Republicans are full of shit

Derp Derp said:
You could cut it in half and we would still be spending more than the rest of the world combined does for defense.
Click to expand...

It is not a question of relative spending. It is a question of necessary spending. The excessive admin can and should be cut. Same for the Dept of Education.

Why do we need 15,000 school districts with 15,000 superintendents and staff? Just a suggestion, teachers on the board please chime in as you are far more familiar with this:

We redistrict every House seat into a square/rectangle portion of the respective states with approximately equal populations. (no safe districts)... for each district in the House (435) you get one school district. One superintendent. One staff. All records going forward are electronic if not already done so (with back ups of course) so that they are easily transferable to a new district if needed.

Take half of the savings from the elimination of the other 14500 or so districts and give it to the teachers to bump up pay in exchange for which the teachers union allows for easier firing of stale teachers who aren't performing (or getting their kids to perform). The other half is savings to the tax payer. Just a start.
 
Superfreak said:
It is not a question of relative spending. It is a question of necessary spending. The excessive admin can and should be cut. Same for the Dept of Education.

Why do we need 15,000 school districts with 15,000 superintendents and staff? Just a suggestion, teachers on the board please chime in as you are far more familiar with this:

We redistrict every House seat into a square/rectangle portion of the respective states with approximately equal populations. (no safe districts)... for each district in the House (435) you get one school district. One superintendent. One staff. All records going forward are electronic if not already done so (with back ups of course) so that they are easily transferable to a new district if needed.

Take half of the savings from the elimination of the other 14500 or so districts and give it to the teachers to bump up pay in exchange for which the teachers union allows for easier firing of stale teachers who aren't performing (or getting their kids to perform). The other half is savings to the tax payer. Just a start.
Click to expand...


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. primary and secondary education and how the schools are actually funded. I mean, if we were starting from scratch maybe you could do what you are proposing, but we aren't. The transition costs associated with your proposal would be nothing short of astronomical and the proposal is pretty much a steamy dump on state and local governments.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. primary and secondary education and how the schools are actually funded. I mean, if we were starting from scratch maybe you could do what you are proposing, but we aren't. The transition costs associated with your proposal would be nothing short of astronomical and the proposal is pretty much a steamy dump on state and local governments.
Click to expand...

Please, highlight these astronomical transition costs of shutting down offices and transferring records. also, enlighten us on how they are funded since you know so much about it. Make sure you take into account the costs associated with maintaining 15000 district offices for the next 20+ years vs. 435.

I mean obviously we can't use the district office buildings, the land etc... for any other purpose... right Dung?
 
Superfreak said:
Please, highlight these astronomical transition costs of shutting down offices and transferring records. also, enlighten us on how they are funded since you know so much about it. Make sure you take into account the costs associated with maintaining 15000 district offices for the next 20+ years vs. 435.

I mean obviously we can't use the district office buildings, the land etc... for any other purpose... right Dung?
Click to expand...


Hilarious.
 
blackascoal said:
That can also be said about democrats. They USED to be the party of peace.

Immoral and unnecessary war goes on unabatted by the change of the letter behind the president's name. The Democratic Party is every bit as warmongering as the republicans .. and the blame for that goes directly to the base itself .. democrats who should know better.
Before anyone gets too deep into how ugly the republicans are on feeding the military/industrial complex and war .. best take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how did the Democratic Party become the party of perpetual war. If you question that .. take a look at the perpetual state of war we are in today with the so-called Nobel Prize Winner for "peace" at the helm. "D" behind his name.

Iran is on the horizon.

I recognize that this is something that democrats don't even want to talk about unless it points the finger at republicans .. which is one of the reasons why I'm not a democrat.

Sorry, that's not my problem. My problem is the senseless, horrific, and unnecessary wars this country wages for profit. My problem is the lack of commitment and principle that democrats used to have .. but has now been sold out to the mindfuck of lesser evil.
Click to expand...

THIS!!

The idea that we should vote for the lesser of two evils has always driven me crazy. Out of all the brilliant people in this nation, I am always amazed at what we select to lead us.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
On, like, what issues specifically?
Click to expand...

taxation, free trade, size of fed government, supply side economics to name a few...

or you could just recite his famous phrase "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"... today's liberal base is all about 'ask me not to do anything, just tell me what 'free' stuff you are going to give me'
 
Superfreak said:
taxation, free trade, size of fed government, supply side economics to name a few...

or you could just recite his famous phrase "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"... today's liberal base is all about 'ask me not to do anything, just tell me what 'free' stuff you are going to give me'
Click to expand...

If nothing else, JFK would be fried for his many dalliances with ladies other than Jackie. You know, the issue that matters.
 
JFK's quote is basically lost on all Americans. The preferred line is now "ask not what you can do for you country; ask what your country can do for you." Essentially, his quote is interpreted as a violation of one's freedom of opportunity/choice/speech, and merely jingoistic platitude.
 
Harvey Specter said:
JFK's quote is basically lost on all Americans. The preferred line is now "ask not what you can do for you country; ask what your country can do for you." Essentially, his quote is interpreted as a violation of one's freedom of opportunity/choice/speech, and merely jingoistic platitude.
Click to expand...

By whom? Cite, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top