|
|
On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment...
So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively).
He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget.
|
On September 29 2012 09:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 08:45 dannystarcraft wrote:
No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot.
Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important. Oh, no doubt the private sector does a better, more efficient job than the government in many aspects. I was just wondering how universities compared to the private sector in terms of science research on a cost-per-innovation/valuable discovery aspect.
Yeah, that would be a great thing to quantify. Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. I have been googling it for a bit now, and I am not finding any concrete stats. I guess I am just assuming from what I see in the university.
Some articles on the topic.
http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf
http://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2012/january/competes_7.pdf
From these articles it looks like the private sector absolutely dominated innovation 40 years ago (at about 80%). Right now, it still looks like award winning innovations (in the public sector) are dominated by government labs rather than the university. The public/collaborative sector (includes universities) gets credit about 60-70% of award winning innovations, and the private sector gets about 30% solely. I don't see anything directly comparing private industry and university innovations.
|
On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget.
Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense.
|
On September 29 2012 09:27 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget. Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense.
You're right, what probably happened is that there was a debt and they funneled a solid portion of that billion dollars into it to clear it out and then put the rest into increasing the standards etc etc and then the following year that buffer was gone and it was back to the old budget.
It seems by how he expressed it that the previous governor wasted a good portion of it also.
Like I said how he put it down I think fits best with the X > X+Y > X + Y/5 as to how he increased the budget. Maybe he chose his wording in a confusing manner but that is imo the only logical train of thought that connects increasing and puts his words into context.
|
On September 29 2012 09:02 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 08:45 dannystarcraft wrote:
No pretty graphs. Sorry! I will try to find you some.
I only know from experience in government work, where the agency contracted out everything into private industry because it was more efficient at getting the required job done in the specified amount of time than anything that we could produce at the government level. A lot of government work gets contracted out... a lot.
Also, there seems to be a general political focus on improving the private sector and this equating to economic improvement. I guess that is where I was drawing the overarching performance of the private sector as important. Oh, no doubt the private sector does a better, more efficient job than the government in many aspects. I was just wondering how universities compared to the private sector in terms of science research on a cost-per-innovation/valuable discovery aspect.
In my mind, universities are good at pumping out those scientific discoveries while the private sector is good at making those discoveries useful (and they have their own discoveries too). It's like the universities create new Lego blocks we've never seen before and the businesses take those blocks and make them into something people will pay money for. From that point, when a business is established, doing additional R&D on a particular subject becomes viable in-house(to improve the product). There is incredible risk in funding one's own research, especially capital intensive research, and so businesses, seeing so much uncertainty and start-up costs, will rarely do that these days.
With universities, the downsides are not as devastating to the actual researchers. Government money sustains constant research by university scientists/professors, people who apply to the dean or whoever to get a piece of that grant money, who then make the bigger discoveries in fields that they then sell/license the patents to businesses or start-ups.
In the end though, innovations are not created equal so it's not really useful to compare them in their volume. 'Course it could be that our definitions of innovation are whats differing. I distinguish discovery, invention, and innovation.
|
On September 29 2012 09:29 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:27 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget. Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense. You're right, what probably happened is that there was a debt and they funneled a solid portion of that billion dollars into it to clear it out and then put the rest into increasing the standards etc etc and then the following year that buffer was gone and it was back to the old budget. It seems by how he expressed it that the previous governor wasted a good portion of it also. Like I said how he put it down I think fits best with the X > X+Y > X + Y/5 as to how he increased the budget. Maybe he chose his wording in a confusing manner but that is imo the only logical train of thought that connects increasing and puts his words into context.
He didn't word it confusing at all, which is why I'm puzzled that Sanct was confused about it. Chris Christie very clearly stated that he increased STATE education spending by around $200,000, and that the cuts the state experienced were losses in FEDERAL funding which he had no control over. Go back and watch the video, he very clearly says his administration increased STATE funding.
|
On September 29 2012 09:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:29 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:27 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget. Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense. You're right, what probably happened is that there was a debt and they funneled a solid portion of that billion dollars into it to clear it out and then put the rest into increasing the standards etc etc and then the following year that buffer was gone and it was back to the old budget. It seems by how he expressed it that the previous governor wasted a good portion of it also. Like I said how he put it down I think fits best with the X > X+Y > X + Y/5 as to how he increased the budget. Maybe he chose his wording in a confusing manner but that is imo the only logical train of thought that connects increasing and puts his words into context. He didn't word it confusing at all, which is why I'm puzzled that Sanct was confused about it. Chris Christie very clearly stated that he increased STATE education spending by around $200,000, and that the cuts the state experienced were losses in FEDERAL funding which he had no control over. Go back and watch the video, he very clearly says his administration increased STATE funding.
Um... like I said I wasn't confused. Christie made the contradictory claims that he had a smaller budget and he increased it. He was trying to sound good, I was merely pointing out that he can't claim it both ways.
|
On September 29 2012 09:54 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 29 2012 09:29 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:27 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget. Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense. You're right, what probably happened is that there was a debt and they funneled a solid portion of that billion dollars into it to clear it out and then put the rest into increasing the standards etc etc and then the following year that buffer was gone and it was back to the old budget. It seems by how he expressed it that the previous governor wasted a good portion of it also. Like I said how he put it down I think fits best with the X > X+Y > X + Y/5 as to how he increased the budget. Maybe he chose his wording in a confusing manner but that is imo the only logical train of thought that connects increasing and puts his words into context. He didn't word it confusing at all, which is why I'm puzzled that Sanct was confused about it. Chris Christie very clearly stated that he increased STATE education spending by around $200,000, and that the cuts the state experienced were losses in FEDERAL funding which he had no control over. Go back and watch the video, he very clearly says his administration increased STATE funding. Um... like I said I wasn't confused. Christie made the contradictory claims that he had a smaller budget and he increased it. He was trying to sound good, I was merely pointing out that he can't claim it both ways.
He didn't claim it both ways. He said he increased the state budget, which is a fact. He said the total budget decreased, which is also a fact. Those statements are not contradictory at all.
|
I guess it depends on how you see that extra billion. Personally, it wasn't part of the regular budget, as he notes when he says it was artificial. It was a one-time thing, and it's disingenuous to try and say it was part of the budget, and therefore the budget was much less when it was gone.
Think of it this way - I get paid fifty thousand a year (I wish...). One year I win 40K from the lottery, lucky me. The next year, I'm back to my 50k. In Christie's arguent I am suddenly earning 40k less. That's kinda true but a really strange way of looking at things. Add to which he doesn't really answer the questions put to him - if he increased the budget like he says why are schools still finding less materials for their students, why are teachers still paying for these supplies themselves? He's using the billion dollars as an explanation for why the budget isn't enough, he's sidestepping the issue. See how I'm looking at this?
|
On September 29 2012 10:17 Sanctimonius wrote:
I guess it depends on how you see that extra billion. Personally, it wasn't part of the regular budget, as he notes when he says it was artificial. It was a one-time thing, and it's disingenuous to try and say it was part of the budget, and therefore the budget was much less when it was gone.
Think of it this way - I get paid fifty thousand a year (I wish...). One year I win 40K from the lottery, lucky me. The next year, I'm back to my 50k. In Christie's arguent I am suddenly earning 40k less. That's kinda true but a really strange way of looking at things. Add to which he doesn't really answer the questions put to him - if he increased the budget like he says why are schools still finding less materials for their students, why are teachers still paying for these supplies themselves? He's using the billion dollars as an explanation for why the budget isn't enough, he's sidestepping the issue. See how I'm looking at this?
No, you have it backwards completely. That is not Christie's argument, it is the teacher's unions argument. They are the one's claiming massive cuts when Christie actually increased the state budget for education. How else can we possibly explain this? Do you think he's lying that he increased the state budget for education? Either he's lying or he isn't. If he isn't lying, then you can't fault him for whatever the teacher's are complaining about. If you want to know why the teacher's are having trouble with supplies, then you need to look at the union's and the structure of the system itself, because New Jersey was the highest spending state in the country when it comes to education, but the money goes to the racket and not to the classrooms. I included three videos in my original post, you should really watch the first two videos if you want to get a better picture of the situation.
|
On September 29 2012 09:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:54 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:On September 29 2012 09:29 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:27 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:22 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 09:17 Sanctimonius wrote:On September 29 2012 09:01 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 29 2012 08:56 Sanctimonius wrote:
No it wasn't confusing, he was just claiming that he increased funding for schools by 280 mil when funding actually fell by 720 mil - it was out of his control but he claimed he increased it at the same time as saying it fell. Poor choice of words by him.
The pay increases...maybe he has a point, maybe they are unsustainable and teachers are just being greedy. Or maybe they were agreed upon after many years of negotiations to try and raise the real pay of teachers to be relatively competitive with the private sector, and he reneged on the promise simply to try and make the books balance as a whole. We just don't know without the context. no no, he was saying they had 1billion dollars. That billion was gone before he got there and he had to try and fill that GAP with as much funding from other places so he put IN 280mil that was non-existent and not given by obama from other funding. The 1 billion wasn't real in the sense of yearly funding, it was an artificial inflation to the economy to try and jump start (sort of like a bailout) the education and was poorly spent before he was there so when he gets there he has to try and somehow fill the gap. His claim was basically this, we had something, we lost something not because of me, I tried my best to flood in as much as I could from other places, I offered a reasonable compromise of 750 a year which would have brought in enough money to save almost all the jobs, I was stone walled, the jobs were lost. The ending was probably my favorite part though, the idea that a group of people are praying for the death of the governor ? What an absurdity. I understood what he was saying, it's just that I find it strange he claims to have less of a budget but increased it at the same time. Put it this way. The State of New Jersey has a budget, which changes a little over time but more or less is constant. They received a billion one year, and spent it all. This was extra-budgetary, a one time thing that could be spent on education needs. The next year, they are back to the normal budget, which he says he increased. Now which is it? Did they lose money in their budget (no, they didn't) or did he increase it? He can't claim it both ways, and I'm not sure why he is, unless he's claiming that the budget was re-calculated to assume they had a billion more to spend despite knowing it was a one-time payment... So every year you get X for funding, the next year (and only year) you get X + Y, in the following year that Y is gone but people NEEED that Y so the new guy in charge gets together all he can to increase the budget and ploughs X + Z (or Y/5 repsectively). He increased the budget from what it should have been before the massive inflating money came in and allowed the schools to throw expenses left and right then the next year that moneys not there you're back on your old budget so it's his job to increase that budget to try and fill in the old budget. Why would the education system suddenly change their budgets to assume they will have an extra billion to spend every year if they know it will only be a one-time thing? That doesn't make sense. You're right, what probably happened is that there was a debt and they funneled a solid portion of that billion dollars into it to clear it out and then put the rest into increasing the standards etc etc and then the following year that buffer was gone and it was back to the old budget. It seems by how he expressed it that the previous governor wasted a good portion of it also. Like I said how he put it down I think fits best with the X > X+Y > X + Y/5 as to how he increased the budget. Maybe he chose his wording in a confusing manner but that is imo the only logical train of thought that connects increasing and puts his words into context. He didn't word it confusing at all, which is why I'm puzzled that Sanct was confused about it. Chris Christie very clearly stated that he increased STATE education spending by around $200,000, and that the cuts the state experienced were losses in FEDERAL funding which he had no control over. Go back and watch the video, he very clearly says his administration increased STATE funding. Um... like I said I wasn't confused. Christie made the contradictory claims that he had a smaller budget and he increased it. He was trying to sound good, I was merely pointing out that he can't claim it both ways. He didn't claim it both ways. He said he increased the state budget, which is a fact. He said the total budget decreased, which is also a fact. Those statements are not contradictory at all.
This is what I was trying to get across. he didn't increase state budget, he increased state budget spending on the education system but you're right on all other accounts. I didn't find it confusing (I feel you didn't read it in my earlier comments and just posted on the "now" comments) I was stating exactly what you said ... to an extent.
|
On September 29 2012 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves.
Oh, I disagree. kids should learn all about religion. religion very important & interesting. What you mean, of course, is that we shouldn't let the "christians" tell us about science, and that's fucking obvious.
On September 29 2012 09:23 dannystarcraft wrote:Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology.
This is precisely the way you should NOT think about the university.
|
On September 29 2012 15:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves. Oh, I disagree. kids should learn all about religion. religion very important & interesting. What you mean, of course, is that we shouldn't let the "christians" tell us about science, and that's fucking obvious. Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 09:23 dannystarcraft wrote:Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. This is precisely the way you should NOT think about the university.
I agree, kids should learn about religion, all religions. Let them make up their own minds on the subject matter but at least teach them about the origins and the basics of all the mainstream religions and how they evolved through the decades.
|
On September 29 2012 15:21 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:07 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves. Oh, I disagree. kids should learn all about religion. religion very important & interesting. What you mean, of course, is that we shouldn't let the "christians" tell us about science, and that's fucking obvious. On September 29 2012 09:23 dannystarcraft wrote:Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. This is precisely the way you should NOT think about the university. I agree, kids should learn about religion, all religions. Let them make up their own minds on the subject matter but at least teach them about the origins and the basics of all the mainstream religions and how they evolved through the decades.
It's good to learn about religion. You learn about what other people believe in, why the believe it, and where they are coming from. It just helps you understand people, which if done properly prevents demonization later on. Nothing really replaces interacting with the followers directly, imo. Same goes for any type of person.
|
On September 29 2012 15:34 SkyCrawler wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:21 Zooper31 wrote:On September 29 2012 15:07 sam!zdat wrote:On September 29 2012 08:32 DoubleReed wrote:Religion has no place in schools, except as kids expressing themselves. Oh, I disagree. kids should learn all about religion. religion very important & interesting. What you mean, of course, is that we shouldn't let the "christians" tell us about science, and that's fucking obvious. On September 29 2012 09:23 dannystarcraft wrote:Walking through a university that my employer collaborates with, I am surprised at the number of projects and posters on the wall that just seem to have no real application which would produce a valuable product or technology. This is precisely the way you should NOT think about the university. I agree, kids should learn about religion, all religions. Let them make up their own minds on the subject matter but at least teach them about the origins and the basics of all the mainstream religions and how they evolved through the decades. It's good to learn about religion. You learn about what other people believe in, why the believe it, and where they are coming from. It just helps you understand people, which if done properly prevents demonization later on. Nothing really replaces interacting with the followers directly, imo. Same goes for any type of person.
It's very hard to do that from a neutral perspective though without having one religion in a better light than the others or something. What you suggested would work very nicely though imo.
|
You can learn about religion in college. I am opposed to it being a mandatory class in grade school.
|
Gdi I make 2 posts about religion and now my TL adds are about the the bible.
|
On September 29 2012 15:46 Zooper31 wrote:
Gdi I make 2 posts about religion and now my TL adds are about the the bible.
lol I WONDERED why I was getting christian singles ads... how droll!
edit:
On September 29 2012 15:41 Silidons wrote:
You can learn about religion in college. I am opposed to it being a mandatory class in grade school.
How the fuck you gonna learn about history, culture, literature, or philosophy if you don't learn about religion?
|
On September 29 2012 15:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:46 Zooper31 wrote:
Gdi I make 2 posts about religion and now my TL adds are about the the bible. lol I WONDERED why I was getting christian singles ads... how droll! edit: Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:41 Silidons wrote:
You can learn about religion in college. I am opposed to it being a mandatory class in grade school. How the fuck you gonna learn about history, culture, or philosophy if you don't learn about religion?
Obviously you need to find a good Christian wife <.<
Think I should go into the Prostitution thread and post about hot blondes.
|
On September 29 2012 15:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:46 Zooper31 wrote:
Gdi I make 2 posts about religion and now my TL adds are about the the bible. lol I WONDERED why I was getting christian singles ads... how droll! edit: Show nested quote +On September 29 2012 15:41 Silidons wrote:
You can learn about religion in college. I am opposed to it being a mandatory class in grade school. How the fuck you gonna learn about history, culture, literature, or philosophy if you don't learn about religion?
They already teach history and tell you about the religious aspects of them. You don't need a "religious" class in grade school for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
