BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Don't you know? Fires are good. They stimulate the private sector for all of the building materials, hospital visits, and mortuary services. Why should we have firemen?
Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!
- Thread starter Unabogie
- Start date
Don't you know? Fires are good. They stimulate the private sector for all of the building materials, hospital visits, and mortuary services. Why should we have firemen?
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
In constant dollars 1970-71 about 4,300 dollars was spent per student
In 2001 it was close to 9,000.
Has the education received improved that much. http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#3
Also from the Dept of Education
4.The federal share of K-12 spending has risen very quickly, particularly in recent years.
The current in the following quote is 2005
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
And were is the extra money going? I know for example special needs children use very expensive programs now and didn't then. So we clearly need to cut those programs then.
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
I think Wildcat wants to move towards the succesful model of the Eurozone. A monetary union without fiscal union.
Hey, it worked fine for about seven years!
Peephole
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,584
Move where?
Pretty much the whole of the US is in depression.No, they're in bad shape because of a little thing called "the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression".
I know, it was pretty under the radar so you might not have heard about it.
But they weren't fired because they aren't needed, they were fired because of budget contraints...
Last edited:
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Of course. Why bother educating them; they won't ever be productive employees.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
I get the sarcasm but that is not true. I all depends on the nature of the special needs. Some very high functioning students still have special needs and these students can certainly lead productive lives.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
How much of the increase is atributable to special needs?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
I don't know. I was just pointing out how we view education in a very different fashion now vs 40 years ago.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Wikipedia gives this as the reason for California's budget shortfall:
A major source of the deficit was a decline in state revenues from more than $100 billion in 2007 to about $85 billion in 2008--mostly due to declines in personal income taxes, corporate taxes and other taxes.[18]
Another source has been the continuous growth in salaries and benefits of state employees during economic boom times, some of which were lobbied by trade unions. In 2009 more than 134,000 Bay Area public employees were reported by the Contra Costa Times to have earned annual base salaries in excess of $100,000;[19] however, many of these employees were local employees, not state employees. A database of public employee salaries was also made available by San Jose Mercury News.[20] As per the same source over 40,000 public employees in the Bay Area alone earned over $200,000 in 2009.
In 2008 the Daily News also reported six figure salaries of many public officials in LA.[21] The Sacramento Bee maintains an updated database of state worker salaries.[22
Neither the 15% decline in state revenues from 2007 to 2008, nor the growth of public sector salaries during the economic boom are the fault of California voters. The 15% decline is the result of the national recession. The growth in public sector salaries occurred during the boom before the recession. About all that can be laid at the door of California voters is the super-majority requirement for passing a budget. This, the Wikipedia article said, aggravated the crisis, but it did not cause it.
A major source of the deficit was a decline in state revenues from more than $100 billion in 2007 to about $85 billion in 2008--mostly due to declines in personal income taxes, corporate taxes and other taxes.[18]
Another source has been the continuous growth in salaries and benefits of state employees during economic boom times, some of which were lobbied by trade unions. In 2009 more than 134,000 Bay Area public employees were reported by the Contra Costa Times to have earned annual base salaries in excess of $100,000;[19] however, many of these employees were local employees, not state employees. A database of public employee salaries was also made available by San Jose Mercury News.[20] As per the same source over 40,000 public employees in the Bay Area alone earned over $200,000 in 2009.
In 2008 the Daily News also reported six figure salaries of many public officials in LA.[21] The Sacramento Bee maintains an updated database of state worker salaries.[22
Neither the 15% decline in state revenues from 2007 to 2008, nor the growth of public sector salaries during the economic boom are the fault of California voters. The 15% decline is the result of the national recession. The growth in public sector salaries occurred during the boom before the recession. About all that can be laid at the door of California voters is the super-majority requirement for passing a budget. This, the Wikipedia article said, aggravated the crisis, but it did not cause it.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
Actually, the politicians get first dibs, their lickspittle unions get the scraps, and the people just get the shaft; it's The Chicago Way!
elbe
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,983
Is anyone arguing that Illionois isn't corrupt and bankrupt? Or, perhaps, that the US has a vested interest in all of it's citizens, even those living in Illinois? Or, as you seem to be unintentionally arguing, we should divest more power from the states and give DC more control so states can't screw it up.
Yeah, I'm afraid I got lost from yet another "but Illinois is corrupt!" post.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
How is that a response to my question in any way, shape, or form?
To whom does the state of Illinois have the most responsibility - to their unionized workforce or to the citizens of Illinois as a whole? Do the union contracts take precedence over the the states' responsibility to provide services to the populace?
elbe
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 4,983
It's a response in that your question is a non-sequitor and other people choosing not to address it doesn't make any point.
Tatyana
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 3,701
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
My question was a non sequitur?
It was in response to the claims that Illinois should honor its union contracts no matter what. It directly follows that claim, so I don't see how it's a non sequitur in any way, shape, or form.
We alrerady raised taxes over $6 billion per year, all of which goes directly towards paying union pensions. At the same time we're literally kicking people off the Medicaid rolls, closing long-term mental intistutions, and cutting all kinds of other services. The unions haven't given up a damned thing, indeed they demand more more more.
Do the rights of unionized government workers trump the rights of the people of Illinois to state government services?
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,718
Unabogie
Philosopher
Pensions are deferred salary. So the retired workers already took their pay cut when they negotiated lower pay for better retirement. They were offered that deal and they honored it, and they ALREADY gave up money. These retired Americans did their work at the lower pay and expected that retirement would be taken care of. Now you want to renege on the deal.
Funny how when it comes to executive bonuses, the right wing thinks contracts are sacrosanct, and asking the CEOs to forgo bonuses paid for with bailout money is "socialism".
When it comes to retired people like my mother, who negotiated a decent pension and health care after working for low pay as a teacher for forty years, contracts that are inconvenient should be scrapped.
If you don't want to see vital services cut in your state, stop voting for the wingnuts who keep calling state aid "socialism" and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Allow the two wars to end. Fight against the new GOP war in Iran that they want so badly. Fight against Romney's new proposed tax giveaway to Sheldon Adelson. Fight against Paul Ryan's disastrous dismantling of the safety net, which will cripple your state with thousands of people suddenly too destitute to feed or clothe themselves. When you do all of those things so that fiscal sanity at the federal level allows us to actually deal with a recession as we should, and if the pensions are STILL not being covered, then you'd have a point.
But with the Teabagger 10th amendment fetishists doing everything they can to prevent Obama from helping Illinois keep their Medicaid going, I think you have a strange target for your anger.