- This topic has 680 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
jstoesz.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 4, 2011 at 8:26 PM #664012February 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM #662877
CA renter
Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Knowing the subject matter, and knowing how to teach are two totally different things (both equally important). If you think teachers are “glorified babysitters,” or that the job was easy, you probably weren’t a very good teacher.[/quote]I went to school and became a credentialed teacher. I thank you for pointing out that knowing subject matter and delivering it are different. I had no idea.
My enrollment spoke for itself. I am still in touch with some former students and while a teacher I had many students seek personal advice from me. I even once had a female student (18 going on 30) seek my advice after she was raped by a friend of her stripper sister’s boyfriend and became pregnant.
So when I say glorified babysitter I mean someone who has to keep the kids on task all the way to being a guidance counselor.[/quote]
In response to your assertion:
[quote=Djshakes]You have to know your subject at a high school level or less depending on what grade you teach. Other than that you are glorified baby sitter. [/quote]
February 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM #662939Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Knowing the subject matter, and knowing how to teach are two totally different things (both equally important). If you think teachers are “glorified babysitters,” or that the job was easy, you probably weren’t a very good teacher.[/quote]I went to school and became a credentialed teacher. I thank you for pointing out that knowing subject matter and delivering it are different. I had no idea.
My enrollment spoke for itself. I am still in touch with some former students and while a teacher I had many students seek personal advice from me. I even once had a female student (18 going on 30) seek my advice after she was raped by a friend of her stripper sister’s boyfriend and became pregnant.
So when I say glorified babysitter I mean someone who has to keep the kids on task all the way to being a guidance counselor.[/quote]
In response to your assertion:
[quote=Djshakes]You have to know your subject at a high school level or less depending on what grade you teach. Other than that you are glorified baby sitter. [/quote]
February 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM #663543Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Knowing the subject matter, and knowing how to teach are two totally different things (both equally important). If you think teachers are “glorified babysitters,” or that the job was easy, you probably weren’t a very good teacher.[/quote]I went to school and became a credentialed teacher. I thank you for pointing out that knowing subject matter and delivering it are different. I had no idea.
My enrollment spoke for itself. I am still in touch with some former students and while a teacher I had many students seek personal advice from me. I even once had a female student (18 going on 30) seek my advice after she was raped by a friend of her stripper sister’s boyfriend and became pregnant.
So when I say glorified babysitter I mean someone who has to keep the kids on task all the way to being a guidance counselor.[/quote]
In response to your assertion:
[quote=Djshakes]You have to know your subject at a high school level or less depending on what grade you teach. Other than that you are glorified baby sitter. [/quote]
February 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM #663680Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Knowing the subject matter, and knowing how to teach are two totally different things (both equally important). If you think teachers are “glorified babysitters,” or that the job was easy, you probably weren’t a very good teacher.[/quote]I went to school and became a credentialed teacher. I thank you for pointing out that knowing subject matter and delivering it are different. I had no idea.
My enrollment spoke for itself. I am still in touch with some former students and while a teacher I had many students seek personal advice from me. I even once had a female student (18 going on 30) seek my advice after she was raped by a friend of her stripper sister’s boyfriend and became pregnant.
So when I say glorified babysitter I mean someone who has to keep the kids on task all the way to being a guidance counselor.[/quote]
In response to your assertion:
[quote=Djshakes]You have to know your subject at a high school level or less depending on what grade you teach. Other than that you are glorified baby sitter. [/quote]
February 4, 2011 at 8:31 PM #664017Participant[quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Knowing the subject matter, and knowing how to teach are two totally different things (both equally important). If you think teachers are “glorified babysitters,” or that the job was easy, you probably weren’t a very good teacher.[/quote]I went to school and became a credentialed teacher. I thank you for pointing out that knowing subject matter and delivering it are different. I had no idea.
My enrollment spoke for itself. I am still in touch with some former students and while a teacher I had many students seek personal advice from me. I even once had a female student (18 going on 30) seek my advice after she was raped by a friend of her stripper sister’s boyfriend and became pregnant.
So when I say glorified babysitter I mean someone who has to keep the kids on task all the way to being a guidance counselor.[/quote]
In response to your assertion:
[quote=Djshakes]You have to know your subject at a high school level or less depending on what grade you teach. Other than that you are glorified baby sitter. [/quote]
February 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM #662882Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:
1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.
2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).
3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.
[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]
4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.
5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]
Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, BG.
What many fail to understand is that we could eliminate ~25-30% of our public workforce (and most of the pay, benefits, and pension costs associated with them) if we took care of the illegal immigration problem.
And yes, we need to tackle it from both sides: the employment side and the benefits side. If we got rid of those perks, illegal immigration would likely become a non-issue.
February 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM #662944Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:
1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.
2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).
3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.
[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]
4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.
5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]
Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, BG.
What many fail to understand is that we could eliminate ~25-30% of our public workforce (and most of the pay, benefits, and pension costs associated with them) if we took care of the illegal immigration problem.
And yes, we need to tackle it from both sides: the employment side and the benefits side. If we got rid of those perks, illegal immigration would likely become a non-issue.
February 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM #663548Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:
1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.
2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).
3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.
[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]
4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.
5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]
Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, BG.
What many fail to understand is that we could eliminate ~25-30% of our public workforce (and most of the pay, benefits, and pension costs associated with them) if we took care of the illegal immigration problem.
And yes, we need to tackle it from both sides: the employment side and the benefits side. If we got rid of those perks, illegal immigration would likely become a non-issue.
February 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM #663685Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:
1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.
2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).
3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.
[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]
4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.
5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]
Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, BG.
What many fail to understand is that we could eliminate ~25-30% of our public workforce (and most of the pay, benefits, and pension costs associated with them) if we took care of the illegal immigration problem.
And yes, we need to tackle it from both sides: the employment side and the benefits side. If we got rid of those perks, illegal immigration would likely become a non-issue.
February 4, 2011 at 8:36 PM #664022Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:
1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.
2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).
3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.
[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]
4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.
5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.
Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]
Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]
You’re absolutely right, BG.
What many fail to understand is that we could eliminate ~25-30% of our public workforce (and most of the pay, benefits, and pension costs associated with them) if we took care of the illegal immigration problem.
And yes, we need to tackle it from both sides: the employment side and the benefits side. If we got rid of those perks, illegal immigration would likely become a non-issue.
February 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM #662887Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
February 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM #662949Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
February 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM #663553Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
February 4, 2011 at 8:37 PM #663690Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.[/quote]
Could not agree more.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.