jad1
-
Posts
1,345 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jad1
-
-
-
-
Again, you are strictly focusing on federal funds, not local funds via property taxes. Each taxpayer in the district pays for the schools in said district. You want people of other districts to pay for your education. I am using the same concept on a smaller scale. I am having you pay for my education. You refuse and again, try to have others pay for the education. Dude, your words are not backed up by your actions.
We're talking about a Harvard education and a high school education.
Harvard can be funded federally, and that's what you're pestering me for. Since I pay federal taxes, you're welcome to them, but you have to go through the proper channels.
Now if you want me to pay for your high school education, which does accept federal funds, but is mostly locally funded by district tax payers, that's a differerent situation.
Write me a 1,000 word essay on why you deserve funding. Send me your latest tax forms, junior high transcripts, and social security number. Send me letters from 3 references. I'll also need a credit report.
I have a review board that will judge your request. And keep in mind, while I might not be able to fully fund your high school education, I do have some interesting work study opportunites. Have you any experience being a butler?
Those are the terms.
-
So reading all your responses you are for school vouchers, right?
As for a more equitable way of dividing money for education you should should do a little reading on what is going on in MI. That's what they do and it's not working too well especially in the cities that have high growth rates...
Not for private schools, no. I know there's a ton of problems with public education, many of which have been brought up here. I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to fix it.
But if we can rescue kids who are excelling in failing schools, why shouldn't we? Let them move to better disctricts. Sure it costs money in the short term, but in the long run it will benefit the student and the community they live in.
-
-
Through taxes, yes, people fund public education. My taxes have been paid to the government, who will disperse the funds.
So if you're as smart and deserving as you say you are, the money's waiting for you. Fill our the federal forms and it's yours.
Personally, I hope it goes to kids in the inner city.
-
-
So, you think that is the only way to improve your kid's education? No wonder kids are falling behind. Ever think of getting more personally involved in the kid's education? Doesn't cost a thing. There are also these things call libraries. They have books. Amazingly, kids can go into these establishments and actually read them. If they can't read, the library will teach them how to read.
Initiative is free. I lived in a crappy school district, but I did not let that stop me. Why? Because I had initiative. I wanted something that me school could not provide. I spent time at the free library and taught myself. I didn't need a computer. I didn't need more money. All I needed was my own initiative. My parents were also very involved in my education. They would teach me how to study in order to get the most out of what I learned. They taught me how to research, in order to find the answers to my questions. They took an active role in the school as far as making the bad teachers accountable. All of these items are free.
Great, good for you. So your parents could do all that for you, but it would have been wrong for them to try to get you into a better public school system?
-
I had the grades to get into Harvard or Yale, but could not afford the tuition. Since you believe that smart people should not be deprived of a quality education, I expect a check from you (made out to me) to cover my tuition costs. So, is it safe to say that I will see the check from you by the end of next week?
I didn't go to Harvard or Yale, but got a quality college education thanks to government grants and loans. My mother was an ace at filling out those applications and forms, perhaps you could have used someone like her to help you out.
Thanks to the career I was able to persue due to my college education, I've been able to pay back the goverment ten fold through income taxes. I've also been able to buy several cars, a house, a bunch of durable goods, and a sh!tload of other things that I really didn't need. I'm a kick-ass capitalist and a first rate free enterpriser(?).
See how it works? It's not a give away, it's an investment. Invest in a smart kid in high school, and they'll pay it back ten-fold over the rest of their life.
-
Here is a thought. Instead of making other people pay, how about taking responsibility for your own schools to make them better? There are plenty of things that can be done to improve your child's education without relying on other people to pay for your free ride. You would be suprised at the improvements that can be made when the parents become more involved in their child's education. The best part about it is, that not all solutions require additional money.
I could always say, "I like the schools in this district, but I do not feel like paying the taxes. I will live in another district with lower taxes and then force the people in the better district to pay to educate my child." Sound fair? Didn't think so.
Personal responsibility. It is an amazing concept.
That's a great idea, unfortunately as long as you fund education at the district level, it's not going to happen.
It's not case that a parent doesn't feel like paying the extra taxes for their child's education, it's the case that they can't afford the price of moving into the better neighborhoods in that makes up the district.
And textbooks cost money, computers cost money, after-school activities cost money, and teachers cost money. So while parents can do alot to make up the gap, it still is a money issue.
-
I think schools should be able to determine if a student is intelligent, don't you? See they have these things called tests...
So if poor parent of a smart kid in an underfunded school asks the school board to move his kid into a better funded district, the answer should be no?
The smart kid shouldn't have access to computers, up-to-date text books and possibly better teachers?
How is stiffling good students because they are poor a good precedent?
-
-
-
Nice try, here's my post:
I clearly state that if those parents want to foot the exact same bill I do so that their kid can attend a school in my district then I don't really care if they attend the school. My issue is that these kids (and their parents) should not be given a free ride. The services the school provides to people living in the district are paid for by the taxpayers of that district. To allow kids who don't live within the district to enjoy the benefits of the schools without their parents helping to pay for those benefits is patently unfair.
You're still tying public education to affordiability, which to me, is completely wrong. An intelligent kid should be given every opportunity to the best education possible, and not held back by their parents' pocketbook.
And, by the way, you didn't say "kids from other districts" you said "kids from the inner city." There's a completely different connotation between the two.
-
Actually, I wrote this in response to the original author wanting to keeps his kids insulated from "inner city kids." He was willing to pay more tax money to do so, so my question to him was, why not go all the way?
I own a home, work hard, and while I'm not wealthy, my household income is well into six figures. And I support inner city kids attending suburban schools.
So rich people aren't bad. The pursuit of wealth isn't bad. Owning a nice house (like the one I own) isn't bad.
Denying a talented kid an education because their mom and dad can't afford to buy into a community with a good public school. That's bad.
-
It is an education paid for BY the people of the district FOR the people of that district. If you want the benefits of living in that district, LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT. Seems pretty simple to me. No need for a wall. Live in the district and you get the benefits of the district. If you don't live in the district and want the benefits of my district, move into my district.
People of the district, hmm, so kids in Amherst recieve an Amherst Regents diploma? I always thought they received a New York State Regents diploma. I know I did.
-
A "portion"? With 32 teams, he would have to give away 31/32, or 97%. That's a lot more than a "portion." That's why they call it "revenue sharing". It ain't no theoretical 80/20 split. And that's why people like Jones and Snyder B word so much, because they believe that other teams aren't doing all that they can to "maximize revenues."
The home team would get the majority of the take, with remaining going to revenue sharing. So it would be 80/20, with the 20% being split among the league.
So teams would still be motivated to sell naming rights, and the league and it's teams would be compensated for giving value to the naming rights.
And if Snyder and Jones don't like it, let them split from revenue sharing and negotiate their own TV and merchandise deals. And when either of their teams go 4-12, and the revenue streams dry up, they can B word about going bankrupt.
-
He is not saying that equality in education is equivalent to being in the USSR. What he is saying is that person A pays $2000/yr in taxes for schools. Person B pays $1000/yr in taxes for schools. Why should person B benefit from the additional taxes paid by person A? If Person B wants the benefits of person A, they should pay the same taxes as person A.
It's a PUBLIC education. All kids, no matter the economic status of their parents should have access to it. Just because you choose to pay more in taxes doesn't give you the right to build a wall around the school and keep others out.
If you want to deny access to "inner city kids" (whatever that implies), pay the extra dough to go to a private school that will keep the "inner city kids" out.
-
So put up some real money and dump your kids in private school, where they can learn racism the old fashioned way.
Claiming that equality in education is equivalent to being in the USSR is downright moronic.
-
As much as I love the Bills, I see the reasoning behind "Snyder and his gang".
And let me use the Redskins and the Bengals as an example.
Dan Snyder gets $10 million a year from Fedex to name the Redskins stadium "Fedex Field".
The Bengals ownership (Brown family) calls their stadium "Paul Brown Stadium" and refuses to sell the naming rights, calling it "tradition"; "history", etc.
Under this "total revenue sharing" concept, Dan Snyder would have to give a portion of his "stadium name" money to the Bengals, but the Bengals would give zilch to Snyder.
How would you feel if you were Snyder? "You" have to give money to "them", but "they" won't do what it takes to generate additional money to give to "you".
In theory, the Brown family has the right to do what they are doing. But why should Snyder be penalized? If any of you were in Snyder's shoes, you would be bitching as well.
This is a bit myopic. First off, Snyder would only be asked to give a portion of the naming rights to revenue sharing, not the whole thing, so he still is making money off the naming rights fee.
Second, he owns an NFL team, not an MLS team. If he owned the latter, I doubt the fee he received for naming rights would be nearly as high. The value to the sponsor, FedEx, comes from being associated with the NFL, not just the Redskins.
Third, FedEx bought the naming rights to advertise their company. They get wide exposure thanks to the television contracts negotiated by the league, not just Snyder. So when Monday Night Football broadcasts from FedEx field in D.C., FedEx can thank the NFL for the national exposure.
An 80-20 split of these revenues, between the team and the league, is not unreasonable. It continues to generate a profit for the home team, and returns money to the organization that makes the high fees possible in the first place.
-
Sorry, I'm not buying that blather. If I've made enough money to live in a good school district, I don't want MY tax dollars paying for kids from the inner city to attend that school. If their parents want to foot the bill for their kids to attend my district's schools, then so be it. But not my tax dollars.
Separate and unequal. Great idea for a public school. Why don't we just implement a caste system. Your money should protect you from the 'great unwashed,' right?
-
That's true. However, the only speed threat the Bills had at outside receiver at the beginning of last year was Evans. And as a GM, you can't count on a rookie starting from day 1. The Bills offense, while Evans and McGahee were working their way into the starting lineup, was slow and predictable, which contributed to the team's lousy start.
On the other hand, with McGahee and Evans in the starting lineup, and Parrish working his way into the lineup, the Bills offense will look completely different from the one that started last season.
-
I think that this is Donahoe's biggest mistake as GM of the Bills. The Price move was great, as it netted the team McGahee, and even freed up cap space to sign Spikes and Adams.
But he let the WR corps get too slow. If Gilbride's offense ocassionally sputtered with Moulds and Price on the outside, it completely died with Shaw and Reed on the outside.
He started to address the problem Evans, but Evans didn't work his way into the starting lineup until 5 or 6 games into last season.
-
I think you're referring to Chris Webber.
Student in yearbook identified only as 'Black Girl
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Actually, I would expect for somebody moving from one district to another to go through some sort of process. Some of my examples were met to meet the ridiculousness of your request, but like kids applying for magnet programs, I expect that kids switching districts would have to prove they are a good student in need.
And by the way, since I pay property taxes, and income taxes, and kids DO SWITCH districts where I live, I ALREADY DO PAY FOR THIS.
So jump off the high horse. I'm a patron of what I preach.