Big Country Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Slightly off topic, but what do you all think of this idea: Article Essentially, a couple school districts in California, where funding is based on daily attendance and if a child has a non-illness related absence the school takes a budget hit from it, have begun sending bills out to parents that pull their kids for non-illness related reasons. It is a voluntary fee. THe cost of these non-llness absences: "Elective absences," or days missed for reasons other than illness, cost the Scotts Valley district $223,000 during the 2005-06 school year, according to the school system. On average, it says, a Scotts Valley child misses 2.3 days because of elective absences. I don't know what their entire budget for the year was, but, the entire budget for the state of California is 66 billion, so if a relatively small school district is losing $223K a year from this, I am curious what the entire state is losing. One parents reaction: "I tossed it. It's a public school. I'm not going to be told to pay when I have my kids out," said Helene Handy, who received the explanatory letter three times, once for each of her children. And, on the opposite spectrum: Stan Wilson took his two children to Hawaii for a week earlier this school year. Connor, 6, and Courtney, 8, missed five days of school. When the family returned, the Wilsons received a note from the school system asking for compensation. The letter did not specify how much, but it would have totaled more than $360. Wilson happily gave even more, writing a check for $500. The tax-deductible "donation" was a bargain compared to the private school tuition he and his wife were prepared to pay before they decided to keep their children in public school, Wilson said. "We saved so much money, we decided it was fair," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Slightly off topic, but what do you all think of this idea: it's retarded I don't know what their entire budget for the year was, but, the entire budget for the state of California is 66 billion, so if a relatively small school district is losing $223K a year from this, I am curious what the entire state is losing.probably nothing (unless the federal government provides funding based upon days of school attendance (and, even if the federal government does do that, from an overall national point of view, the answer is certainly nothing)). On a related note--I'd hate to see the bills they send to people who homeschool or send their kids to private schools. (Note: I can understand why school districts in states in which annual funding is based upon average attendance during a given week would have "attendance drives" for that week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 it's retarded probably nothing (unless the federal government provides funding based upon days of school attendance (and, even if the federal government does do that, from an overall national point of view, the answer is certainly nothing)). On a related note--I'd hate to see the bills they send to people who homeschool or send their kids to private schools. (Note: I can understand why school districts in states in which annual funding is based upon average attendance during a given week would have "attendance drives" for that week In Missouri part of the state funding school districts receive is based on daily attendence. Our school rarely suspends kids because it costs our district money. We have an in-school suspension program in order to not lose those funds. It is ridiculous. My particular school has over 95% average daily attendence which is like 40% higher than a lot of inner-city schools like St. Louis and Kansas City. I pose this question to my classes every year, "Would you work harder if you were paid for your grades?" And I explain that on report card day the office would have you line up and pay you for your grades just like it was your job. 99.99% say "Heck yeah!" Though I know it is an outlandish thought it always makes me think... If a kid was acting up in class or giving me grief I could then hold his "paycheck" over his head as a way of getting him back in line. But I also think the NCAA should just go ahead and pay college athletes, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 N offense, but when you said this: That statement doesn't jib with posting an article in general. You said you knew where it was gong, and seemed to imply you had an answer that was your own, not a cut and paste job. What is your answer for scandanavian success with parts of the system? Or were you expecting a different country to be mentioned which is why you fell back on the article? Yes, semantics plays a large part here, and this article doesn't want to admit that 'communism' and even 'socialism' weren't practiced by the Soviet Union, Cuba or China. Techinically speaking, to say so is to be just as wrong as saying our government is a Democracy, which it is not - it is a Republic. I actually did expect either Finland or the Scandanavian countries to be mentioned, however, my first assumption was thinking that Finland and Co. had a large Oil reserve of their own. Obviously that was not the case, and I am not completely sure why those countries are "successful" while also under a Socialist controlled government. In either case, there is no way Socialism will work in the U.S.. At this point I can only assume you are fishing for a reaction from me, but as far as I'm concerned I've stated my point and offered a relevant article to help explain my points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 In Missouri part of the state funding school districts receive is based on daily attendence. Our school rarely suspends kids because it costs our district money. We have an in-school suspension program in order to not lose those funds. It is ridiculous. My particular school has over 95% average daily attendence which is like 40% higher than a lot of inner-city schools like St. Louis and Kansas City. I pose this question to my classes every year, "Would you work harder if you were paid for your grades?" And I explain that on report card day the office would have you line up and pay you for your grades just like it was your job. 99.99% say "Heck yeah!" Though I know it is an outlandish thought it always makes me think... If a kid was acting up in class or giving me grief I could then hold his "paycheck" over his head as a way of getting him back in line. But I also think the NCAA should just go ahead and pay college athletes, too. yah i think most schools are funded buy attendance... that is why here in the midwest snow days are hard to come buy now... it really hurts the money train... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Here is an excellent answer that will pretty much sum up several of my beliefs for why Socialism doesn't work: - I pointed out the obvious failures of socialism around the world in Cuba, Eastern Europe, and China. Maybe I'm missing something, but Cuba and Eastern Europe were COMMUNIST regimes being propped up by the USSR - socialism is usually defined as being a different stripe than communism. And China is going to rule the next century economically - though that is due to the fact it is moving from communism to a free market via a "trickle-up" method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I actually did expect either Finland or the Scandanavian countries to be mentioned, however, my first assumption was thinking that Finland and Co. had a large Oil reserve of their own. Obviously that was not the case, and I am not completely sure why those countries are "successful" while also under a Socialist controlled government. In either case, there is no way Socialism will work in the U.S.. ...so in closing, the Grunt says he doesn't know why socialism works in Finland and Denmark, but he just KNOWS it won't work here. I, for one, am convinced by this iron-clad argument. At this point I can only assume you are fishing for a reaction from me, but as far as I'm concerned I've stated my point and offered a relevant article to help explain my points. No, not really. You couldn't answer the question and linked to a semi-relevant article as to why socialism doesn't work - which doesn't refute ANYTHING about how/why the Nordic countries can be economically viable while maintaining an extensive social safety net. I don't even necessarily disagree with the main tenets of the article, I just think you're full of B.S. at this particular moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 "give up a little of your freedom and I will give you a little more security." As the experience of this century has demonstrated, the bargain is tempting but never pays off. We end up losing both our freedom and our security. Now this seems to be a relevant statement. I wonder if it applies across the board..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 ...so in closing, the Grunt says he doesn't know why socialism works in Finland and Denmark, but he just KNOWS it won't work here. I, for one, am convinced by this iron-clad argument. No, not really. You couldn't answer the question and linked to a semi-relevant article as to why socialism doesn't work - which doesn't refute ANYTHING about how/why the Nordic countries can be economically viable while maintaining an extensive social safety net. I don't even necessarily disagree with the main tenets of the article, I just think you're full of B.S. at this particular moment. One of the main arguments in the article against Socialism is the fact that it completely negates economic incentives for people. If there is no incentive to work hard then you'll get average production, if not less production out of society. If you think I'm full of B.S. then you must disagree with our economic incentives, right? I love it when people read an article and pick out some of the most unimportant details to discuss. But if you're really interested in viewing some information arguing against those countries then read this article about why the Euro area is lagging behind. If you honestly feel that I'm full of B.S., and that Socialism can work in the U.S. then you are in for a sad reality awakening: most US citizens will say the same thing I am. Socialism doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 chavez is a commie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 chavez is a commie? To be honest I'm actually just hoping they are for a reaction, because if they are serious then it shows a lot of character about them IMO. But there is a different between communism and socialism. Outside of the school I currently go to there used to be a table set up trying to promote Socialism, and it seemed like many of their arguments for socialism had to do with Bill Gates, CEO's, and other wealthy people not deserving their hard-earned money. Socialists feel that regardless of what job you work, we all deserve the same pay. Why? Because it doesn't matter what job you have or where you work, but how hard you work. So this means that a doctor who worked their as$ off and went to college for 8 or more years should NOT make more money than a high school drop-out punk working at the local Blockbuster. Socialism could very possibly be the worst idea that's ever been considered in the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Socialism could very possibly be the worst idea that's ever been considered in the United States. Could you define what you mean by "socialism" please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Could you define what you mean by "socialism" please? Lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Lazy. Gee, thanks. Could you please define what you mean by the term "Socialism"? (I would like to make some comments, but I want to have a clearly defined definition of what I will be discussing before I begin to make my comments so as to avoid all of us talking past one-another.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 What's that smell in the air, is it what I think it is? Is Grunt back at making oversimplified generalizations and concrete statements on topics in which he has limited knowledge base? Yup, warm up the backpedalling machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Gee, thanks. Could you please define what you mean by the term "Socialism"? (I would like to make some comments, but I want to have a clearly defined definition of what I will be discussing before I begin to make my comments so as to avoid all of us talking past one-another.) Well lets hear your clear definition of Socialism, and then you can continue from there. As far as I'm concerned, the Socialists that I've talked to in person have been nothing more than anti-wealth, anti-Bush, and pro-government controlling of all our assets. Using one of Socialists many large arguments, if a pro-socialist can clearly explain how the government will have better utilized Bill Gates' money then he himself did (which he also earned through innovation and hard work) I'll start paying more attention. Until then, Mr. Gates has decided to donate a major portion of his money with a goal to vaccinate every child on earth. He's also donated half a billion dollars towards AIDS research, and I'm sure the list goes on... I can't say the government would have done the same thing with his money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 What's that smell in the air, is it what I think it is? Is Grunt back at making oversimplified generalizations and concrete statements on topics in which he has limited knowledge base? Yup, warm up the backpedalling machine. Liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Gee, thanks. Could you please define what you mean by the term "Socialism"? (I would like to make some comments, but I want to have a clearly defined definition of what I will be discussing before I begin to make my comments so as to avoid all of us talking past one-another.) wiegie, you're trying to bring an intellectual bent to an emotional argument, but this may be good for the Grunt as he begins to pursue higher education to start thinking in these terms. Communism and Socialism are very clearly defined terms and carry a very specific meaning when used in various disciplines. For example: David Harvey is a well known geographer who studies what is generally known as Marxist geography. He uses the principles of Socialism/Marxism as a platform for critiqueing capitalism at a theoretical level. What constitutes Marxian theory is nothing like what Joe Average on the street thinks of as communisn/socialism. I don't personally embrace his work, but it does provide an interesting counterpoint to popular capitalist thoughts and some solid support of postmodern thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Communism and Socialism are very clearly defined terms and carry a very specific meaning when used in various disciplines. For example: David Harvey is a well known geographer who studies what is generally known as Marxist geography. He uses the principles of Socialism/Marxism as a platform for critiqueing capitalism at a theoretical level. What constitutes Marxian theory is nothing like what Joe Average on the street thinks of as communisn/socialism. I don't personally embrace his work, but it does provide an interesting counterpoint to popular capitalist thoughts and some solid support of postmodern thinking. big words coming from a guy with a crotch as his avatar ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 big words coming from a guy with a crotch as his avatar ... Intellectual thought and beer drinking/hell raising are not mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 10, 2007 Share Posted March 10, 2007 (edited) Intellectual thought and beer drinking/hell raising are not mutually exclusive. but they are required for any kind of validity.... Edited March 10, 2007 by Yukon Cornelius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) One of the main arguments in the article against Socialism is the fact that it completely negates economic incentives for people. If there is no incentive to work hard then you'll get average production, if not less production out of society. If you think I'm full of B.S. then you must disagree with our economic incentives, right? If you honestly feel that I'm full of B.S., and that Socialism can work in the U.S. then you are in for a sad reality awakening: most US citizens will say the same thing I am. Socialism doesn't work. My problem isn't/wasn't with the article - it's with you saying your going to refute something and then dodging the challenge. EDIT - as in "name the countries and I'll tell you why socialism doesnt' work for them" - countries named and no explanation why socialism doesn't work for them. Cripes, even when I put up Finland and the Scandinavian countries, I could find the reason why they wouldn't be considered "socialist"; the sad part is, you couldn't, so I called shenanigans. Edited March 11, 2007 by Chavez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 My problem isn't/wasn't with the article - it's with you saying your going to refute something and then dodging the challenge. EDIT - as in "name the countries and I'll tell you why socialism doesnt' work for them" - countries named and no explanation why socialism doesn't work for them. Cripes, even when I put up Finland and the Scandinavian countries, I could find the reason why they wouldn't be considered "socialist"; the sad part is, you couldn't, so I called shenanigans. Right - but the Grunt doesn't get it. 4 or 5 people see this and he 'teaches us a lesson' by stating the obvious and what we already know - socialism isn't going to come to America. Hey Grunt - it's not going to rain chocolate. EVER. Did you know that? Yet it's not Grunt's fault for making his claim, it's the 4 or 5 of us who are fishing by asking for his claim to be backed up. You talked the talk Grunt, but you're not walking it. Certainly not in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 (edited) Socialism could very possibly be the worst idea that's ever been considered in the United States. FWIW, Socialism is not being considered in the U.S. It is being implemented in the U.S. Frankly, I don't see any way of stopping it short of outright revolution, which pretty much can't ever occur in a nation with a modern military. Just sit back and try every way in your power to get your largest possible share of the redistribution. Edited March 11, 2007 by Savage Beatings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 FWIW, Socialism is not being considered in the U.S. It is being implemented in the U.S. Would you please define socialism for us? I would like to comment, but I want a clear definition so that we aren't talking past one-another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.