Our tax dollars at work...

[jnd3]

http://www.boortz.com/Dsc00056.jpg

The city of Atlanta spends $13,000 on each student per year. Isn't that just money well spent? But, hey, we can't allow the parents to spend that same $13k on a private school.... :rolleyes:

And I heard a little blurb about diplomas in Orlando, FL that had the word "adacemic" on them. I'll post the photos if I can find 'em.

Cheers,
JND

[1stFlight]

It's not a matter of that, it's a matter of where all that money goes... enough of it, isn't going to the schools. My mother is a lobbyist in IL, you'd be amazed at where all that money the city taxes, and lotteries, that's supposedly earmarked for hte schools actually ends up.

Originally posted by jnd3
http://www.boortz.com/Dsc00056.jpg

The city of Atlanta spends $13,000 on each student per year. Isn't that just money well spent? But, hey, we can't allow the parents to spend that same $13k on a private school.... :rolleyes:

And I heard a little blurb about diplomas in Orlando, FL that had the word "adacemic" on them. I'll post the photos if I can find 'em.

Cheers,
JND

[PsychoSy]

It definately can't be going to the schools because the districts have to turn to Pepsi and Coca-Cola's deep coffers. They're worse than street-corner drug dealers. Also, I've seen how Governor Engler sliced the lottery pie in Michigan and hardly any proceeds from ticket sales went to schools. If my memory is correct, under Gov. Blanchard, public schools got 30-40% of the lottery ticket sales. That was slowly reduced to about a record low of around 7% during Governor Engler.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, as I recall, Republicans originally backed the entire notion of state lotteries in the 1970s while they were still in their infancy. Today, they suddenly hate them and want to abolish them labeling them as "voluntary taxes on the poor".

To a degree, they're right. I see a decent share of poor, welfare-recipient, bingo-addicts buying up lottery tickets. But I see more well-dressed, middle and upper class people investing $100-$200 out of their 4 or 5 figure paychecks into the system than poor people.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by 1stFlight
It's not a matter of that, it's a matter of where all that money goes... enough of it, isn't going to the schools. My mother is a lobbyist in IL, you'd be amazed at where all that money the city taxes, and lotteries, that's supposedly earmarked for hte schools actually ends up.

Ya they say it goes for ambulances, police, schools ect then they turn around a have us vote on a ambulance, police and school levies. :rolleyes: This craps pisses me off. I say vote down the levy and make them stay in budget but then they threaten to close medical, school and other services. I hate politicians.

[1stFlight]

You wish it went for such noble things, usually it goes to line someone pockets in some indirect way.

The sad truth is the school aren't really high on many politicians to-do list.

Psycho gives a good example of what happened with the lotteries, the exact same thing happened in IL. Only in our case, as the lottery money came in, state funding went away, so long story short it left the schools high and dry.

With more students coming in, and fewer resources, we actually did have teachers purchasing supplies for us to use year after are. I didn't realize at the time how crappy that was.

I'll give you this though, I hate policians too, odd since I'm thinking about becoming one.

Originally posted by UDawg71
Ya they say it goes for ambulances, police, schools ect then they turn around a have us vote on a ambulance, police and school levies. :rolleyes: This craps pisses me off. I say vote down the levy and make them stay in budget but then they threaten to close medical, school and other services. I hate politicians.

[Darth Rancid]

Here in Sweden we have an interesting situation:

Many people, especialy right-wing people, say that "money attracts competent people", so if you want a competent man or woman to do a specific job, you need to advertise a high pay for that job. Then, they continue to say that most of our politicans suck, and that they are vastly overpaid.
Our politicans are very poorly paid if you compare them with other european politicans.
If they think that money attracts competence, shouldn't we have high salaries for our ministers?...

On a more funny note, one of our ministers just called George Bush something that would translate into "That annoying Texas hillbilly" :)
Our minister of state, who's head of our socialist party and sometimes acts like he'd like for Sweden to ask for membership in the US of A, was very upset. :)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Darth Rancid
Here in Sweden we have an interesting situation:

Many people, especialy right-wing people, say that "money attracts competent people", so if you want a competent man or woman to do a specific job, you need to advertise a high pay for that job. Then, they continue to say that most of our politicans suck, and that they are vastly overpaid.
Our politicans are very poorly paid if you compare them with other european politicans.
If they think that money attracts competence, shouldn't we have high salaries for our ministers?...

On a more funny note, one of our ministers just called George Bush something that would translate into "That annoying Texas hillbilly" :)
Our minister of state, who's head of our socialist party and sometimes acts like he'd like for Sweden to ask for membership in the US of A, was very upset. :)

No because a government job is vastly different from a private job.

[Darth Rancid]

Originally posted by UDawg71
No because a government job is vastly different from a private job.

Are you among those who think politicans shouldn't do their job for the money, but because of some "call"?...
In my experience, people wo take lots of responsibility, want to be paid well to do so. Thats a natural part of capitalism... why should someone work long hours and take loads of responsibility for the government, when they could do it for some company and earn at least twice the money?
I'd say if you pay your politicans poorly, you will end up with the people the private sector found incompetent right in your government. Its beginning to happen right here, right now.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Darth Rancid
I'd say if you pay your politicans poorly, you will end up with the people the private sector found incompetent right in your government. Its beginning to happen right here, right now.

These people run this country, known as "jobsworths", theyre people who are very "emotive" about what they do, but are also absolutley useless. The best poloticians are the ones who have worked for their mortgage, hold down agood job and have eithger retired early or are making time to be a polotician too. (Not do-able at minister level obviously).

People who have worked know what life is like being run by government wasters and are able to do soemthing about it.

Interesting point, all funs give to local government are already earmarked where to be spent. So the government with no clue about where i live could think that we need x spending on youth projects, but 50% of x spending on schools..

If the local government then doesn't spend ANY of that money it doesn't get it for the next year. So at the end of the financial year new road markings start popping up everywhere. Its a shambolic system filled with red tape. But such is the way with trying to run the country from an office in london. Damn blairites

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Darth Rancid
Are you among those who think politicans shouldn't do their job for the money, but because of some "call"?...
In my experience, people wo take lots of responsibility, want to be paid well to do so. Thats a natural part of capitalism... why should someone work long hours and take loads of responsibility for the government, when they could do it for some company and earn at least twice the money?
I'd say if you pay your politicans poorly, you will end up with the people the private sector found incompetent right in your government. Its beginning to happen right here, right now.

There is no call involved in going into politics. It is a choice. Some go into it because they want to make a difference. Some because they want power, ther are other reasons but I'm not going to list them. The main point is that it's public service. You sacrafice certain things and incomes for the chance to be elected and server you communinty or country. You cannot run government like a business, for the simple reason the government is not in the open market place.

You are talking about incompetence? The government is full of it. Look at it this way should the government officials in Gemany be paid a high salary even though their country is in the dumper?

There are lots of jobs that have lots of responsiblity that do not pay well, police work comes to mind. Teachers also come to mind, both thos jobs don't pay squat compared to the responsiblity undertaken when working.

Finally government official get so many kick backs and lined pockets from being in their position that is't rediculous. They get far more benifits than just their salaries.

[Sazar]

Originally posted by UDawg71
There is no call involved in going into politics. It is a choice. Some go into it because they want to make a difference. Some because they want power, ther are other reasons but I'm not going to list them. The main point is that it's public service. You sacrafice certain things and incomes for the chance to be elected and server you communinty or country. You cannot run government like a business, for the simple reason the government is not in the open market place.

You are talking about incompetence? The government is full of it. Look at it this way should the government officials in Gemany be paid a high salary even though their country is in the dumper?

There are lots of jobs that have lots of responsiblity that do not pay well, police work comes to mind. Teachers also come to mind, both thos jobs don't pay squat compared to the responsiblity undertaken when working.

Finally government official get so many kick backs and lined pockets from being in their position that is't rediculous. They get far more benifits than just their salaries.

yes... quite...

I am not for officials in government continually giving themselves pay raises while the economy of various nations including ours is undergoing stagnant growth (contradiction of terms but I swear thats what it is called) or recession...

doesn't seem proper to me...

[PsychoSy]

You cannot run government like a business, for the simple reason the government is not in the open market place.

Too bad Donald Rumsfeld doesn't understand this...:p

[Darth Rancid]

Well.. I agree on much of what UDawg71 said.. but not all of it. Since both of our minds are most likely very well made up, I'll just drop the subject. :)

And PsychoSy, about ten years ago we had a rightwing upstart party here in Sweden who actually openly said they wanted to run the country like a buissenss.

:rolleyes:

[legion88]

Originally posted by UDawg71
No because a government job is vastly different from a private job.


99% of the people taking government jobs are not elected. However, the 1% that do get elected, sometimes give themselves pay raises (eg. 38% pay raise in Maryland) while the 99% who don't get elected get lay offs, and at best, the same pay for years. (Actually, they get indirect pay cuts since taxes, etc. can go up, leaving less take-home pay.)

[1stFlight]

Very true, I work with a number of non-elected government civilians. You'd be amazed at what they don't make.

In fact take a look

http://www.opm.gov/oca/payrates/index.asp The high end a GS-15, clears slightly more that 100K/yr - but most government civilians don't make it that high, so that majority of them are between a GS6 and GS11.

Awhile back the best thing about a government job was that it was ungodly stable. You could work at the same location for decades, require an act of Congress to fire you, and retire in 20 year.

Unfortunately, the part about stablity is all but gone now.

Originally posted by legion88
99% of the people taking government jobs are not elected. However, the 1% that do get elected, sometimes give themselves pay raises (eg. 38% pay raise in Maryland) while the 99% who don't get elected get lay offs, and at best, the same pay for years. (Actually, they get indirect pay cuts since taxes, etc. can go up, leaving less take-home pay.)

[UDawg]

Originally posted by Darth Rancid
Well.. I agree on much of what UDawg71 said.. but not all of it. Since both of our minds are most likely very well made up, I'll just drop the subject. :)

And PsychoSy, about ten years ago we had a rightwing upstart party here in Sweden who actually openly said they wanted to run the country like a buissenss.

:rolleyes:

After legion88's post below this one I am confused. Are we talking about elected officials or the average hired goverment worker? I do believe that competition for the average government worker should be in place and merrit pay should be the standard but most the time it isn't. So I do agree with legion88 in that aspect of government jobs.