Despite the Ass-kissing, Stimulus Plan Passes Without a Single Republican Vote

Superfreak said:
If you truly want to critique what I wrote, how about you explain what part of it you disagree with. Then we might actually be able to have a conversation on the topic rather than having to read your pathetic attempts to insult me.
Click to expand...


OK. Since you cannot think things through I'll do the work for you in simplified form. Let's say you have a school building that costs $100. Let's also say that you have 100 students. Let's say that you are funded $1 per student. Great, you have enough for the building. Now lets say you lose 10 students and the $10 that goes along with them. Does your costs for the building follow the student? Does the building now cost $90? Of course not.

Let's say in this school you have five classes of 20. Let's assume again that you lose 10 students, 2 in each class, and any funding that goes along with them. Do your teacher costs go down? Of course not.

How about buses? Administrators? Janitors? Etc. . . See what I'm saying here? Fixed costs v. variable costs?
 
Dungheap said:
OK. Since you cannot think things through I'll do the work for you in simplified form. Let's say you have a school building that costs $100. Let's also say that you have 100 students. Let's say that you are funded $1 per student. Great, you have enough for the building. Now lets say you lose 10 students and the $10 that goes along with them. Does your costs for the building follow the student? Does the building now cost $90? Of course not.

Let's say in this school you have five classes of 20. Let's assume again that you lose 10 students, 2 in each class, and any funding that goes along with them. Do your teacher costs go down? Of course not.

How about buses? Administrators? Janitors? Etc. . . See what I'm saying here? Fixed costs v. variable costs?
Click to expand...

so now we know you can add and subtract, but what is it you're trying to say?
 
Dungheap said:
OK. Since you cannot think things through I'll do the work for you in simplified form. Let's say you have a school building that costs $100. Let's also say that you have 100 students. Let's say that you are funded $1 per student. Great, you have enough for the building. Now lets say you lose 10 students and the $10 that goes along with them. Does your costs for the building follow the student? Does the building now cost $90? Of course not.

Let's say in this school you have five classes of 20. Let's assume again that you lose 10 students, 2 in each class, and any funding that goes along with them. Do your teacher costs go down? Of course not.

How about buses? Administrators? Janitors? Etc. . . See what I'm saying here? Fixed costs v. variable costs?
Click to expand...


LMAO... if you want to mock someone for their inability to 'think things through' perhaps you should start by making sure you do so first. There was a seperate amount in the bill that we were talking about. The $79 billion. Not the $20 billion that was for the building/infrastructure FIXED costs that you mention. We were discussing the $79billion in spending. Spending that was designed to 'prevent layoffs' or as you put it 'keep spending levels as high as they were in 2008'.

As for staffing... if your school loses 'x' number of students who choose to go to a better school, then you adjust staffing to accomodate the lesser number of students.
 
Dungheap said:
Basically, that SF is either an idiot or dishonest. You, you're just and idiot.
Click to expand...

The only 'idiot' is you. Trying to pretend that there wasn't another portion of this bill dedicated to the building/infrastructure. Being dishonest about what we were discussing. Being a complete Obama apologist.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... if you want to mock someone for their inability to 'think things through' perhaps you should start by making sure you do so first. There was a seperate amount in the bill that we were talking about. The $79 billion. Not the $20 billion that was for the building/infrastructure FIXED costs that you mention. We were discussing the $79billion in spending. Spending that was designed to 'prevent layoffs' or as you put it 'keep spending levels as high as they were in 2008'.

As for staffing... if your school loses 'x' number of students who choose to go to a better school, then you adjust staffing to accomodate the lesser number of students.
Click to expand...


1) The $20 billion was not for general building/infrastructure. It's for renovations. Maintenance is expressly prohibited. Your simplistic per pupil spending analysis is silly.

2) "Adjusting staffing" only works if you reach a critical mass of departing students. In case you haven't heard, school overcrowding is pretty rampant.

3) Teacher and staff salaries account for 60% of spending on public schools. So even if your staff adjustments could be made there is still a 40% of funding for other non-staff costs flowing with each student that leaves a public school.
 
Onceler said:
Historical precedents are out the window w/ this crisis.

Does anyone want to try to argue that massive infrastructure investment is the "real" tonic for this, using the 1930's as an example?
Click to expand...

obama does and did, said FDR's problem was that he didn't spend enough
 
Dungheap said:
1) The $20 billion was not for general building/infrastructure. It's for renovations. Maintenance is expressly prohibited. Your simplistic per pupil spending analysis is silly.

2) "Adjusting staffing" only works if you reach a critical mass of departing students. In case you haven't heard, school overcrowding is pretty rampant.

3) Teacher and staff salaries account for 60% of spending on public schools. So even if your staff adjustments could be made there is still a 40% of funding for other non-staff costs flowing with each student that leaves a public school.
Click to expand...

1) Learn to fucking read or shut your ass. Continuing to imply I said one thing, when I clearly did not is getting old. I did not say the $20 billion was for 'maintence' you moron. I said it was for building/infrastructure. Which it is.

2) Yes, it is very simple, so simple even a person with your low intelligence should be able to comprehend it. Apparently your public school education is shining through. The government is paying the schools 'x' dollars per student. This money is taxpayers money. School vouchers simply state that the money can be allocated to the school of the parents choosing. If a school is losing too many students because of poor performance or simply out of choice, then that school loses the funding. The school then has to cut from its variable costs. Whether it be in salary reductions or through cuts to staff or something else.

3) Given that funding has continued increasing every year under Bush, you cannot say with a straight face that it cannot be cut. Other industries are doing it... the teachers can too. You don't perform, you lose money. As it should be.

4) That remaining 40% of your costs... again you are not entitled to the same spending every year regardless of performance. Period. That bullshit has gone on long enough.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Learn to fucking read or shut your ass. Continuing to imply I said one thing, when I clearly did not is getting old. I did not say the $20 billion was for 'maintence' you moron. I said it was for building/infrastructure. Which it is.

2) Yes, it is very simple, so simple even a person with your low intelligence should be able to comprehend it. Apparently your public school education is shining through. The government is paying the schools 'x' dollars per student. This money is taxpayers money. School vouchers simply state that the money can be allocated to the school of the parents choosing. If a school is losing too many students because of poor performance or simply out of choice, then that school loses the funding. The school then has to cut from its variable costs. Whether it be in salary reductions or through cuts to staff or something else.

3) Given that funding has continued increasing every year under Bush, you cannot say with a straight face that it cannot be cut. Other industries are doing it... the teachers can too. You don't perform, you lose money. As it should be.

4) That remaining 40% of your costs... again you are not entitled to the same spending every year regardless of performance. Period. That bullshit has gone on long enough.
Click to expand...


1) The $20 billion is solely for building renovations. It's not for maintenance. That was my point. There are fixed costs associated with building that the $20 billion expressly cannot be used to pay for, most specifically maintenance costs.

2) This again ignores that when you allocate funds on a per pupil basis and even if staff cuts are made there is still a 40% drop in funding since 60% of school costs are for staff salaries.

The real meat and potatoes of your argument (3 and 4 above) is that you want to cut public school funding and teacher salaries and vouchers is the mechanism that you'd like to use to do it, which is fine, but it brings us back full circle to my original question: why should cutting school funding and teacher salaries through vouchers be contained in a bill designed to maintain school funding at at least the 2008 funding levels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top