• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Romney: We have too many teachers, cops, and firemen. Fire them!

Then of course you can be like Michigan and go to more part time cops. Saves a lot on benefits. Of course if you are like my cousin and get hit by a drunk child molester on your way home you are kind of out of luck. But who cares about single mothers anyway.
 
The Romney campaign is now trying to paint Obama as a flip-flopper on this issue, claiming that the President actually supported the same thing Romney does - the shrinking of state and local governments.

Unfortunately, the only way they could do this was by cutting out the bits of what Obama said which show that his position has actually been the same all along, and has always been the opposite of the position that Romney is now trying to justify.
 
WildCat said:
California in particular votes down every single tax increase while demanding more and more government services. Why should the rest of the country have to pay for California services the voters of California refuse to pay for?
Click to expand...

California contributes more than its share in federal taxes and gets less than its share in federal programs, contracts and aid. ($.78 returned for every dollar contributed). The real irony is that 16 of the 20 "Welfare Queen" states -- those that take more than they give -- are Republican.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So we are seeing arguments for why teachers should be underpaid.
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, I did not.

What I said was that increasing salaries may not improve quality. It doesn't follow that one should decrease salaries. Furthermore, how exactly do you determine whether or not teachers are underpaid? If one concludes that they should not be underpaid, does it follow that the should be overpaid?

In short, your response is a content-free straw man. Now go away.
 
Ziggurat said:
What I said was that increasing salaries may not improve quality. It doesn't follow that one should decrease salaries. Furthermore, how exactly do you determine whether or not teachers are underpaid? If one concludes that they should not be underpaid, does it follow that the should be overpaid?
Click to expand...

We could always do what this Republican State Senator in my very own state recommends when it comes to setting teachers' salaries: do what God says to do about it in the Bible.
 
ANTPogo said:
We could always do what this Republican State Senator in my very own state recommends when it comes to setting teachers' salaries: do what God says to do about it in the Bible.
Click to expand...

These guys are all for biblical prescriptions until it costs them even a dime.

If there had been a Jesus corresponding to the Gospels, he would not be happy with them in the slightest. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, according to the fictional Jesus.
 
BenBurch said:
These guys are all for biblical prescriptions until it costs them even a dime.
Click to expand...

Note in the article where Senator Shadrach McGill (which, to be fair, is a pretty awesome name), R-Woodville, made his comments about Biblically-mandated low salaries for teachers shortly after defending a 62% pay increase for himself and his fellow state legislators.
 
Is he wrong? If so, make the argument. I agree 100% with the sentiment. Hiring more teachers, cops and firemen just because you think it's a good way to stimulate the economy doesn't make any damn sense at all. It's just more of the feel-good "Hope and Change," BS that Obama is known for.

If the case can be made that more cops, teachers and firemen are needed then that's one thing. But Obama seems to advocate hiring just for the sake of hiring and I strongly agree with Romney that this is a bad idea.
 
maxpower1227 said:
Brainster said:
...The number of public school teachers has grown quite substantially over the last 20 years and is projected to continue growing.
Click to expand...
Kinda like the overall population, right?
Click to expand...
No. According to NCES, the public sector student/teacher ratio fell from 26.9:1 in 1955 to 15.6:1 in 2008 (the last year for which the 2010 Digest of Education Statistics had complete figures). If school-age population as a fraction of total population has remained constant this means that the growth of the K-12 workforce has exceeded population growth. And this does not count non-instructional staff (janitors, cooks, administrators, school nurses, etc.).

In abstract, the education industry is an unlikely candidate for State (government, generally) operation. Beyond a very low level, there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. Education only marginally qualifies as a public good, as economists use the term, and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an industry.

People would not complain if schools delivered valuable education, but increasing costs do not buy improved performance.
 
When the Station Fire burned much of the Angeles National Forest, professional firefighters stopped the blaze 9/10 of a mile from our neighborhood. We also have great Sheriff's station here in Altadena. They do a good job with just three squad cars at their disposal.

Considering California's budget woes, I don't think either the state or the county has over indulged in the hiring of either firefighters or deputies. I also don't see it as terrible for federal monies to be allocated to the states to keep up the numbers of law enforcement officers, firefighters or teachers.
 
BenBurch said:
That.
Click to expand...
Only if you suppose that the good guys will prevail and have access to divine inspiration. Federalism ("State's rights") and markets institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors. If a policy difference turns on a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets allow for the expression of varied tastes, while the contest for control over a State-monopoly enterprise must inevitably create unhappy losers (who may comprise the vast majority; imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear). If a policy difference turns on a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services will generate more information than will a State-monopoly enterprise. A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design. This applies to anti-corruption policy as well as to shoes and education services.
 
Skepticemea said:
Of course, the entire population of California can't move to, say, Texas but the ones able to afford to up sticks and move will. Also, those with the right skills will be able to get jobs. Those who can't, well... you can't help everyone, right? The rump-state might not be able to afford schools or police or fire fighters but, hey, life's tough.
Click to expand...
The people of California vote, and they vote for no tax increases time and time again. How are they not responsible for their own predicament?
 
Travis said:
Before the recession California was able to pay for its schools. Other areas of the state government were completely screwed over by incompetence but the schools were always paid for.

And while I voted against the cigarette tax last November I voted for a local property tax increase because it was specifically for schools. It did pass.
Click to expand...
Before the recession California was running debt into the billions and underfunding pensions by tens of billions. All the recession did was speed the bus towards the cliff a little faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom