|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ScavengerType]
#14129793 - 03/16/11 09:47 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
iThink said: The biggest flaw here is that these are public unions. Instead of two private entities with the same goal (profit for themselves), it is the teachers fighting for profit, and yet they elect those who they bargain with. Also, the politicians have no immediate financial/personal risk by making poor/horrible business decisions, so they don't hesitate to do what "looks" best or increases their chances of re-election.
This is a ridiculous notion, like all the teachers are voting the nations politicians in and out to get a raise, are you realy making these claims in all seriousness? In reality it is the wealthy private sector who is tipping the scales in elections to secure their pay raises (tax cuts).
There is nothing the least bit ridiculous about his 100% accurate assessment of the situation. A tax cut isn't a pay raise. If I rob you for several years and then stop taking so much is that a pay raise for you? No it is not. Who pays almost all the taxes already? Hint, it isn't the losers.Quote:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
Smackshadow said: Yes we do, government employees work for their money like everyone else and they should be able to keep it. The state paying someone a salary for a job is not taking other peoples money.
Yes it is. Every dollar the state pays an employee is a dollar they took from other people.
The same could be said for the private sector.
No it can't. There is an element of compulsion lacking. Nobody forces you to buy something from a private company (once the Supreme Court smacks that dumbass ObamaCare shit down).
--------------------
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure



Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 4 days
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14129913 - 03/16/11 10:17 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
No it can't. There is an element of compulsion lacking. Nobody forces you to buy something from a private company (once the Supreme Court smacks that dumbass ObamaCare shit down).
Interesting. I could have sworn they made me buy car insurance from a private company or lose my drivers license and car tags. 
Of course collective bargaining is OK if your union supports the republican party. That's why in Wisconsin, the State Troopers got to keep their collective bargaining, while those belonging to unions who endorsed Democrats lost theirs. No dirty tricks there, obviously.  RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#14129989 - 03/16/11 10:38 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I could have sworn they made me buy car insurance from a private company or lose my drivers license and car tags.
Thats still a choice. The thread of losing your tags and ability to drive is not the same as violent threats against your freedom and life.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#14130105 - 03/16/11 11:03 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
No it can't. There is an element of compulsion lacking. Nobody forces you to buy something from a private company (once the Supreme Court smacks that dumbass ObamaCare shit down).
Interesting. I could have sworn they made me buy car insurance from a private company or lose my drivers license and car tags. 
Nobody made you buy a car. Quote:
Of course collective bargaining is OK if your union supports the republican party. That's why in Wisconsin, the State Troopers got to keep their collective bargaining, while those belonging to unions who endorsed Democrats lost theirs. No dirty tricks there, obviously.  RR
Which union supported the Republican party?
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wisconsin-police-and-firefighters-didnt-endorse-walker/
Quote:
Among the many problems when a local debate goes national is that outsiders have little knowledge of the background facts and frequently labor under grossly mistaken ideas.
For example, in the Wisconsin showdown, most of us have been laboring under the notion that Republican Governor Scott Walker exempted police and firefighters from his plan to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees because they endorsed him for election whereas the teachers’ unions and others backed his Democratic opponent.
It turns out that this is completely untrue. Walker tells CBS News’ Chris Wragge:
There are 314 fire and police unions in the state. Four of them endorsed me. All the rest endorsed my opponent.
NewsBusters’ Noel Sheppard has an impressive roundup of newspaper headlines and other proof for those not inclined to take Walker’s word for it.
And it makes sense, once you get past the erroneous factoid that got us on the wrong track to begin with. After all, despite being exempted from the change in the law, firefighters and cops have been marching in solidarity with their union brethren.
Although he has exempted them it most certainly isn't due to their endorsement. Facts are, as ever, your enemy, Roger.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: RogerRabbit]
#14130233 - 03/16/11 11:34 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
No it can't. There is an element of compulsion lacking. Nobody forces you to buy something from a private company (once the Supreme Court smacks that dumbass ObamaCare shit down).
Interesting. I could have sworn they made me buy car insurance from a private company or lose my drivers license and car tags. 
Of course collective bargaining is OK if your union supports the republican party. That's why in Wisconsin, the State Troopers got to keep their collective bargaining, while those belonging to unions who endorsed Democrats lost theirs. No dirty tricks there, obviously.  RR
You chose to buy a car. You choose which company to buy insurance from. No-one else is forced to pay for your insurance.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14130244 - 03/16/11 11:36 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Facts are, as ever, your enemy, Roger.
The more things change...
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: DieCommie]
#14131154 - 03/16/11 01:53 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Yes it is. Every dollar the state pays an employee is a dollar they took from other people.
The same could be said for the private sector.
I dont think so. Tax money is collected at the point of a gun, under the threat of prison or death. That is very much 'taking'. The private sector generally collects income voluntarily, one chooses to give them money or not for particular goods or services.
There must be something wrong with your tax collection system then because I receive what is called a payroll deduction where it is taken off my income automatically. Not unlike the automatic payment options for paying rent/mortgage.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ScavengerType]
#14131167 - 03/16/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, and if you dont get it deducted and dont pay the balance at the end people with guns will hunt you down and either lock you in a cage or kill you. McDonalds doesnt do this.
|
ScavengerType


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: DieCommie]
#14131171 - 03/16/11 01:55 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
I could have sworn they made me buy car insurance from a private company or lose my drivers license and car tags.
Thats still a choice. The thread of losing your tags and ability to drive is not the same as violent threats against your freedom and life.
It defiantly will affect your income more than a tax for the majority of people.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ScavengerType]
#14131189 - 03/16/11 01:57 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Yes it is. Every dollar the state pays an employee is a dollar they took from other people.
The same could be said for the private sector.
I dont think so. Tax money is collected at the point of a gun, under the threat of prison or death. That is very much 'taking'. The private sector generally collects income voluntarily, one chooses to give them money or not for particular goods or services.
There must be something wrong with your tax collection system then because I receive what is called a payroll deduction where it is taken off my income automatically. Not unlike the automatic payment options for paying rent/mortgage.
That isn't the private sector extracting your money for taxes. It is the government putting a gun to the head of your employer and forcing him to extract your money. It is very much unlike those automatic deductions. Nobody is forcing you to do it. That's why they are called, wait for it, "OPTIONS"?
--------------------
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 20 days, 17 hours
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14132536 - 03/16/11 05:58 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I found where we disagree. I don't believe that taxes are theft. Therefore government has an unqualified ownership interest in the funds they collect. When they spend those funds they have an right to do so. And when they pay people for selling their time to the government under a reasonably negotiated contract then that is just.
However what I still don't understand is that in no way are taxes actual theft. The government is constitutionally allowed to collect taxes. Even if I am wrong about taxes not being theft, at most it is 'ethically' theft compared to an 'actual' theft.
Also, even if taxes were actual theft, the fact is that teachers and government employees in fact sell their time to the government. They have a contract with the government, fulfill their obligations under that contract, and therefore deserve to be paid. If the government didn't pay them, then that would in fact be actual theft against teachers.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ScavengerType]
#14132662 - 03/16/11 06:19 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
ChuangTzu said:
Quote:
Smackshadow said: Yes we do, government employees work for their money like everyone else and they should be able to keep it. The state paying someone a salary for a job is not taking other peoples money.
Yes it is. Every dollar the state pays an employee is a dollar they took from other people.
The same could be said for the private sector.
Not in the same sense. The state takes money from people to pay salaries. People give money to companies that they use to pay salaries. The state has coercive power to do its bidding, the private sector only has persuasive power. Totally different animals. You don't get that?
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14132705 - 03/16/11 06:26 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Smackshadow said: I found where we disagree. I don't believe that taxes are theft. Therefore government has an unqualified ownership interest in the funds they collect. When they spend those funds they have an right to do so. And when they pay people for selling their time to the government under a reasonably negotiated contract then that is just.
However what I still don't understand is that in no way are taxes actual theft. The government is constitutionally allowed to collect taxes. Even if I am wrong about taxes not being theft, at most it is 'ethically' theft compared to an 'actual' theft.
Also, even if taxes were actual theft, the fact is that teachers and government employees in fact sell their time to the government. They have a contract with the government, fulfill their obligations under that contract, and therefore deserve to be paid. If the government didn't pay them, then that would in fact be actual theft against teachers.
It has nothing to do with theft. The point is that tax payers are paying every person on the government payroll. Whatever you want to call it when the government coercively takes your property under threat of violence is kind of moot.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14132778 - 03/16/11 06:40 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Yes it is. Every dollar the state pays an employee is a dollar they took from other people.
The same could be said for the private sector.
I dont think so. Tax money is collected at the point of a gun, under the threat of prison or death. That is very much 'taking'. The private sector generally collects income voluntarily, one chooses to give them money or not for particular goods or services.
There must be something wrong with your tax collection system then because I receive what is called a payroll deduction where it is taken off my income automatically. Not unlike the automatic payment options for paying rent/mortgage.
What does that have to do with anything? If they take the money while it's under someone else's control then this somehow invalidates diecommie's description of it as being at the point of a gun and involuntarily? If I rob your bank and take your stuff, then that wasn't an involuntar violent seizure because the wealth was in someone else's control at the time? I'm struggling to understand what logic you could be invoking here.
Quote:
Smackshadow said: I found where we disagree. I don't believe that taxes are theft. Therefore government has an unqualified ownership interest in the funds they collect. When they spend those funds they have an right to do so. And when they pay people for selling their time to the government under a reasonably negotiated contract then that is just.
What does this have to do with anything? Nobody claimed the government's spending of money is theft. They claimed the government's taking of money is akin to theft.
Quote:
However what I still don't understand is that in no way are taxes actual theft. The government is constitutionally allowed to collect taxes. Even if I am wrong about taxes not being theft, at most it is 'ethically' theft compared to an 'actual' theft.
Yeah, I think people are using theft as a metaphor for coercive, violent, requisition. Call it what you want. The point is that there is no moral difference between acts commited by a government and an act commited by a person.
Quote:
Also, even if taxes were actual theft, the fact is that teachers and government employees in fact sell their time to the government. They have a contract with the government, fulfill their obligations under that contract, and therefore deserve to be paid.
So what? I may have a contract with you, how does that allow me to steal from the bank to satisfy it? Even if you understood that the money I was satisfying our contract from would be taken from the bank violently, it doesn't somehow justify the seizure. A debt between parties does not encumber people not a party to the transaction.
Quote:
If the government didn't pay them, then that would in fact be actual theft against teachers.
a) so what? That's not what we're talking about, but even if we switch to this topic, it in no way encumbers a third party's assets, i.e. the taxpayer. b) this situation is not theft. Theft requires wrongful aquisition of goods, generally. Labor given pursuant to a contract that is not satisfied is simply a breach of the contract. This does not per se constitute theft under the common law system.
Quote:
HippieChick8 said: zappaisgod said:Quote:
OK. Let's fire them all. Do you realize you have JUST MADE MY POINT that there is no reason to pay teachers more money and every reason to pay them shit?
Teachers are still needed to monitor and discipline the children with behavior problems while trying to inspire the whole class to learn. It's not an easy job. In my school district, they're not allowed to suspend or remove unruly kids from the classroom unless they are physically violent, and I hear it's a problem nationwide as well. Why not cut administrator's salaries?
Why do we need teacher to monitor and discipline children with behavioral problems? I still remember all the stupid crap I went through in grade school: it was dumb.
How about we have schools for learning and leave out the part about "inspiring" and "discipline" and "monitor"? At least after elementary school or so, can we just let the kids learn and not have a whole apparatus that resembles daycare more than education?
And inspiration- bleh. What are the rest of the kids supposed to do while the teacher is "inspiring" someone? I'm pretty sure I would have done a bit better in school if it would have focused and graded on learning, rather than discipline and stupid "inspiration" nonsense preparing me for a "real world" that didn't exist. (I can still remember the threats of how college would be so much worse, only to see it all be nonsense).
Throughout school I was graded on things like whether I had recorded the teachers examples of crap we had allready learned, done pointless excercises about stuff we allready knew, and marked down for falling asleep or "because we expect more from you".
Thanks, but lets run an educational facility, and if anything, at least make the disciplinary, psychological, and inspirational facilities opptional and seperate so kids aren't wasting their time daydreaming while learning nothing.
|
Smackshadow
It's Time for Wild Speculation


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 575
Last seen: 20 days, 17 hours
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: johnm214]
#14132921 - 03/16/11 07:06 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that there is no moral difference between acts commited by a government and an act commited by a person.
The point is that taxation is a legitimate thing, people do not have a constitutional right to tax, but governments do.
The argument as I read it was that it is improper to value union labor highly, as the money paid to them is 'theft' (their word not mine). However, it isn't theft, actually or imo ethically or morally.
-------------------- The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ~H. L. Mencken~
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14133108 - 03/16/11 07:34 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Here's where the idea of theft comes in. When both sides of the negotiating table represent only one interest and the actual people paying the bill get none then the individuals who are supposed to be representing the bill paying people (and being paid to do so) are only representing some of the people and giving them favors in return for political support. That has a lot of names. One of them is fraud. Fraud is theft.
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Smackshadow]
#14133389 - 03/16/11 08:21 PM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Here's where the idea of theft comes in. When both sides of the negotiating table represent only one interest and the actual people paying the bill get none then the individuals who are supposed to be representing the bill paying people (and being paid to do so) are only representing some of the people and giving them favors in return for political support.
What does this have to do with unions? So far as I can see, there's no categorical difference here between union and nonunion employees in this regard. I fail to see how the people of the state aren't represented, they're democratically elected representitives make the law, generally.
The problems here seem common to all government employment which is one of several good reasons disfavoring such. I think the fascist states and communist states alike have illustrated the pitfalls of government entanglements with buisness.
Quote:
That has a lot of names. One of them is fraud. Fraud is theft.
No, fraud required intentional misrepresentation, generally, in bad faith. Someone giving teh states money to a union who supports him politically isn't fraud: it just sucks. The same problem exists when hiring individual employees and in all of government's functions.
Either way, I think its plainly a bad idea and an infringment on economic and first amendment rights to limit who can join a union and so forth, whether or not they are public sector or not. To the extent any legislations restrict this right, it is bad policy.
Quote:
Smackshadow said:
Quote:
The point is that there is no moral difference between acts commited by a government and an act commited by a person.
The point is that taxation is a legitimate thing, people do not have a constitutional right to tax, but governments do. Quote:
? I fail to understand how you derive that from my discussion. You seem to just make a bare decleration that the point of my statement is something else with no justification.
Why is that the point? What is incorrect about my reasoning and conclusion?
Additionally, please explain what "tax" is in your statement and how it is legitimate. I'm inerested in what this concept that is per se legitimate is, and what bounds it has. Seems to me a sweeping generalization that is unlikely to be correct.
Finally, please explain how the constitution has anything to do with the legitimacy of tax- however you define it? That particular powers excercised may not be so wrong as to violate the bounds permitted by our constitution does not mean that they are thereby wise, legitimate, or legal.
Quote:
The argument as I read it was that it is improper to value union labor highly, as the money paid to them is 'theft' (their word not mine). However, it isn't theft, actually or imo ethically or morally.
Please explain how you derive this argument from that stated here: I certainly don't recognize it.
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: johnm214]
#14135656 - 03/17/11 08:12 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
johnm said:Quote:
Why do we need teacher to monitor and discipline children with behavioral problems? I still remember all the stupid crap I went through in grade school: it was dumb.
How about we have schools for learning and leave out the part about "inspiring" and "discipline" and "monitor"? At least after elementary school or so, can we just let the kids learn and not have a whole apparatus that resembles daycare more than education?
And inspiration- bleh. What are the rest of the kids supposed to do while the teacher is "inspiring" someone? I'm pretty sure I would have done a bit better in school if it would have focused and graded on learning, rather than discipline and stupid "inspiration" nonsense preparing me for a "real world" that didn't exist. (I can still remember the threats of how college would be so much worse, only to see it all be nonsense).
Throughout school I was graded on things like whether I had recorded the teachers examples of crap we had allready learned, done pointless excercises about stuff we allready knew, and marked down for falling asleep or "because we expect more from you".
You are actually agreeing with me. I don't think teachers should have to constantly discipine the children with behavior problems, (kick them out) act as a psychologist and social worker, or have inspire the unmotivated student. But in my school district, they are expected to do all these things.
Teachers are expected to go above and beyond teaching the basics, so naturally they want to be compensated for this effort. I have a friend who is a teacher to mostly poor hispanic students, and has to write a bureaucratic report on each child called an Individualized Education Program. From Wikipedia: The IEP should describe how the student learns, how the student best demonstrates that learning and what teachers and service providers will do to help the student learn more effectively. Key considerations in developing an IEP include assessing students in all areas related to the known disabilities, simultaneously considering ability to access the general curriculum, considering how the disability affects the student’s learning, developing goals and objectives that correspond to the needs of the student, and ultimately choosing a placement in the least restrictive environment possible for the student.
I'm probably getting way off topic now, but do you know the U.S. spends 10 times as much money to educate the mentally retarded as they spend to educate the gifted? I saw that in an article in Newsweek a few years ago.
|
snitchelpowerz37
broke


Registered: 08/10/09
Posts: 251
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: HippieChick8]
#14135844 - 03/17/11 09:16 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I am taking an education policy/philosophy class in school right now and it has been pretty helpful into opening my eyes as to what many of the problems are in public schools today as well as offering potential solutions. I will agree with the posters saying that taxpayers shouldn't be spending more taxes for teachers salaries if the extra money isn't doing anything to improve the education of the students. More money being spent on education doesn't automatically mean improved education if the methods being used to teach are ineffective,
As to what the previous poster was talking about, any form of authoritarianism has no place in school. Education should be looking at students individually, realizing their interests and culture, and teaching them in ways that they are able to come to their own conclusions about the world. This is not necessarily the case however, due to the capitalism imperative that calls for dumb people with no critical thinking skills to fill in the lower class working gap.
"Dewey believed that his contemporaries should recognize the importance of developing individuals who were citizen-workers; persons who were societally aware, civic minded, culturally aware, and politically empowered in ways that made it possible to maintain their citizen rights when entering paid labor sites. For Dewey, work must be educative, meaningful, nonexploitative, and an extension of our central human roles as meaning makers."
We should be teaching our students how to operate in a truly democratic community, which is unfortunately impossible on a nationwide scale because the capitalistic forces simply dominate it.
"Some of the forces that prevented the development of a democratic community...were...the unanswerability to public and democratic needs and wishes by private power centers, especially corporations, governments that are more answerable to capitalism and the logic of profit than to the democratic logic of human rights, class stratification, misinformation, and especially the failure to democratize both the scientific method and the technology resulting from it."
Quote:
"I'm probably getting way off topic now, but do you know the U.S. spends 10 times as much money to educate the mentally retarded as they spend to educate the gifted? I saw that in an article in Newsweek a few years ago.
^^This quote fits the 2nd quote I posted perfectly
If you are interested in learning more read about John Dewey, progressivism, and pragmatism."
Sorry if off topic, just felt like adding some things that I feel are quite interesting and have been relevant to my studies.
Edited by snitchelpowerz37 (03/17/11 09:21 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: HippieChick8]
#14136140 - 03/17/11 10:50 AM (12 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HippieChick8 said: I'm probably getting way off topic now, but do you know the U.S. spends 10 times as much money to educate the mentally retarded as they spend to educate the gifted? I saw that in an article in Newsweek a few years ago.
Ass-backwards priorities.
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
|