"DTJ" <nospaming@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:2lpsfv8mbktp3v1p8osbqhcrv31ekvu6fg@4ax.com... On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 01:01:11 GMT, "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:Not at all. Fiscal restraint is an essential part of good management.
Buta blind "cut taxes" that doesn't understand that this means cuts inessential services is just as silly as a "party" mentality that says
"let's No it is not. Government provides significantly more than essential services. In my village, for example, the schools tax us 10 times as much as the village, but the village provides far more service to us than the schools. The schools waste money on **** that has no place in education. In the meantime, the village should be taxing us more to provide more police (growing town) but are afraid to be labeled as taxing too much. Everywhere is different, but most government in the US taxes way too high to provide services that get them votes.

"The schools waste money on s......" Maybe we need more school taxes so we
can get better education and can hold a discussion without resorting to
arguments like this.

I will never claim that schools, governments, businesses, my wife, or I
never waste money. But by and large, I think we all do a pretty good job.
Where is school money wasted? In teaching art? So our children can get some
enjoyment out of life? And learn our culture? In teaching the handicapped?
So they can learn to do as much as they're capable of? In buying books?
Computers? In paying teachers a decent wage? So we don't have to settle
for "them's that can't (that teach)?"

If the population of your village is growing, you need to be building more
classrooms, and stocking them with equipment and hiring additional teachers
(yes, and administrative staff to supervise them.) Otherwise you'll
suddenly find yourself with too many kids, too few facilities and
overcrowded classrooms; discipline problems and falling property values (try
to sell a suburban house in an area with poor schools!).

Don't tolerate waste! But don't be short-sighted in your thinking. Today's
student is the doctor who will care for you in your retirement. Train him
well.

Paul R

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:18:48 GMT, "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please>
wrote:
No it is not. Government provides significantly more than essential services. In my village, for example, the schools tax us 10 times as much as the village, but the village provides far more service to us than the schools. The schools waste money on **** that has no place in education. In the meantime, the village should be taxing us more to provide more police (growing town) but are afraid to be labeled as taxing too much. Everywhere is different, but most government in the US taxes way too high to provide services that get them votes."The schools waste money on s......" Maybe we need more school taxes so wecan get better education and can hold a discussion without resorting toarguments like this.

You have a problem with ****?
I will never claim that schools, governments, businesses, my wife, or Inever waste money. But by and large, I think we all do a pretty good job.

uh huh...
Where is school money wasted? In teaching art? So our children can get some

Not here.
enjoyment out of life? And learn our culture?

Not here.
In teaching the handicapped?

Not here.
So they can learn to do as much as they're capable of?

Not here.
In buying books?

Not here.
Computers?

Yes. We have more computers than students. We have a full system
wide network which allows kindergarten children to browse files on
servers at the high school. We have a network admin who just happens
to get paid more than $100,000 per year because she is married to one
of the superintendents. We have a superintendent who gets paid
$125,000 per year for less than 4000 students, even though Paul Vallas
who worked in Chicago was paid $150,000 for 4000 SCHOOLS.
In paying teachers a decent wage? So we don't have to settlefor "them's that can't (that teach)?"

Not here. Teachers get a starting wage of about $20,000, and average
less than $35,000. The janitors had to strike to get a raise from
minimum wage to about $7 per hour. In the meantime, the washrooms
were not cleaned, the kitchen was so bad I called the health
department and had them shut down.
If the population of your village is growing, you need to be building moreclassrooms, and stocking them with equipment and hiring additional teachers

Correct. I have no issue with any of these suggestions.
(yes, and administrative staff to supervise them.) Otherwise you'll

Incorrect. We have too many people getting paid too much for doing
too little already.
suddenly find yourself with too many kids, too few facilities andovercrowded classrooms; discipline problems and falling property values (tryto sell a suburban house in an area with poor schools!).

Agreed.
Don't tolerate waste! But don't be short-sighted in your thinking. Today'sstudent is the doctor who will care for you in your retirement. Train himwell.

Agreed.
Paul R

Had I given more examples I am sure you would see where the issues
lie.

One other note of interest. Our schools do not teach children to read
any longer. You see, kindergartners no longer need to open a book to
learn to read. They use solely computers.

I am a computer professional. I support technology in schools. I see
no reason why a 5 year old should be taught for 6 hours a day on a
device that causes near sightedness. No child in school under the age
of 18 should spend more than 2 hours a day in school on a computer.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:42:53 GMT, "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please>
wrote:
Had I given more examples I am sure you would see where the issues lie. One other note of interest. Our schools do not teach children to read any longer. You see, kindergartners no longer need to open a book to learn to read. They use solely computers. I am a computer professional. I support technology in schools. I see no reason why a 5 year old should be taught for 6 hours a day on a device that causes near sightedness. No child in school under the age of 18 should spend more than 2 hours a day in school on a computer.Obviously, your school district has serious problems. I suppose I could bea wise guy and suggest that the proper solution is to run for school board.If you're elected, you have a chance to do something about it. That's howour system is supposed to work. When we (me too) are just too lazy to dowhat we should do, we really compromise our right to complain about theresults.

More assumptions... Not the best way to discuss something. I do note
that you state "could...suggest that you run...".

Our school board had 7 people on it 2+ years ago. 3 lost in elections
2 years ago, 3 more this election, and the only one left is the board
president.

Why do I have to run? What if I think other qualified people are
running, and I don't want to take the chance of causing their defeat?
One seriously qualified individual lost by 2 votes 2 years ago.
Fortunately the person who beat him is also qualified.
What I was getting at, though, is there seems to be an idea "out there" thatif we starve the government, that'll make it more responsive. I don't seewhy. It seems to me that the graft and corruption will be the last thingsto disappear. First we'll lose the services we need. Then we'll lose whatwe want. Only after that will we see any cuts in corruption.

I agree. But the alternative is to allow them to waste MY money.
Unacceptable. If a few programs get cut, so be it. Eventually voters
will kick the idiots out, and we can try with the next group.

A school district near me is pissed that the voters turned down a huge
tax increase last election. They canceled every after school
activity. The failed increase is less than 10% of what they cut. Why
did they cut everything? To piss off parents so next time they get
their way.

Who wants to bet they aren't there next election...
I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did. What I do know is that thecurrent "cut taxes and starve the beast" approach won't work. It'll destroyour society but won't solve the problems.

Unfortunately the other way, continue to tax and spend, has failed
miserably, and cost millions of Americans the ability to live in
decent housing.

So I believe cutting taxes and spending is the best approach.
Consider the huge amounts ofcontributions that the current US administration is raising right now.Someone's paying this bill. Think it's out of the goodness of their hearts?These are pure and simple bribes and I think we'd agree that "The Piper WILLbe Paid."

So was all the money the dems got, except the republican money comes
from small donors, while dems get it from larger corporations. There
is plenty of information on this subject if you choose to find it. I
hate our system where money buys votes, but the SCOTUS just struck
down another attempt to limit the largesse.
Alas, this is the wrong ng for this discussion. Why don't you take thefinal shot and we'll drop it.

Good point, but I now have to ask, what was the OP really about?