Dale Carter
Active Member
R Shek - bravo!
ExxonMobil earns Record $10 Billion Profit in Quarter
- Thread starter Nelson Atwell
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Dre L
Well-Known Member
I SHARTED!
The problem I have with political contributions is this.
As a citizan of the USA, I have the right, if I choose, to donate money to the Republican party. I might agree with what they stand for.
Lets say there is a bill the Democrats want to pass that will eliminate 1 million US jobs and send the work overseas. 1 Million Jobs.
Lets say GM, Ford, Chrysler, ExxonMobile, Marathon-Ashland, General Electric, and Westinghouse see that as a way to increase thier profits by shipping production somewhere else.
1 million of those people that will loose thier job send a 10.00 donation to the Republican party to vote against the bill.
The corporations listed above each send the Democratic party a 10 million donation to "vote thier way". The Democrats will get about 70 Million dollars.
1 million people are going to loose thier job.
For the people, by the people...I don't think so.
One of the richest countries in the world and we have some of the dumbest kids in school. School funding is almost non-existant. So many people do not have health care and the insurance companies say they don't make money, yet the nicest buildings in our cities downtown area are owned by insurance companier. We loose 1 million jobs, and the schools to teach our children get funded even less because 1 million people are out of a job.
The government should not be allowed to take donations from anyone. They should choose what is best for the country and it's citizans and not for whomever gave them the most money to vote in thier favor.
Inheritance. Give me a break. The money inherited by the children from thier parents should be thiers and not the government. I pay my tax's to the government to protect me, provide me with roads to drive on, etc. They did not get up to work at the place my father worked at. They did not have to deal with dangerous conditions to bring home food for the table. He paid tax's on that money already, why does the government feel they deserve some of it when my father dies?
i don't have a problem with someone that is wealthy. If it is done with integrity, more power to them. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right.
Tom
As a citizan of the USA, I have the right, if I choose, to donate money to the Republican party. I might agree with what they stand for.
Lets say there is a bill the Democrats want to pass that will eliminate 1 million US jobs and send the work overseas. 1 Million Jobs.
Lets say GM, Ford, Chrysler, ExxonMobile, Marathon-Ashland, General Electric, and Westinghouse see that as a way to increase thier profits by shipping production somewhere else.
1 million of those people that will loose thier job send a 10.00 donation to the Republican party to vote against the bill.
The corporations listed above each send the Democratic party a 10 million donation to "vote thier way". The Democrats will get about 70 Million dollars.
1 million people are going to loose thier job.
For the people, by the people...I don't think so.
One of the richest countries in the world and we have some of the dumbest kids in school. School funding is almost non-existant. So many people do not have health care and the insurance companies say they don't make money, yet the nicest buildings in our cities downtown area are owned by insurance companier. We loose 1 million jobs, and the schools to teach our children get funded even less because 1 million people are out of a job.
The government should not be allowed to take donations from anyone. They should choose what is best for the country and it's citizans and not for whomever gave them the most money to vote in thier favor.
Inheritance. Give me a break. The money inherited by the children from thier parents should be thiers and not the government. I pay my tax's to the government to protect me, provide me with roads to drive on, etc. They did not get up to work at the place my father worked at. They did not have to deal with dangerous conditions to bring home food for the table. He paid tax's on that money already, why does the government feel they deserve some of it when my father dies?
i don't have a problem with someone that is wealthy. If it is done with integrity, more power to them. Just because it is legal does not mean it is right.
Tom
Dale Carter
Active Member
Caymen - Our schools are not underfunded. Compared to the other industrialized nations (which we trail terribly) and adjusting for other factors to equalize the comparison, we spend more. For the most part, the worst scools in the US, spend the most.
Some problems are that we don't teach fundamental skills, we socially promote, we don't require accountability from our schools, ignorant and/or uninvolved parents and society tha tincreasingly diminishes the value of education and hypes personality/celebrity.
Otherwise, excellent post.
I would have gone with, "As a citizen, I may choose to donate to a Republican, but my union dues go to a Democrat, against my will.". HAHAHA
Some problems are that we don't teach fundamental skills, we socially promote, we don't require accountability from our schools, ignorant and/or uninvolved parents and society tha tincreasingly diminishes the value of education and hypes personality/celebrity.
Otherwise, excellent post.
I would have gone with, "As a citizen, I may choose to donate to a Republican, but my union dues go to a Democrat, against my will.". HAHAHA
Dale,
Here in Ohio schools are bing closed by budget cuts, lack of money to buy schoolbooks, teachers, or even to pay the electric bill.
Tom
Here in Ohio schools are bing closed by budget cuts, lack of money to buy schoolbooks, teachers, or even to pay the electric bill.
Tom
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
The school funding is not an issue of taxes it's an issue of other significant proportions, namely:
-Teachers Unions
-Misplaced priorities by the STATE
-Lack of motivation fo rthe teachers, parents, students, principals, etc
The federal government goves the states a share of the federal budget for school funding. What the state does with it is up to the state. For instance, in Missouri, the voters allowed casinos into help fund schools. When the schools couldn't/wouldn't spend all of the money the first year they had it available, the politicians began to suck funds away for other pet projects. Now the schools need the additional money and it's not there. That's a problem of piss-poor management in the state.
School districts also have a tendancy to waste money as all government bureacracies do. Imagine how much better our kids would do if they were taught 1+1=2, not that Timmy has two mommies, "i before e, except after c", not global warming caused by driving SUV's is ruining the environment, "...to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, under God, indivisible....", not "God is not allowed in school", mastering the proper use of English, not fighting to have Ebonics recognized as an acceptible language, allowing gifted students to acheive more, not holding everyone back so the "dumbest" student doesn't feel bad. I could go on and on.
When standards are set for students to meet to advance to the next grade, the teachers and the unions bitch about it. If the teachers did their job (I know, many teachers give their all for the students, I applaud that, but there are many piss-poor teachers out there) we wouldn't have to worry about the standards not being met. Many students do see why education is needed since if you're poor, the Government will take care of you, so you can sit back, watch Oprah, play XBox, eat steak every night and not lift a finger to earn it but pump out a bastard (look up the definition) child every 10-12 months.
Where in the consitution does it say that the state or feds have to supply education? Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat glad they do, BUT (and a big hairy white republican one at that) WHERE IS THE CHOICE??? Liberals are all about pro-choice, except when it comes to schools, taxes, guns, speech, environment....
Let's get back the the way it was in the 1950's. You went to school, you learned. The teachers pay was based upon how well their students did. Political interestes were left out of the classromm, except in Civics, then it was facts and figures, not opinions and rehtoric.
Can't afford textbooks? Why does a High School need 14 assistant pricipals? Can't pay the power bill? Open some windows and turn off the A/C for awhile (among not paying for stupid things that the school "needs").
There are ZERO excuses for how bad our students are performing. American Children have always grown into some of the most talented, resourceful, and brilliant individuals in history (see Wrigt Brothers, John Browning, Sam Colt, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Phillips Sousa, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Jonas Salk, etc, etc, etc).
-Teachers Unions
-Misplaced priorities by the STATE
-Lack of motivation fo rthe teachers, parents, students, principals, etc
The federal government goves the states a share of the federal budget for school funding. What the state does with it is up to the state. For instance, in Missouri, the voters allowed casinos into help fund schools. When the schools couldn't/wouldn't spend all of the money the first year they had it available, the politicians began to suck funds away for other pet projects. Now the schools need the additional money and it's not there. That's a problem of piss-poor management in the state.
School districts also have a tendancy to waste money as all government bureacracies do. Imagine how much better our kids would do if they were taught 1+1=2, not that Timmy has two mommies, "i before e, except after c", not global warming caused by driving SUV's is ruining the environment, "...to the Republic, for which it stands, One Nation, under God, indivisible....", not "God is not allowed in school", mastering the proper use of English, not fighting to have Ebonics recognized as an acceptible language, allowing gifted students to acheive more, not holding everyone back so the "dumbest" student doesn't feel bad. I could go on and on.
When standards are set for students to meet to advance to the next grade, the teachers and the unions bitch about it. If the teachers did their job (I know, many teachers give their all for the students, I applaud that, but there are many piss-poor teachers out there) we wouldn't have to worry about the standards not being met. Many students do see why education is needed since if you're poor, the Government will take care of you, so you can sit back, watch Oprah, play XBox, eat steak every night and not lift a finger to earn it but pump out a bastard (look up the definition) child every 10-12 months.
Where in the consitution does it say that the state or feds have to supply education? Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat glad they do, BUT (and a big hairy white republican one at that) WHERE IS THE CHOICE??? Liberals are all about pro-choice, except when it comes to schools, taxes, guns, speech, environment....
Let's get back the the way it was in the 1950's. You went to school, you learned. The teachers pay was based upon how well their students did. Political interestes were left out of the classromm, except in Civics, then it was facts and figures, not opinions and rehtoric.
Can't afford textbooks? Why does a High School need 14 assistant pricipals? Can't pay the power bill? Open some windows and turn off the A/C for awhile (among not paying for stupid things that the school "needs").
There are ZERO excuses for how bad our students are performing. American Children have always grown into some of the most talented, resourceful, and brilliant individuals in history (see Wrigt Brothers, John Browning, Sam Colt, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, John Phillips Sousa, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Jonas Salk, etc, etc, etc).
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Shek,
In a perfect world I would probably agree with you. But this isn't a perfect world and people do get laid off not because there are excess people but because the execs need to increase the profit for the next quarter to keep their bonuses from being affected.
As for American Airlines - the airline management "convinced" the unions into giving up retirement benefits (cut), salary (cut) and health benefits (increased employee percentage) or they would have to start laying off employees. The employees agrees to the cuts to save jobs and ostensibly for the good of the company. The Executives got record bonuses that same year. Do you honestly think the unions will be willing to negotiate with these same executives again? (I have a brother that has been working for AA for almost 30 years.)
Shouldn't the top have to share the pain with the bottom?
I don't know of very many top executives that work for a "few dollars a year". Lee Iacoca did it with Chrylser and I believe another did it more recently. But they didn't work for a few dollars a year, they had their compensation deferred - a big difference. These days most top execs get guaranteed income regardless of how the company performs, huge bonuses if they exceeed income/profit projections and huge severance pacakges if they fail. How many lower level employees get any of that?
Shouldn't the top share the pain with the bottom?
And if you really believe a person making $20 million a year only walks away with $8 million a year, you are dreaming. If that were the case they would fire their financial manager in a heartbeat - in fact, that guy would never work again except for H&R BLock. The people making that kind of money have more tax shelters and ways to protect their money from taxes than you or I can even imagine. If they were to shun those things, sure, on paper they might pay that kind of tax. But in reality it doesn't happen that way. In reality, most of the top earners pay either a smaller percentage of their income in taxes that you or I do or just slightly higher. Many of the rest pay about the same percentage. And a very few voluntarily pay what it says on paper they "should" pay. (And I quoted that because how much they "should" pay is always open to debate.
Stop living in the economic theoretical world and look at the real world. The only way it works the way you think it works is in small, privately owned companies. And while those may be in the majority, their impact as an idividual company is small compared to an IBM or a GM or an AA.
In a perfect world I would probably agree with you. But this isn't a perfect world and people do get laid off not because there are excess people but because the execs need to increase the profit for the next quarter to keep their bonuses from being affected.
As for American Airlines - the airline management "convinced" the unions into giving up retirement benefits (cut), salary (cut) and health benefits (increased employee percentage) or they would have to start laying off employees. The employees agrees to the cuts to save jobs and ostensibly for the good of the company. The Executives got record bonuses that same year. Do you honestly think the unions will be willing to negotiate with these same executives again? (I have a brother that has been working for AA for almost 30 years.)
Shouldn't the top have to share the pain with the bottom?
I don't know of very many top executives that work for a "few dollars a year". Lee Iacoca did it with Chrylser and I believe another did it more recently. But they didn't work for a few dollars a year, they had their compensation deferred - a big difference. These days most top execs get guaranteed income regardless of how the company performs, huge bonuses if they exceeed income/profit projections and huge severance pacakges if they fail. How many lower level employees get any of that?
Shouldn't the top share the pain with the bottom?
And if you really believe a person making $20 million a year only walks away with $8 million a year, you are dreaming. If that were the case they would fire their financial manager in a heartbeat - in fact, that guy would never work again except for H&R BLock. The people making that kind of money have more tax shelters and ways to protect their money from taxes than you or I can even imagine. If they were to shun those things, sure, on paper they might pay that kind of tax. But in reality it doesn't happen that way. In reality, most of the top earners pay either a smaller percentage of their income in taxes that you or I do or just slightly higher. Many of the rest pay about the same percentage. And a very few voluntarily pay what it says on paper they "should" pay. (And I quoted that because how much they "should" pay is always open to debate.
Stop living in the economic theoretical world and look at the real world. The only way it works the way you think it works is in small, privately owned companies. And while those may be in the majority, their impact as an idividual company is small compared to an IBM or a GM or an AA.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
I work for a company that laid of 32 employees out of just 125, 5 months ago. Small or large, makes no difference.
It's amazing to me that with all of these supposed layoffs from IBM, Gm, etc. that the unemployment rate in this country still sits well below 5%. That is the real world.
Should the top share the pain with the bottom? That depends. Where I am at, I didn't get a raise this year. I am in the top 15% of my company as far as position. I didn't get a raise this year. Those in the bottom 50% of the company did. Did they share my pain? Nope. It's costing me more to live now than 1 year ago. I don't get paid any more than I did a year ago.
Yes there are many CEO's that work for a few dollars a year (it may be in the $10's of thousands, but very few CEO's make hundreds of thousands in salary) and get paid only out of bonuses, stock options, etc. Why? It's better for the company tax wise and for the individual tax wise.
The employees are often asked to take pay cuts etc. for the good of the company. If you don't want to accept the cuts, you have the choice to leave. Even if it has been 30 years since you changed jobs. It is your responcibility to provide for your family, not a CEO's. Obviously your brother is in a Union. This tells me two things:
1) Unions are worthless as they should have fought harder to make sure the execs gave up their bonuses first
2) Union members were highly overpaid for the work they do and the restrictions that they place on the employeer.
Example:
-When I was at AA, I had the "opportunityu" to work with a number of lovely union mechanics. On one particular project, the work had to be done on overtime wages. The particular mechanic that needed to work on the project was the 4th person on the senority list for that position. They had to bring the other three mecanics in or at least offer to bring them in before the needed guy could be asked. If all three said yes, we'll take it, they werre basicially told to go sit in the break room the whole time.
That is irresponcible business practice and the unions should be forced to change their practices if execs are forced to give up bonuses.
Union mechanics with a GED were making $120,000 + a year. Sorry, they don't get much sympathy from me when they are asked to give up some pay. The CEO of American Airlines is responcible for the legal operation of the company. If the accounting department does what Enron did, the CEO will be going to jail just as much as some of the accountants and VP of finance. They have a lot of responcibility for their pay. If they get millions in bonuses, good for them.
When you work for a large company, you run a risk of being laid off. You also runthe risk of advaning higher and higher with greater pay/responcibility. When you work for a small company, you have a smaller risk of getting laid off, but also have less oportunity for advancement. Just as in the rest of life, there are risk/rewards for everything you do. Is it right for a CEO to get millions of bonuses? Dunno. I am not on the board of directors who makes that choice. I hope someday to be in a position to get millions in bonuses. But I am not jealous of them getting it. As long as it's legal, whatever the company decides. It's not my right to question what they do.
It's amazing to me that with all of these supposed layoffs from IBM, Gm, etc. that the unemployment rate in this country still sits well below 5%. That is the real world.
Should the top share the pain with the bottom? That depends. Where I am at, I didn't get a raise this year. I am in the top 15% of my company as far as position. I didn't get a raise this year. Those in the bottom 50% of the company did. Did they share my pain? Nope. It's costing me more to live now than 1 year ago. I don't get paid any more than I did a year ago.
Yes there are many CEO's that work for a few dollars a year (it may be in the $10's of thousands, but very few CEO's make hundreds of thousands in salary) and get paid only out of bonuses, stock options, etc. Why? It's better for the company tax wise and for the individual tax wise.
The employees are often asked to take pay cuts etc. for the good of the company. If you don't want to accept the cuts, you have the choice to leave. Even if it has been 30 years since you changed jobs. It is your responcibility to provide for your family, not a CEO's. Obviously your brother is in a Union. This tells me two things:
1) Unions are worthless as they should have fought harder to make sure the execs gave up their bonuses first
2) Union members were highly overpaid for the work they do and the restrictions that they place on the employeer.
Example:
-When I was at AA, I had the "opportunityu" to work with a number of lovely union mechanics. On one particular project, the work had to be done on overtime wages. The particular mechanic that needed to work on the project was the 4th person on the senority list for that position. They had to bring the other three mecanics in or at least offer to bring them in before the needed guy could be asked. If all three said yes, we'll take it, they werre basicially told to go sit in the break room the whole time.
That is irresponcible business practice and the unions should be forced to change their practices if execs are forced to give up bonuses.
Union mechanics with a GED were making $120,000 + a year. Sorry, they don't get much sympathy from me when they are asked to give up some pay. The CEO of American Airlines is responcible for the legal operation of the company. If the accounting department does what Enron did, the CEO will be going to jail just as much as some of the accountants and VP of finance. They have a lot of responcibility for their pay. If they get millions in bonuses, good for them.
When you work for a large company, you run a risk of being laid off. You also runthe risk of advaning higher and higher with greater pay/responcibility. When you work for a small company, you have a smaller risk of getting laid off, but also have less oportunity for advancement. Just as in the rest of life, there are risk/rewards for everything you do. Is it right for a CEO to get millions of bonuses? Dunno. I am not on the board of directors who makes that choice. I hope someday to be in a position to get millions in bonuses. But I am not jealous of them getting it. As long as it's legal, whatever the company decides. It's not my right to question what they do.
Lets see, the unemployment rate stays below 5%. That is fine and dandy, does it show that those that earned $35,000/year are now only making $15,000/year.
Is that a good thing? Just because the employment rate stays the same does not mean the country and it citizans are doing OK. Humbers don't lie, how the numbers are used and presented is the real truth.
Tom
Is that a good thing? Just because the employment rate stays the same does not mean the country and it citizans are doing OK. Humbers don't lie, how the numbers are used and presented is the real truth.
Tom
John Mastrocco
Active Member
With AA there was no hint the bonuses would be paid until after the concessions were made. And the union has no say-so on the bonuses. As you pointed out, the board makes those decisions.
Which brings up one of the biggest problems I have with the largest companies: the way bonuses and employment contracts for top execs are distributed. The people doing the distribution (the Board) are too often CEO's of other companies on whose board the person they are preparing to reward also sits. Over time the whole thing has become a very close-knit club with each looking out for the other. At least with the largest companies. And even if they don't share the same business interests, they know that may change and then their reward will be decided by the person they just shot down. That won't do at all. So they play the game and continue to reward even when there is failure.
And stockholder votes have almost become meaningless the way most people assign their proxies these days.
Like I said, most of this doesn't hold for smaller companies. and 125 employees is definitely a smaller company. In a lot of ways, I envy you your position. I've worked for both and the smaller ones, while not paying as well or having the same benefits available, are a hell of a lot more fun to work for.
Which brings up one of the biggest problems I have with the largest companies: the way bonuses and employment contracts for top execs are distributed. The people doing the distribution (the Board) are too often CEO's of other companies on whose board the person they are preparing to reward also sits. Over time the whole thing has become a very close-knit club with each looking out for the other. At least with the largest companies. And even if they don't share the same business interests, they know that may change and then their reward will be decided by the person they just shot down. That won't do at all. So they play the game and continue to reward even when there is failure.
And stockholder votes have almost become meaningless the way most people assign their proxies these days.
Like I said, most of this doesn't hold for smaller companies. and 125 employees is definitely a smaller company. In a lot of ways, I envy you your position. I've worked for both and the smaller ones, while not paying as well or having the same benefits available, are a hell of a lot more fun to work for.
Dale Carter
Active Member
Tom - How does Ohio fund their schools? Southern states are building schools and Bush just increased Federal funding of schools with that ridiculous bill he and Senator Kennedy passed.
I ask about Ohio schools to learn, not to challenge. School funding is up as a nation, why the difference in Ohio?
I ask about Ohio schools to learn, not to challenge. School funding is up as a nation, why the difference in Ohio?
Ohio funds the schools by federal funding, lottery revenues, and property tax's. Some communities actually pay a "school tax", but in my area, it is covered by property tax and the others listed above.
Tom
Tom
Dale Carter
Active Member
Sounds like GA. AL uses a large portion of sales taxes, which menas that our schools went into proration every time the economy hiccuped.
Unlike Alabama, those are pretty stable sources of revenue and the Fed actually increased their total budget by 40+%, why the shortfall?
Unlike Alabama, those are pretty stable sources of revenue and the Fed actually increased their total budget by 40+%, why the shortfall?
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Shortfalls result from poor spending policies and innapropriate spending.
30 years ago, schools had buildings, textbooks, desks, teachers, sports, music, etc. Today they have the same plus computers, internet, and the like but they also have "diversity training" for all students, and various other liberal social programs that bear absolutely no necessary ROI for the money spent. At my high school, we had anti-violence programs, anti-gang programs, anti-drug programs, etc. None of which worked well. The best money spent was on the auto shop program, FFA program and music/vocal programs. Nearly every person involved in thoses programs stayed out of trouble, graduated and went on to college or to be successful in their endeavors. Compare that to the other 60% of the school that was not involved in one or more of those programs and the dropout rate was around 10%, teen pregnancy rate around 8-9%, incarceration rate about the same, etc.
Thank you lefties, your doing soooo well with your programs.
30 years ago, schools had buildings, textbooks, desks, teachers, sports, music, etc. Today they have the same plus computers, internet, and the like but they also have "diversity training" for all students, and various other liberal social programs that bear absolutely no necessary ROI for the money spent. At my high school, we had anti-violence programs, anti-gang programs, anti-drug programs, etc. None of which worked well. The best money spent was on the auto shop program, FFA program and music/vocal programs. Nearly every person involved in thoses programs stayed out of trouble, graduated and went on to college or to be successful in their endeavors. Compare that to the other 60% of the school that was not involved in one or more of those programs and the dropout rate was around 10%, teen pregnancy rate around 8-9%, incarceration rate about the same, etc.
Thank you lefties, your doing soooo well with your programs.
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Sounds like it had more to do with the people in your neighborhood. Those programs work in other places.
(It's partly a joke Son!)
Seriously, can you say they were a total failure? Can you honestly say NO ONE was helped by those other programs? I doubt it. The people that were in the music/autoshop/etc programs were motivated by other things, not just the music or the auto shop or the 'etc.' And didn't they attend the same 'liberal social programs' as the failures? Are you sure they weren't influenced by those to go to the music/auto shop/etc programs? You can never say any program is a total failure, nor can you declare any program 100% success. ("This one time, at Band Camp...")
I do agree you do have to look at the succes vs failure rate and make a decision based on those. But have you seen any studies of failure vs success for all the programs or are you relying only on your personal observations?
BTW: just so we are on the same page... The first programs cut when there are money shortfalls are music and art.
Discuss.
(It's partly a joke Son!)
Seriously, can you say they were a total failure? Can you honestly say NO ONE was helped by those other programs? I doubt it. The people that were in the music/autoshop/etc programs were motivated by other things, not just the music or the auto shop or the 'etc.' And didn't they attend the same 'liberal social programs' as the failures? Are you sure they weren't influenced by those to go to the music/auto shop/etc programs? You can never say any program is a total failure, nor can you declare any program 100% success. ("This one time, at Band Camp...")
I do agree you do have to look at the succes vs failure rate and make a decision based on those. But have you seen any studies of failure vs success for all the programs or are you relying only on your personal observations?
BTW: just so we are on the same page... The first programs cut when there are money shortfalls are music and art.
Discuss.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale Carter
Active Member
Rocco - I agree with your argument about judging program viability, it is incredibly hard to assign success/failure ratings.
I think R Shek's point is, that in the face of scarce resources the funding is better applied to
math. art. science, lit, music and other academic pursuits, rather than social engineering. After all, when criticized for scoring so poorly on core curriculum, don't administrators often point FIRST to funding? I don't buy DVD's until I am sure that my utilities and mortgage are paid, maybe schools should look at that approach.
R Shek, don't want to put words in your mouth, am I close to your intent?
I think R Shek's point is, that in the face of scarce resources the funding is better applied to
math. art. science, lit, music and other academic pursuits, rather than social engineering. After all, when criticized for scoring so poorly on core curriculum, don't administrators often point FIRST to funding? I don't buy DVD's until I am sure that my utilities and mortgage are paid, maybe schools should look at that approach.
R Shek, don't want to put words in your mouth, am I close to your intent?
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Dale,
That I will agree with as well. But there are some districts that weren't having funding problems for a long time and the extras got in there deep. ie: The district my daughter was in was pretty flush with cash for a long time. Then shortfalls started due to falling property values (10 years worth in Oklahoma City from 1983 until 1993) which were the major funding source for the schools, and the administration did the best they could identifying which programs to keep and which ones to drop. But of course, nothing was good enough and someone was pissed no matter what got dropped. But they always made sure the basics were funded first and went to the extras only then. Now that property values are going up failrly well, they are able to re-add a lot of the extras they used to have. But this time they are trying to decide which are the most bang for the buck. (ROI may work for business because it's easy to put a number to it all. But when it comes to education it's all so ephemeral it's not all that clear, so ROI is the wrong term to use.)
Now, I will agree that if you didn't have enough to fund the basics, you have no business funding anything except the basics. (But I'm one of those that includes sports as extras so I usually get told to stuff it. :lol: ) But if the basics are funded and there are limited resources left for some extras, identifying which extras will be funded can be a real bitch.
That I will agree with as well. But there are some districts that weren't having funding problems for a long time and the extras got in there deep. ie: The district my daughter was in was pretty flush with cash for a long time. Then shortfalls started due to falling property values (10 years worth in Oklahoma City from 1983 until 1993) which were the major funding source for the schools, and the administration did the best they could identifying which programs to keep and which ones to drop. But of course, nothing was good enough and someone was pissed no matter what got dropped. But they always made sure the basics were funded first and went to the extras only then. Now that property values are going up failrly well, they are able to re-add a lot of the extras they used to have. But this time they are trying to decide which are the most bang for the buck. (ROI may work for business because it's easy to put a number to it all. But when it comes to education it's all so ephemeral it's not all that clear, so ROI is the wrong term to use.)
Now, I will agree that if you didn't have enough to fund the basics, you have no business funding anything except the basics. (But I'm one of those that includes sports as extras so I usually get told to stuff it. :lol: ) But if the basics are funded and there are limited resources left for some extras, identifying which extras will be funded can be a real bitch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dale Carter
Active Member
I'm with you on sports as an extra and I am betting that the Okies are as hard core about their sports as the folks here in the south. Before anyone jumps me, I was a two year letter on the state champion 6A (top level) football team and regional champ varsity basketball. My brother was an All American offensive guard, as well as a college and semi-pro pitcher. Point being that I have a firm grasp on the importance and role of sports.
I don't know how it works in Oklahoma, but my school didn't spend a penny on football. Our booster club paid for uniforms, transportation, field and stadium maintenance and even the extra money for coaches salaries. Donations and ticket sales covered football. The marching band was the same story. I know that several other sports, like cross country, golf and soccer were self supporting, as well.
I don't know how it works in Oklahoma, but my school didn't spend a penny on football. Our booster club paid for uniforms, transportation, field and stadium maintenance and even the extra money for coaches salaries. Donations and ticket sales covered football. The marching band was the same story. I know that several other sports, like cross country, golf and soccer were self supporting, as well.
John Mastrocco
Active Member
You have the fanatacism right for Oklahoma and HS sports - mainly football and Basketball.
The school district is responsible for the stadiums in the district. If they make enough to cover it, great. If not, oh well, it's part of the grounds. The coaches are supposed to be coaches part time and teachers full time. Guess how well that works. In any event, they take up a teacher position and get some extra cash to be the Coach - whatever the sport can afford. I think it's a waste of a good teacher position.
The sports are subsidized by the district if they don't break even. That's about it. Of course, if a sport doesn't at least break even, they aren't around very long, so I guess they have to support themselves in a way. Same for the band. Road trips to neighboring districts are on the school owned buses and other trips are handled with fund-raisers. Uniforms I'm not sure about, but the program has to buy the players uniforms and that may or may not be subsidized by the disctrict if the program makes enough money. Instruments are supplied by the school for the band.
The school district is responsible for the stadiums in the district. If they make enough to cover it, great. If not, oh well, it's part of the grounds. The coaches are supposed to be coaches part time and teachers full time. Guess how well that works. In any event, they take up a teacher position and get some extra cash to be the Coach - whatever the sport can afford. I think it's a waste of a good teacher position.
The sports are subsidized by the district if they don't break even. That's about it. Of course, if a sport doesn't at least break even, they aren't around very long, so I guess they have to support themselves in a way. Same for the band. Road trips to neighboring districts are on the school owned buses and other trips are handled with fund-raisers. Uniforms I'm not sure about, but the program has to buy the players uniforms and that may or may not be subsidized by the disctrict if the program makes enough money. Instruments are supplied by the school for the band.
Dale Carter
Active Member
I would agree with the waste of a good teacher position, but I saw way too many crappy teachers that didn't give the extra time and effort to coach a sport. I had English teachers who used phrases like "ax" (ask), are-uh (letter r) and "cohl-yum" (column). My coaches taught Drivers Ed, American History and Civics. Some were good teachers and some were not. Some were good coaches and some were not. Some were good people and some were not.
Money losing sports are usually mandated by Title IX, so they can't be cut without a corresponding cut of non-Title IX sports.
Band instruments and uniforms were purchased by the individual student. Man, those kids raised a LOT of money.
Money losing sports are usually mandated by Title IX, so they can't be cut without a corresponding cut of non-Title IX sports.
Band instruments and uniforms were purchased by the individual student. Man, those kids raised a LOT of money.
