Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Budget Cuts

CrzyDrumlineChic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 5:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.

If there is anywhere that funding should be cut in the American government, it's not the educational system.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 5:01:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:00:45 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.

If there is anywhere that funding should be cut in the American government, it's not the educational system.

It should be military.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 5:16:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:00:45 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.

If there is anywhere that funding should be cut in the American government, it's not the educational system.

Waste should be cut from everywhere though. Whether it is waste in the education system or the military or social benefits programs, that should be cut.

I think every program should be gone through and looked at as "how can we offer the same level of service for less," before looking at cutting the service level of any program.

But that is me.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CrzyDrumlineChic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 6:27:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ya we should definately cut military spending. Obamas budget cuts I personally do not think should involve education. Yesy we may need to do some budget cutting, but why make schools suffer? I am in highschool and these budget cuts are hitting us hard. We might have to get rid of UIL next year, which sucks! UIL is very educational! I think I have probably learned more from UIL than from school altogether.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 7:15:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He is a master double talker.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 7:24:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You can't spend money you don't have. As big a fan as I am of printing money Obama's cuts are a drop in the bucket. Raise the money for schools on the local level.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 7:35:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.:

It's classic double-speak from politicians. He's full of sh*t, plain and simple.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:49:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Obama's going to do as he always does; he's going to bend over and take it in the @ss from the Republicans. As a result, the defense budget will remain untouched, while community programs for the poor will take the largest hits. In the end, the structural budget problems will not be adequately addressed, and the US will take one step closer to interest rate hell.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 3:49:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:00:45 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.

If there is anywhere that funding should be cut in the American government, it's not the educational system.

Really? Do you see such a stark correlation on the amount of money spent on education and the quality of the product? If there is such a correlation it is despite the current system we have in place. There are so many examples that demonstrate a diminishing return on money spent, that it's a blatant waste of money to continue spending money on a defective system to educate our children. If the teachers were to work on some sort of merit basis, where they will receive an increase in pay when our position in the world improves in education. Since we are at 27 in the world, and that may be out of date, then they shall get nothing more, and perhaps should be punished for such terrible performance.

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 12:57:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 3:49:50 PM, innomen wrote:
Really? Do you see such a stark correlation on the amount of money spent on education and the quality of the product? If there is such a correlation it is despite the current system we have in place. There are so many examples that demonstrate a diminishing return on money spent, that it's a blatant waste of money to continue spending money on a defective system to educate our children. If the teachers were to work on some sort of merit basis, where they will receive an increase in pay when our position in the world improves in education. Since we are at 27 in the world, and that may be out of date, then they shall get nothing more, and perhaps should be punished for such terrible performance.

The reward, punishment and causes would national, whereas the costs of improving performance would be borne individually; so, no, that wouldn't work. The problem of how to stop the decline in rank isn't rocket science: copy those above us, the social democracies; especially the highest, the extreme social democracies.

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.

So increase the parental wealth factor of inequality by giving free money to people rich enough to already have children in private schools, increase it once more by replacing free education with education that requires tuitions to exceed costs and therefore be unaffordable to the parents of poor children, and sic the Pinks on any two people unpatriotic enough to refuse work simultaneously. Got it.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:04:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 12:57:33 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.

So increase the parental wealth factor of inequality by giving free money to people rich enough to already have children in private schools, increase it once more by replacing free education with education that requires tuitions to exceed costs and therefore be unaffordable to the parents of poor children, and sic the Pinks on any two people unpatriotic enough to refuse work simultaneously. Got it.

lulz at strawman argument.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:19:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 1:04:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2011 12:57:33 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.

So increase the parental wealth factor of inequality by giving free money to people rich enough to already have children in private schools, increase it once more by replacing free education with education that requires tuitions to exceed costs and therefore be unaffordable to the parents of poor children, and sic the Pinks on any two people unpatriotic enough to refuse work simultaneously. Got it.

lulz at strawman argument.

How so?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:25:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 1:19:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 2/18/2011 1:04:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2011 12:57:33 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.

So increase the parental wealth factor of inequality by giving free money to people rich enough to already have children in private schools, increase it once more by replacing free education with education that requires tuitions to exceed costs and therefore be unaffordable to the parents of poor children, and sic the Pinks on any two people unpatriotic enough to refuse work simultaneously. Got it.

lulz at strawman argument.

How so?

You state that school vouchers give money to the rich and take money from the poor.(well your grammar and writing style is so poor I don't know what you said). That's not what school vouchers do at all.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:54:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 1:25:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2011 1:19:18 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 2/18/2011 1:04:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/18/2011 12:57:33 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

School vouchers, and privatize, get rid of the teacher's union. These things would get my support.

So increase the parental wealth factor of inequality by giving free money to people rich enough to already have children in private schools, increase it once more by replacing free education with education that requires tuitions to exceed costs and therefore be unaffordable to the parents of poor children, and sic the Pinks on any two people unpatriotic enough to refuse work simultaneously. Got it.

lulz at strawman argument.

How so?

You state that school vouchers give money to the rich and take money from the poor.(well your grammar and writing style is so poor I don't know what you said). That's not what school vouchers do at all.

The evaluation of writing style is purely subjective; my grammar is impeccable, as will soon be demonstrated by your failure to provide counterexamples. I didn't once, in the school voucher clause, use the words "take" or "poor", much less as part of the reverse Robin Hood story you accuse me of telling. I did mention giving to the rich, which is exactly what school vouchers do: those who already have children in private schools, whom the vast majority of vouchers go to, tend to be richer than those who don't; those for whom school vouchers are critical to the decision to send their children to private schools tend to be richer than those who can't afford them either way.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 2:21:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:16:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 5:00:45 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:55:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/16/2011 4:53:26 PM, CrzyDrumlineChic wrote:
I don't really understand why Obama said in his State of the Union Speech that he would like to increase funding for science programs to generate scientists, doctors, etc in the future, yet he has chosen that it would be in "Americas best interest" to budget cut schools. It doesn't make any sense. To me at least.

He doesn't "want" to budget cut schools, but he knows that cuts have to be made. Kind of like, I don't "want" to spend less money on my wife's happiness, but I haven't won the lottery.

If there is anywhere that funding should be cut in the American government, it's not the educational system.

Waste should be cut from everywhere though. Whether it is waste in the education system or the military or social benefits programs, that should be cut.

I think every program should be gone through and looked at as "how can we offer the same level of service for less," before looking at cutting the service level of any program.

But that is me.

agree with this (for the most part). weird.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 2:41:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 1:54:05 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

The evaluation of writing style is purely subjective; my grammar is impeccable, as will soon be demonstrated by your failure to provide counterexamples. I didn't once, in the school voucher clause, use the words "take" or "poor", much less as part of the reverse Robin Hood story you accuse me of telling. I did mention giving to the rich, which is exactly what school vouchers do: those who already have children in private schools, whom the vast majority of vouchers go to, tend to be richer than those who don't; those for whom school vouchers are critical to the decision to send their children to private schools tend to be richer than those who can't afford them either way.

If the Government finally had to be responsible by providing school for all people, things would probably be in better shape. Public schools were never meant to be the same as "schools for the poor". It was supposed to be for everyone, rich or poor and let the progressive tax rate sort out the class war. As the system stands now, a public school is rewarded for failing. If they can get less students and maintain near the same budget funding levels, where do you think the money goes? If the government was FORCED (could you believe a democratic public could actually force a government?) to pay for all children no matter what, there would be alot less shuffling of the government funds to bureaucrats and administrators, especially if the parents had the power to vote them out with their voucher dollars.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 4:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 2:41:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/18/2011 1:54:05 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

The evaluation of writing style is purely subjective; my grammar is impeccable, as will soon be demonstrated by your failure to provide counterexamples. I didn't once, in the school voucher clause, use the words "take" or "poor", much less as part of the reverse Robin Hood story you accuse me of telling. I did mention giving to the rich, which is exactly what school vouchers do: those who already have children in private schools, whom the vast majority of vouchers go to, tend to be richer than those who don't; those for whom school vouchers are critical to the decision to send their children to private schools tend to be richer than those who can't afford them either way.

If the Government finally had to be responsible by providing school for all people, things would probably be in better shape. Public schools were never meant to be the same as "schools for the poor". It was supposed to be for everyone, rich or poor and let the progressive tax rate sort out the class war. As the system stands now, a public school is rewarded for failing. If they can get less students and maintain near the same budget funding levels, where do you think the money goes? If the government was FORCED (could you believe a democratic public could actually force a government?) to pay for all children no matter what, there would be alot less shuffling of the government funds to bureaucrats and administrators, especially if the parents had the power to vote them out with their voucher dollars.

That would be an inefficient production of "votes" because, to reiterate, most of the few for whom vouchers make private schools affordable will put their kids in private schools anyway. As you say, public schools are supposed to be schools for all, which means they simply can't compete for rich people's voucher dollars with schools that cater specifically to the rich. So, whereas all of the money vouchers rob from the public school system reduces funds, only a fraction of it incentivizes efficiency. It's simply impossible to make a voucher program work in an unegalitarian system like ours if it doesn't needs-test.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 4:09:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You mean to say there is no way a mismanaged school can exist in a voucher system where rich, educated, and productive people can hold them accountable. I agree with you tomb.
flames
Posts: 69
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:18:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
they need to cut spending on liability's

and increase spending on investing in their economy

military has this huge budget but failed in iraq and afghanistan

talibon budget is less then a billion
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 1:41:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:18:54 PM, flames wrote:
they need to cut spending on liability's

and increase spending on investing in their economy

military has this huge budget but failed in iraq and afghanistan

talibon budget is less then a billion
America has military bases in almost every country, that's whats costing them, rent.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 5:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 4:09:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You mean to say there is no way a mismanaged school can exist in a voucher system where rich, educated, and productive people can hold them accountable. I agree with you tomb.

How do you expect a well-managed public school to compete with a well-managed private school? The public school has an obligation to give the same quality education to poor students; the private school can and does save money by excluding them. As my signature suggests, I'm no fan of public schools, but that's because of the same libertarian instinct that compels me to oppose taxpayer subsidization of schools especially for the rich and the religious (vouchers).
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.