[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let's not forget one big PRO of renting: mobility

So many unemployed homeowners can't move and find a new job elsewhere because their homes can't be sold.

-t

Absolutely. Renting is a smart decision for many. As is buying for others.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let's not forget one big PRO of renting: mobility

So many unemployed homeowners can't move and find a new job elsewhere because their homes can't be sold.

-t

You're right on the money with this one. This is a HUGE drawback of ownership - the asset is also a liability. We've just begun to see it as such in the last few years in this country.

[Big Mac]

Are You Smarter Than a Wall Street Occupier? -- Daily Intel

As for the title of this thread, it's true to a very significant extent. The Democratic Party of today isn't the centrist, even center-right, anti-Communist party of JFK. Today's Democratic Party is ruled by the far-left Progressives, and the OWS scum-hippy-commie-cum-fest is their vanguard movement. Obama's earlier class warfare, coupled with Sorros orchestration, brought this rancid, disgusting sham rabble together.

[smacintush]

You guys are doing a decent job of demonstrating why whether to rent or own is a personal decision that the government has no business subsidizing or incentivizing.

[James L]

My cousin and I have the rent versus own debate often. He is a free spirit who is still in his 20s and has lived in 7 countries so far. He rents for the convenience of being able to pack up and move whenever he wants.

When he leaves a rental he only gets his damage deposit back though.

If I decided to sell my house this month I would get well over $200,000 back after closing costs. My money. Tax free. In the bank.

He'll never see his rent money again.

Renting and home ownership are two entirely different things. One may suit an individual's needs better of course, but if money is the yard stick I will always be pulling ahead of my cousin.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by James L 

If I decided to sell my house this month I would get well over $200,000 back after closing costs. My money. Tax free. In the bank.

He'll never see his rent money again.

That's great, you are one of the few that have a lot of NET positive equity in their home.

Amazingly, the AVERAGE American houshold has NEGATIVE Net Worth.
That means, their debt/liabilities is higher than their savings and equity in their homes.

Guest Post: Debt-Serfdom Is Now The New American Norm | ZeroHedge

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's great, you are one of the few that have a lot of NET positive equity in their home.

Amazingly, the AVERAGE American houshold has NEGATIVE Net Worth.
That means, their debt/liabilities is higher than their savings and equity in their homes.

-t

This is just in the present. A truly smart homeowner is thinking of the future.

I have a perspective on this issue from talking to my parents- and before them my late grandparents- on the matter. In both cases, my folks bought their homes, and then around them the economy and markets did what they did. There were times my parents home (they bought their current home 45 years ago for $25,000) was supposedly worth only say, $15,000. It's gone up and down from that point many times over the years. Today, it's supposedly worth over $500,000. During the silly housing bubble, it supposedly went up to a ridiculous 1.2 million! (Although they would never in 1.2 million years even in the height of the mania ever found someone to buy it for that much, unless it was some stooge prompted by dumb government-driven lending practices that couldn't really afford a $1.2 million property anyway.)

By the time I (now an only child) inherit it, who knows what it'll be worth, and who really cares. It'll still be a home people can live in, valued at a price that a home people can live in fetches in whatever is currently the present. It'll always -barring total Armageddon- be worth more monetarily than they originally bought it for.

By the way, when my grandmother died, my family sold the house she and my grandfather bought in the 1930's for $5,000 for over $300,000.

Home ownership should be a long-term thing, not some fly-by-night operation where people are constantly worried about the 'current' supposed value as if they were play-traders watching a stock go up and down day by day.

Also people with no long-term job prospects in a given area should probably rent. I do realize in this day and age it's harder than ever to determine if ones prospects are really long-term or not, but it is still fairly possible.

[Big Mac]

turtle is right about never truly owning real estate in another respect, though: Even when the mortgage is paid off, the owner still gets hit by property taxes. Property taxes in California have been reasonable for long-time owners since Proposition 13 decades ago, but they still hurt for new owners and are much worse in other high tax states around the country. A cousin of mine in Long Island pays atrocious property taxes on a rather crappy house they own.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

turtle is right about never truly owning real estate in another respect, though: Even when the mortgage is paid off, the owner still gets hit by property taxes. Property taxes in California have been reasonable for long-time owners since Proposition 13 decades ago, but they still hurt for new owners and are much worse in other high tax states around the country. A cousin of mine in Long Island pays atrocious property taxes on a rather crappy house they own.

True, but to me it's kind of akin to complaining about having to pay DMV, insurance, license, and fuel costs for a vehicle. Is it better to 'own' the car and still have to pay these things, or lease indefinitely and still have costs as well? There are pros and cons to either.

I think the key difference people will someday learn, comes with retirement. Owners- we'll have a place to live. Yes, still expenses (living anywhere isn't and never will be 'free') but if one has planned well for the future, the expenses will be manageable.

Renters- you'll still be paying rent. It will be at a current rate of inflation far higher than during your working years. IE: if your rent is now say, $2,000 a month, count on it being $5,000 a month when you retire. Or will you be able to retire? You'll have rent to pay. Every month, come hell or high water. And your landlord can up it as he sees fit, or sell the place out from under you. If you waited too long, it'll be harder if not impossible to get a loan, because no one will bank on you having 30 good years of income left to pay it off. (Unless you got rich). So at some point in your life, it may well be rent now- rent always.

Pros and cons both ways, but for me, 'ownership' in this case is a huge plus.

[Shaddim]

It really depends on tax rates. Property taxes where I live are shockingly low. In fact, I wouldn't mind a small increase if it meant the county could be a little more vigilant in road repairs. I brought this up at a recent county commission meeting and the reaction from almost everyone else was rather negative, as you'd expect. Then I was told that the people here weren't in favor of my "liberal agenda". I said, "C'mon Bob, you know I'm no liberal, I just don't like driving through 8" deep potholes. What am I supposed to do, drive around with a bag of quikrete and a jug of water in my trunk?"

[James L]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

turtle is right about never truly owning real estate in another respect, though: Even when the mortgage is paid off, the owner still gets hit by property taxes.

How does paying property taxes mean you don't own your home? You do own your home, you are just paying a fee for the civil services provided to you... roads, schools, policing, fire departments, etc.

Renters pay this same fee, it is just built into the cost of their rent.

My yearly property taxes amount to about 20% of what I would pay if I rented a similar home to the one I own for a year. If my mortgage was paid off right now (I wish!) I would only pay 20% of what I would pay if I was renting, and I would have an asset worth $500,000 that I could sell when I wanted to.

Some people, such as my cousin, may prefer to rent because it fits with their lifestyle. For others, however, I still can't see the downside of home ownership.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by James L 

My yearly property taxes amount to about 20% of what I would pay if I rented a similar home to the one I own for a year. If my mortgage was paid off right now (I wish!) I would only pay 20% of what I would pay if I was renting, and I would have an asset worth $500,000 that I could sell when I wanted to.

Not right now, you couldn't.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not right now, you couldn't.

Yup, actually I could.

[Kerrigan]

According to current legal theory in the US, no one truly owns anything. You just have a bundle of rights concerning property that the court can take away at any time if it so decides. You can't even sell your blood (but, of course, you can be reimbursed for your time). Carry on!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by James L 

Renting and home ownership are two entirely different things. One may suit an individual's needs better of course, but if money is the yard stick I will always be pulling ahead of my cousin.

No, completely wrong. Housing as an investment is more restrictive, than investing in more liquid investments at the same amounts. For some people, that restriction is the only thing preventing them from spending instead of saving. This is an illusion making them think that housing as a forced-savings-vehicle is a smarter financial choice. But in reality, what they're looking at is the difference between saving and not saving, not the difference between saving using the home-owner forced-savings method vs saving in a diversified investment portfolio.

Financial advantages of home ownership:
• Not being forced to move as often, moving costs money
• Not having an option to stop saving when your mood changes

Financial disadvantages of home ownership:
• Lack of liquidity; you can't move to follow a higher-paying job, and you can't up- or down-size your living arrangements optimally based on changing situation or market conditions, so you end up paying more for more housing than you need (to prepare for the future or as inertia from the past).
• Lack of diversification; way too much of your net worth is trapped in a single non-liquid asset, which you can't dollar-cost-average
• Forced leverage; leverage is a double-edged sword. It amplifies both gains and losses. You can choose to buy stocks with leverage, but you can't choose to buy your house without leverage.
• Carrying costs; Houses don't last forever, and require costly maintenance and labor continually, and you pay more for insurance/security.
• Different kind of lack of liquidity; you lose ~6% every time you get on or off this ride, so you're negative right out of the gate

I am a homeowner, but not because it "makes more money." Throwing money away on interest, upkeep, inflexibility and market bubbles is no less risky than throwing money away on rent. Your cousin doesn't walk away with nothing to show for it, he walks away with 30 years worth of saving on lower housing costs, and the accumulated interest on those funds. If he chose to spend those savings by enriching his life with travel and experiences, then that's not an apple-to-apples comparison. It does however illustrate another advantage of renting, it being à la carte. He can save as much or as little as he wants (measured in $) when he rents, but due to the forced-savings aspect of owning you don't have that option.

[turtle777]

Very good analysis

I'm renting a townhouse.
If I wanted to "own" a similar townhouse, I'd pay MORE when figuring in all the cost (mortgage, interest, taxes, maintenance).
I don't blow the money "saved", I do actually invest it in things that are more diversified and liquid than real estate.

-t

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

According to current legal theory in the US, no one truly owns anything. You just have a bundle of rights concerning property that the court can take away at any time if it so decides. You can't even sell your blood (but, of course, you can be reimbursed for your time). Carry on!

That's very true in the consumer electronics industry, sadly.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, completely wrong. Housing as an investment is more restrictive, than investing in more liquid investments at the same amounts. For some people, that restriction is the only thing preventing them from spending instead of saving. This is an illusion making them think that housing as a forced-savings-vehicle is a smarter financial choice. But in reality, what they're looking at is the difference between saving and not saving, not the difference between saving using the home-owner forced-savings method vs saving in a diversified investment portfolio.

Financial advantages of home ownership:
• Not being forced to move as often, moving costs money
• Not having an option to stop saving when your mood changes

Financial disadvantages of home ownership:
• Lack of liquidity; you can't move to follow a higher-paying job, and you can't up- or down-size your living arrangements optimally based on changing situation or market conditions, so you end up paying more for more housing than you need (to prepare for the future or as inertia from the past).
• Lack of diversification; way too much of your net worth is trapped in a single non-liquid asset, which you can't dollar-cost-average
• Forced leverage; leverage is a double-edged sword. It amplifies both gains and losses. You can choose to buy stocks with leverage, but you can't choose to buy your house without leverage.
• Carrying costs; Houses don't last forever, and require costly maintenance and labor continually, and you pay more for insurance/security.
• Different kind of lack of liquidity; you lose ~6% every time you get on or off this ride, so you're negative right out of the gate

I am a homeowner, but not because it "makes more money." Throwing money away on interest, upkeep, inflexibility and market bubbles is no less risky than throwing money away on rent. Your cousin doesn't walk away with nothing to show for it, he walks away with 30 years worth of saving on lower housing costs, and the accumulated interest on those funds. If he chose to spend those savings by enriching his life with travel and experiences, then that's not an apple-to-apples comparison. It does however illustrate another advantage of renting, it being à la carte. He can save as much or as little as he wants (measured in $) when he rents, but due to the forced-savings aspect of owning you don't have that option.

Before I bought my current house I owned a nice townhouse. I sold it without difficulty after 4 years and cleared a profit of $133,000.

I also invest. My investments in no way made me $133,000 in 4 years.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by James L 

Before I bought my current house I owned a nice townhouse. I sold it without difficulty after 4 years and cleared a profit of $133,000.

I also invest. My investments in no way made me $133,000 in 4 years.

Sure, you picked the right time.

Ask peple that bought between 2004-2008 and then sold 4 years later if they made any money.
Most of them didn't.

I invest in Gold. Since 2001, you would have made more money if you invested in Gold and sold after 4 years.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The whole, "you can't move to follow a better job" so-called disadvantage with home ownership is bogus. It's not a blanket fact.

I could move, and rent out my current house. I don't need to sell it. It's property. The money I collect in rent would even fund my new place.

If this wasn't the case- you renters would have no place to live.

Also, still going on with the short term non-arguments. People that buy a house and expect to sell it 4 years later for a major profit are idiots. It's not why anyone with any financial sense buys a house.

None of this is either/or. I own a home and invest in other things.

Get back to us in 20, 30 years, however long until you plan on retiring. Your rent will be crazy-astronomical compared to whatever it is today. I sincerely hope everyone renting is buying lots of gold or SOMETHING for an adequate retirement income to pay for it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The whole, "you can't move to follow a better job" so-called disadvantage with home ownership is bogus. It's not a blanket fact.

I could move, and rent out my current house. I don't need to sell it. It's property. The money I collect in rent would even fund my new place.

That all depends on the kind of house.

If you purchased something really huge at the height of the market, you couldn't even rent it out, because utilities would eat you alive. Big houses are definitely a liability, not an asset.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Get back to us in 20, 30 years, however long until you plan on retiring. Your rent will be crazy-astronomical compared to whatever it is today. I sincerely hope everyone renting is buying lots of gold or SOMETHING for an adequate retirement income to pay for it.

LOL, you mean, in 30 years, when local governments are so desperate that they increased property tax to 5%, and come up with bogus assessments, and you're bleeding crazy cash.

Why exactly do you think rent would go up, but other cost of home ownership would not ?

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Originally Posted by James L 

Before I bought my current house I owned a nice townhouse. I sold it without difficulty after 4 years and cleared a profit of $133,000.

I also invest. My investments in no way made me $133,000 in 4 years.

Sure, you picked the right time.

Ask peple that bought between 2004-2008 and then sold 4 years later if they made any money.
Most of them didn't.

I invest in Gold. Since 2001, you would have made more money if you invested in Gold and sold after 4 years.

-t

Leveraged 5:1 no less. You could have done a lot better than 133,000 if you bought gold leveraged by the same amount. Or you could have ended up losing most or even more than your principal (which was what by the way?).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, you mean, in 30 years, when local governments are so desperate that they increased property tax to 5%, and come up with bogus assessments, and you're bleeding crazy cash.

Why exactly do you think rent would go up, but other cost of home ownership would not ?

-t

I didn't say that the other costs of home ownership wouldn't go up. I said before- it's not free to live ANYWHERE, never has been, never will be.

The difference is, the cost of my property taxes will likely be nowhere near the costs of your rent due every month, after inflation, at a time in your life when you may be retired and living on a fixed income.

This is to say nothing of the fact that I'll also be living in house, like an adult thank you very much, not some crappy apartment.

You are right about one thing- if liberals have their way, and grant more and more and more crazy insane powers of confiscation to their beloved government, this could change everything. In the future, those who actually planned for their retirement and own things may be targeted by future generations of greedy *********s even worse than our current crop of leftists, and it'll only be 'fair' to take everything from anyone who actually has something in order to fund their current out-of-control spending spree.

So with crazy liberalism as a wild-card tossed in, you may turn out to be right. Future dippy libs may justify stealing the equity out of everyone's home in the form of insanely jacked up property taxes, in the name of 'you don't need it! you didn't earn it! you're greedy! It's only faaaair that we get to take it!" type nonsense that they usually justify their desire for theft with.

There's not much I can do about that, except to hope some semblance of sanity prevails for at least a few more generations. Either way, I don't think renting under future liberalism will be any less a picnic either- if people couldn't afford their homes, they'd have to.... rent. Same as you. The increased demand would drive up the price.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I didn't say that the other costs of home ownership wouldn't go up. I said before- it's not free to live ANYWHERE, never has been, never will be.

The difference is, the cost of my property taxes will likely be nowhere near the costs of your rent due every month, after inflation, at a time in your life when you may be retired and living on a fixed income.

This is to say nothing of the fact that I'll also be living in house, like an adult thank you very much, not some crappy apartment.

I never said renting is ALWAYS and FOREVER the best thing.
But trust me, real estate prices are going to fall further.
With the money I now save by renting, I could buy even bigger houses later.

And, funny thing, all those people that were supposed to live "rent free" in their homes once they retired, now they deal with homes that are loaded with debt from second mortgages. Didn't quite work out as intended.

Fact is: homeownership is overrated. And most people that bought a house should have never done so, because they can't really afford it. The responsible home owners are now paying the price by plunging house prices due to a crashed market.

-t

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I never said renting is ALWAYS and FOREVER the best thing.
But trust me, real estate prices are going to fall further.
With the money I now save by renting, I could buy even bigger houses later.

Very possibly. Or, if you wait too long no one will give you a loan because you don't have the reasonable expectation of enough working years left to cover it.

And, funny thing, all those people that were supposed to live "rent free" in their homes once they retired, now they deal with homes that are loaded with debt from second mortgages. Didn't quite work out as intended.

True, and covered under "allowing third parties to tell you what your house is worth in order to influence you to make bad financial decisions.' People that could figure out not to do this, don't have this problem.

Fact is: homeownership is overrated. And most people that bought a house should have never done so, because they can't really afford it. The responsible home owners are now paying the price by plunging house prices due to a crashed market.

Responsible people always pay for the irresponsible. It was irresponsible people that drove the price of housing up artificially in the first place.

Prices should fall. Back to levels that reflect the REAL WORLD. People like me don't care what third parties want to say my house is worth. What concerns me more, is that responsible adults that want to own a house should be able to afford one because ********s haven't made the cost of ownership insane. As far as I'm concerned, the price of a house should be MUCH lower- everywhere. If the average new car costs, say $30,000, then the average cost of a single family home should be around $80,000 IMHO.

Dealing in amounts approaching a half mil for mere mortals is merely a trick that's been played on people- driven by the aforementioned ********s using housing for short-term investment vehicles, and by government and lenders for increased loan amounts and increased property taxes. None of these third parties would make as much money if we were dealing realistically at sub $100,000 levels as we should be. And of course if prices fell back down to planet earth, nitwits mortgaged to the upper stratosphere would whine and cry about being 'underwater' because they let a third party talk them into taking out a loan for 5x more than they should have.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, you mean, in 30 years, when local governments are so desperate that they increased property tax to 5%, and come up with bogus assessments, and you're bleeding crazy cash.

I'd love it if the price only went up 5%. Rent in the San Francisco Bay Area has gone up almost 10% in the last year alone, and has gone up every single year prior. It'll go up again this year, and up again next year.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'd love it if the price only went up 5%. Rent in the San Francisco Bay Area has gone up almost 10% in the last year alone, and has gone up every single year prior. It'll go up again this year, and up again next year.

I think he means 5% of assessed value.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Now do that on a salary of $30,000 a year. We call that teaching.

Cry me a river.

First of all, you're about $10k-$13k short in their average salary and given the amount of time off/year + bennies the rest of us aren't getting, we call this unwarranted bitching about the job you've chosen.

I mean... if you're really in it for the money, you'd be a college professor.

[ebuddy]

IMO the Democratic party has been almost as much a stick in Obama's mud as anyone else, they're just going about it in such a way as to minimize damage to their party. i.e. I don't think the party establishment has been taken over by the loons as much as the loons have the bullhorn right now.

I think most Democrats would kill to have a more moderate, Bill Clinton in office right now.

[besson3c]

I shudder when I hear ideologues on the right go on about Democrats being on the far left. We haven't seen this in ages because your left-right dogmameter has been skewed by ideologues moving the country to the right.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, you're about $10k-$13k short in their average salary...

Correct, was supposed to be a 4.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...and given the amount of time off/year + bennies the rest of us aren't getting, we call this unwarranted bitching about the job you've chosen.

I love the assumptions that the teacher's work day ends when school gets out. Do you have any idea the time invested in reading 180+ essays a week? Correcting them? Cross referencing for plagiarism? All the while dealing with parents yelling at you for not doing their job for them, treating schools as if they're 8-hour day care?

Then after they're done with all of that bullsh*t, they still have to buy all their teaching materials out of their own pocket with no reimbursement.

Yeah, they're flashing those bennies at everyone driving their '92 Nissan Sentra.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I mean... if you're really in it for the money, you'd be a college professor.

So teachers should just put up with sh*t salaries and declining classroom conditions because it's a labor of love, not a means to make a living?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Correct, was supposed to be a 4.



I love the assumptions that the teacher's work day ends when school gets out. Do you have any idea the time invested in reading 180+ essays a week? Correcting them? Cross referencing for plagiarism? All the while dealing with parents yelling at you for not doing their job for them, treating schools as if they're 8-hour day care?

Then after they're done with all of that bullsh*t, they still have to buy all their teaching materials out of their own pocket with no reimbursement.

I know right.

My HS science teacher paid me to stay after school to help her correct papers.
My HS math teacher paid me to correct math exams during lunch hours.

I was a harsh grader.

[hyteckit]

I heard that the Democratic Party was taken over by Demonic Zombies.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I shudder when I hear ideologues on the right go on about Democrats being on the far left. We haven't seen this in ages because your left-right dogmameter has been skewed by ideologues moving the country to the right.

You shudder becue it's true. Stop being in denial.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You shudder becue it's true. Stop being in denial.

-t

Wait a minute, I thought you said that Obama was Bush Jr.?

Which is it?

[turtle777]

I said STOP BEING IN DENIAL.

You should learn to read.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I said STOP BEING IN DENIAL.

You should learn to read.

-t

I guess I'm not used to you agreeing with me. So, the country has been moved to the right, and so therefore our sense of what is actually right and what is actually left has been skewed?

[hyteckit]

Zombies.

[besson3c]

WTF ebuddy? In the past you have suggested that we stop "going after" the rich, yet you feel compelled to rag on teachers a little... Teachers? Really? They should be the subject of ire?

Just when I think Republican ideology has reached crazy town I discover that there is an even crazier town programmed into the GPS...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Correct, was supposed to be a 4.

Just wanted to be clear that we tend to skew low and pretend this is the end of their compensation.

I love the assumptions that the teacher's work day ends when school gets out. Do you have any idea the time invested in reading 180+ essays a week? Correcting them? Cross referencing for plagiarism? All the while dealing with parents yelling at you for not doing their job for them, treating schools as if they're 8-hour day care?

I love the assumption that a teacher isn't working from a 36.5 hour work-week contract or that they're all English-Lit teachers reading 180+ essays/week. I'm sorry olePigeon, but this is simply preposterous. Your point about parents who suck real bad is noted for anyone who has even tried coaching a child's sport, but we make choices in life. If you want, I can give you the conservative dissertation on the declining family.

Then after they're done with all of that bullsh*t, they still have to buy all their teaching materials out of their own pocket with no reimbursement.

FUD. The average student is costing $10,000/year and that's not on the tater-tots and cubed turkey in mashed potatoes my friend. Try again. Most States utilize a fund that the teacher is responsible for managing in which case the overwhelming majority of supplies are already made available either at the district/city or school administrative level. Notwithstanding that most States include provisions for classroom supplies reimbursement and/or tax deductions.

Yeah, they're flashing those bennies at everyone driving their '92 Nissan Sentra.

Except when you consider that the '92 Nissan Sentra your teacher was driving was brand-new when you were in high school.

So teachers should just put up with sh*t salaries and declining classroom conditions because it's a labor of love, not a means to make a living?

Of course it's means for a living, but your tirade is a lot like listening to a trash-man complain about the smell of garbage. Choices. Again, if the money we're paying per student isn't going into the declining classroom conditions or the teachers' pay, the food, the music program was cut, and teachers are buying all their own supplies with no reimbursement; you'll have to ask where all the friggin money is going. Aren't you the least bit curious?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

WTF ebuddy? In the past you have suggested that we stop "going after" the rich, yet you feel compelled to rag on teachers a little... Teachers? Really? They should be the subject of ire?

I didn't bring teachers into the discussion, someone else did by marginalizing their income about 25%. I'm just keepin' it real besson.

The ire that you're picking up on is directed at a public education system that costs on average $10k/year per student yet we get to hear about declining classroom conditions, cutting music programs, deplorable teacher compensation, non-reimbursed personal teacher expenditures on classroom supplies, and U.S. students in 14th place in reading literacy among OECD nations, 25th in mathematics, and 17th in Science.

Just when I think Republican ideology has reached crazy town I discover that there is an even crazier town programmed into the GPS...

Just when I think the card-carrying Democrats couldn't possibly have their head buried more deeply in sand, I come to find out that one cannot even speak on a societal concern without it being an "attack on ________". Must be the product of our Uniter-in-Chief.

[besson3c]

Your card-carrying Democrat partisan cheap shot in response to mine would be effective if I aimed to be some sort of partisan, but at any rate I apologize for my cheap shot. I was lumping you into the crowd of Republican making general attacks on the luxuries of teachers during the Wisconsin incident, which was dumb.

Sure there are problems with administration in some districts that the administrators should be held accountable for, and sure there are also problems with government in some districts as well, I just don't think it is good to rag on teachers. Yes they made a choice, but more than likely with the expectation that they would be allowed to do their job without the hassles of not having supplies, proper classroom sizes, and a number of other things teachers put up with. While there are problem teachers, I would say that by and large at least based on my limited empirical evidence teachers aren't the problem, it's the government, administration, and idiot parents.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your card-carrying Democrat partisan cheap shot in response to mine would be effective if I aimed to be some sort of partisan, but at any rate I apologize for my cheap shot. I was lumping you into the crowd of Republican making general attacks on the luxuries of teachers during the Wisconsin incident, which was dumb.

I generally respond in kind besson. Of course, it's only effective with those that at least make an attempt to be fair-minded and I'm pleased to see that includes you. My problem in that thread was about collective-bargaining and how it has not served the interest of public school students.

Sure there are problems with administration in some districts that the administrators should be held accountable for, and sure there are also problems with government in some districts as well, I just don't think it is good to rag on teachers. Yes they made a choice, but more than likely with the expectation that they would be allowed to do their job without the hassles of not having supplies, proper classroom sizes, and a number of other things teachers put up with. While there are problem teachers, I would say that by and large at least based on my limited empirical evidence teachers aren't the problem, it's the government, administration, and idiot parents.

The statement I responded to was not only combative, but factually incorrect. I responded in kind and was not "ragging" on teachers as if they would be expected to support lower pay and fewer bennies. It's the union/government structure I generally take issue with, not its sympathetic pawns.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My problem in that thread was about collective-bargaining and how it has not served the interest of public school students.

What alternatives do you see to labor and various other unions in general when it comes to education? Please do not say that the free market will sort everything out. I can't remember if you're one of those people that thinks that we should just privatize all education. I hope not.

It's the union/government structure I generally take issue with, not its sympathetic pawns.

I think any sort of real change comes from unions and various social organizations like this in a very general way. Obviously these unions need to utilize what power they have smartly and perhaps not do what the auto unions did, but we need more unions and similar structures in this country that would amount to greater power existing in lower social classes. One of the basic principles behind OWS is that this financial/social system we live in is not working for a number of people, particularly the virtuous people that play by the rule book and go to school, work hard, pay their dues, and cannot find work even with their advanced degrees, or work in a job where there is no upwards mobility. The upwards mobility ideally would be available for any hard working and intelligent, virtuous individual. While the right often likes to say that those who are not making it should stop whining and bitching and just work harder, I hope we can agree that the upward mobility is eroding - the lack of an increase in middle class salaries speaks to that. Knowing you you will probably respond with a paragraph plus long response about how the cause of that is the government. I'm not suggesting any particular source of blame so I hope you don't feel compelled to go off in that direction as if I would disagree, I'm just identifying the problem which is the first thing that needs to happen before any real change can originate.

Anyway, all of this is to say that I don't see any of this changing without a broader social movement which would include unions and the like, and before some in here go off the deep end, what I'm speaking to does not equate to Leninist Marxism or some other move away from capitalism (although I still maintain that some sort of evolution from current capitalism to something new is where things are headed ultimately anyway).

Sorry to be rambly.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I heard that the Democratic Party was taken over by Demonic Zombies.

Didn't you see the CDC warning?! I thought everyone knew that!

CDC EPR | Social Media | Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse - Blog

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I love the assumption that a teacher isn't working from a 36.5 hour work-week contract or that they're all English-Lit teachers reading 180+ essays/week. I'm sorry olePigeon, but this is simply preposterous.

They're not all English teachers, you're right. They could be grading history term papers, math assignments, chemistry or physics problems. Many schools in smaller or poorer districts require teachers to cover multiple subjects simultaneously.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

FUD. The average student is costing $10,000/year and that's not on the tater-tots and cubed turkey in mashed potatoes my friend. Try again. Most States utilize a fund that the teacher is responsible for managing in which case the overwhelming majority of supplies are already made available either at the district/city or school administrative level. Notwithstanding that most States include provisions for classroom supplies reimbursement and/or tax deductions.

No. I have been involved with education my entire life. My mother is a teacher, and I've worked within the California school system since I graduated from high school. I will give you an example. I currently work with a school district in the south Bay Area in Northern California. This is in the Mountain View, Los Altos, Palo Alto, Cupertino area. Very rich people there. The state funding allocated to our school district makes up a little less than 5% of our operational budget. 5%. This is in one of the richest areas of our state. 95% of our money comes from local taxes and contributions from the PTA.

So when California slashed funding to state schools as they do every year (has steadily dropped from 70% in the 1950s to less than 5%), our school district was in the same predicament as every other district. We had to lay off 1/4 of our staff and teachers and close two schools in my district alone. This is in one of the richest areas in California.

State funding is nothing, at least it is here in California. Most districts survive on razor thin budgeting. Pensions and salaries make up only a small part of the budget. Teachers who have devoted on average 15 years of their lives to teaching, make a fraction of what they would be making had they gone into the private sector.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Except when you consider that the '92 Nissan Sentra your teacher was driving was brand-new when you were in high school.

And they're still paying for it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course it's means for a living, but your tirade is a lot like listening to a trash-man complain about the smell of garbage.

Trash man doesn't need a master's degree.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, if the money we're paying per student isn't going into the declining classroom conditions or the teachers' pay, the food, the music program was cut, and teachers are buying all their own supplies with no reimbursement; you'll have to ask where all the friggin money is going. Aren't you the least bit curious?

We know where the money isn't going. Somewhere between the Department of Education and the politicians coffers it gets lost. It is not getting to the schools. If we knew where the money was going, we wouldn't have students requiring remedial courses in college.

Budget Mix-Up Provides Nation's Schools With Enough Money To Properly Educate Students | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Satire can sting because it's true.

[Buckaroo]

Left vs Right (World) | David McCandless & Stefanie Posavec | Information Is Beautiful

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Left vs Right (World) | David McCandless & Stefanie Posavec | Information Is Beautiful

Cock and balls!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What alternatives do you see to labor and various other unions in general when it comes to education? Please do not say that the free market will sort everything out. I can't remember if you're one of those people that thinks that we should just privatize all education. I hope not.

Education should be managed exclusively at the State level. I don't think education needs to be entirely privatized as that would be an awfully hasty move, but I also wouldn't want to bash the idea outright for political reasons at the expense of an education that is hands-down more effective than the public model.

I think any sort of real change comes from unions and various social organizations like this in a very general way. Obviously these unions need to utilize what power they have smartly and perhaps not do what the auto unions did, but we need more unions and similar structures in this country that would amount to greater power existing in lower social classes. One of the basic principles behind OWS is that this financial/social system we live in is not working for a number of people, particularly the virtuous people that play by the rule book and go to school, work hard, pay their dues, and cannot find work even with their advanced degrees, or work in a job where there is no upwards mobility. The upwards mobility ideally would be available for any hard working and intelligent, virtuous individual. While the right often likes to say that those who are not making it should stop whining and bitching and just work harder, I hope we can agree that the upward mobility is eroding - the lack of an increase in middle class salaries speaks to that. Knowing you you will probably respond with a paragraph plus long response about how the cause of that is the government. I'm not suggesting any particular source of blame so I hope you don't feel compelled to go off in that direction as if I would disagree, I'm just identifying the problem which is the first thing that needs to happen before any real change can originate.

I think the more union focus and "social organization" there has been around public education, the worse it has become. I'm not interested in insulating people from the harsh realities of the rat-race or by making it easier for parents to bail on their children, but preparing them for it and making them more competitive in it.

Anyway, all of this is to say that I don't see any of this changing without a broader social movement which would include unions and the like, and before some in here go off the deep end, what I'm speaking to does not equate to Leninist Marxism or some other move away from capitalism (although I still maintain that some sort of evolution from current capitalism to something new is where things are headed ultimately anyway).

Sorry to be rambly.

IMO the problem stems from a fundamental breakdown of the family as, but one of many implications of government insulating people from reality. Less fathers in the home for example, because they don't need to be. You're right though, it won't change without a broader social movement.