like DC or Detroit do. In other words, they don't have a problem that needs fixing.
Singapore would be my first choice (English is the common language, takes two years to become a citizen, huge economy, a lot like new york in that there are lots of restaurants from lots of different cuisines) but the less adventurous might go for the lower-tax countries in Europe like Monaco.
If only the feds hasn't rectified this and some of the highest per pupil funding is found in detroit, baltimore , and chicago. It's almost like good schools are full of whites and asians and bad schools are full of chocolate Americans. Shockingly a group that doesnt have fathers and don't tend to put much stock in education suck at it. Of course of only they spent 15k per pupil instead of 14k they'd get it together
Democrats make bad Teachers, Teaching to the Test is less engaging for certain at-risk Pupils and those 3 places are full of White Man's Burden Teachers who watched Lean on Me a few too many times.
Black kids do worse in school because they are, on average, significantly less intelligent than other races. And yes, research demonstrated years ago that these racial differences are largely, but by no means completely, genetic.
If your social policies are based on bullshit rather than truth and scientific fact, they're doomed to fail.
MFW Malloy is cutting 100% of state education funding in wealthy school districts and keeping funding for poor districts largely intact despite the enormous amount of funding pouring into those districts in the past years showing no noticeable improvement.
I'm going to jump in on the leftist retard side here. It has always seemed to me that having schools funded by their local tax base means that schools in rich cities will be better than schools in poor ones.
53 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-08-21
Have you posted bussy yet?
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Rockstar_MWG_05 2017-08-21
capitalism resigned😂😂😂😂😂😀👌👌👌
1 PineappleExpress98 2017-08-21
Make the socialism more seeable!
1 Rockstar_MWG_05 2017-08-21
when i see the equal distribution of wealth it makes me HAVE SEX
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-08-21
Can't afford to move to a good school district, maybe you shouldn't be having kids.
Problem solved.
1 cheers_grills 2017-08-21
That's racist against blacks.
1 TinyJibble 2017-08-21
u/communcel, what does Marxism-Rogerism-BlackOps2cel-thought make of this? Do schools zone chads into Stacy districts, leaving incels to cope with each other?
1 BussyIsAHumanRight 2017-08-21
this isn't a bad idea. If we turned all the incels gay while their sexualities still forming, we might make salvageable twinks out of them.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-21
I'd rather turn them into trans women, so they can be useful to more men.
1 BussyIsAHumanRight 2017-08-21
I'm cool with that
1 oshnyve 2017-08-21
unsurprising
1 TinyJibble 2017-08-21
Unfortunately...
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-08-21
God I love those. Chaddette is a Goddess.
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2017-08-21
Username checks out.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
We should make rich people pay millions and millions more in our state, and still force their children to go to still-substandard schools. They definitely will not leave!
Well, okay, they might leave, but that's why we need to end school choice on the federal level. They definitely won't leave the country!
Well, okay, they might leave the country, but we just need to get every other country to turn down all the rich people who would want to live there!
1 Neon_needles 2017-08-21
"Socalism will be great because I can play Vidya all day." - obese retard, /u/ShuffleDrive
1 cheers_grills 2017-08-21
where do i sign up
1 youpostyoudie 2017-08-21
What is the at-right policy concerning me playing videogames all day?
1 die_rattin 2017-08-21
Boxcars
1 youpostyoudie 2017-08-21
Tempting but I'll think I'll vote socialism in that case.
1 LemonScore 2017-08-21
Rich people just need to be kept in the country against their will, just like the Soviet Union did with academics, comrade.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
Rich people are already paying millions for services they don't use, dude. Their children are already going to private schools. Actually, most people in any given place don't have children currently attending public schools.
Local, property-tax-based school funding is a terrible system, economists have been saying so for half a century plus, America is already moving away from it slowly and piecemeal.
I fucking hate this "status quo warrior" attitude that pops up on /r/drama when people want to show they're so much smarter than le socialists (or whoever) by making up some completely inept handwaving argument like this. Dude, shut up.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
Really? Which economists? Krugman and his crew of neo-keynesian gaybois? Try again retard.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
Dude this is fucking stupid. You don't seem to understand the issue at all, you've just pegged school-district-based-property-taxes as somehow the "right position" and anything else as the "left position" and now you're issuing generic broadsides about left vs right that don't have any relevance.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
Nah, I'm very familiar with the issue and brain damaged democrat solutions to it.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
Nah, I'm very familiar with the issue and brain damaged democrat solutions to it.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
This is basically just a more detailed and specific version of what I just said, though. You want local school district funding because Democrats don't want it, and here's a list of things I think are bad about the way Democrats run states. OK.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
I don't get it, am I not allowed to disagree with Democrat positions now because that would be "so typical of me" or whatever?
Thanks for the diagnosis doc, go lick a dick.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
The problem is you don't understand that there are such things as narrow and technical arguments in public finance, with little or no broader implication for "left vs right" debates. So "schools should be funded from property tax revenues in their local districts" becomes "the Democrat position" to you and you go to your standard broadside arguments about hurrrr Democrats bad. Which is beside the fucking point.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
Remember way back when you asserted this:
And I asked you this question
And you conveniently avoided answering it?
While we're pathologizing here, I think you're trying to discredit me on some psychological and rhetorical ground as "too partisan! you don't understand nuance!" because my view conflicts with one you hold; but you're unable to actually to defend your view.
You could lazily a google a few friendly papers on why "property tax for schools = bad! everyone knows!" but it's easier to just attack me.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
yeah but the strategy i'm using here seems to be working even better for less effort
1 shehatestheworld 2017-08-21
At least this post lets everyone know they shouldn't take your argument seriously.
1 Old13oy 2017-08-21
I'm not sure where you get the state funding argument from. If anything, the liberal position tends to be that we shouldn't be sending public money to charter schools, and even getting agreement there is tough.
I'm not sure you've ever actually been in a teacher's union negotiation before, so I'm also just going to point out that local officials generally do a pretty good job at making bargaining a living hell for everyone involved. And if you really want to advocate a hard line attitude, go ask the people of Illinois how well that worked out...
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
I've been in private and public union negotiations before on the union side. Believe it or not, I used to actually think public unions were the way to go. It's why I'm passionate about the topic.
Well, apparently not good enough this time. Teacher pensions are an unworkable financial burden on CT. I work in New England so I get exposed to plenty of news stories of unions whose leash has been given a little bit too much slack by the public. See: subway systems.
You say that as if your second sentence contradicts your first.
It doesn't. Democrats dislike vouchers for charter schools and they prefer funding occurs on higher levels of government than on lower levels.
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
I've been in private and public union negotiations before on the union side. Believe it or not, I used to work for a union and thought public unions were the way to go. It's why I'm passionate about the topic.
Well, apparently not good enough this time. Teacher pensions are an unworkable financial burden on CT (granted partly due to financial mismanagement). I live in New England so I get exposed to plenty of news stories of public unions whose leash has been given a little bit too much slack by the public govt - I'm really not about to buy the "waste is firmly under control!" argument. See: subway systems.
You say that as if your second sentence contradicts your first.
It doesn't. Democrats dislike vouchers for charter schools and they typically prefer funding occurs on higher levels of government than on lower levels.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2017-08-21
... that's not at all what happened.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2017-08-21
That's why private and home schooling should be banned. And let's not get into why colleges need to be organized like K12.
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-21
As opposed to pouring the money into a big federal bucket and redistributing it evenly across the nation? You think that's what economists advocate for? Not in my experience.
Economists tend to be much more open to the notion that parents should be able to buy advantages for their children than socialists.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
The fallacy here is in thinking that district-based school systems equate to private purchasing. In fact it's much less efficient than private provision / voucher systems because it effectively 'bundles' the purchase of housing together with the "purchase" of a child's school.
1 mtg_liebestod 2017-08-21
You think /r/socialism thinks the policy answer here is a federal voucher system? I don't.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
No, but you can't just resort to "but my opponents are morons!" as a general get-out-of-jail-free-card for saying wrong things.
1 PseudonymIncognito 2017-08-21
The funding system doesn't seem to have much, if any, effect on educational outcomes. Utah does just fine with per-pupil expenditures about half of the national average while Newark, NJ; Washington, DC; and Detroit throw tons of money down the drain with little to show for it. Of all the problems with American education, funding is pretty far down the list.
1 EvanHarper 2017-08-21
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of that.
1 TheMauveHand 2017-08-21
To be fair, Utah is like the whitest, most homogeneous state in the union. They don't exactly have the same sort of intra-state stratification that places like DC or Detroit do. In other words, they don't have a problem that needs fixing.
1 EloeOmoe 2017-08-21
Where exactly do you think they're gonna go?
Mexico?
Socialist Europe?
1 SineadObama 2017-08-21
see for yourself
Singapore would be my first choice (English is the common language, takes two years to become a citizen, huge economy, a lot like new york in that there are lots of restaurants from lots of different cuisines) but the less adventurous might go for the lower-tax countries in Europe like Monaco.
1 PastaVagioli 2017-08-21
That pic was kinda real tho
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheff_v._O%27Neill
1 odintal 2017-08-21
Wait. I thought black students needed safe places away from white students and the oppressive whiteness they bring.
1 TheTassieDevil 2017-08-21
God I hate /r/socialism. Got banned because I wasn't extreme enough... It's pretty fucked.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-08-21
If only the feds hasn't rectified this and some of the highest per pupil funding is found in detroit, baltimore , and chicago. It's almost like good schools are full of whites and asians and bad schools are full of chocolate Americans. Shockingly a group that doesnt have fathers and don't tend to put much stock in education suck at it. Of course of only they spent 15k per pupil instead of 14k they'd get it together
1 Imgur_Lurker 2017-08-21
Counterpoint:
Democrats make bad Teachers, Teaching to the Test is less engaging for certain at-risk Pupils and those 3 places are full of White Man's Burden Teachers who watched Lean on Me a few too many times.
1 attaca89 2017-08-21
Black kids do worse in school because they are, on average, significantly less intelligent than other races. And yes, research demonstrated years ago that these racial differences are largely, but by no means completely, genetic.
If your social policies are based on bullshit rather than truth and scientific fact, they're doomed to fail.
1 keroro1454 2017-08-21
MFW Malloy is cutting 100% of state education funding in wealthy school districts and keeping funding for poor districts largely intact despite the enormous amount of funding pouring into those districts in the past years showing no noticeable improvement.
Gotta love CT.
1 aliceunknown 2017-08-21
Yeah, I guess the more sensible thing would be to not have schools at all. Fucking educated elitists trying to brainwash future generations.
1 ManhattanTransFur 2017-08-21
I'm going to jump in on the leftist retard side here. It has always seemed to me that having schools funded by their local tax base means that schools in rich cities will be better than schools in poor ones.