Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (322526)	1/23/2007 6:41:35 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574091

Bad idea. If schools do need more funding its not the business of the courts to say so. Funding decisions shouldn't be made by courts. I guess you really don't how our way of gov't works. Courts have set funding levels for education and in other areas but they typically don't. Even if they started to that would not suddenly make it a good idea. "Typical. Voters reject additional taxes, so the politicians threaten or actually cut the more important and/or popular programs first, in order to try and convince the voters to accept the increase, rather then cutting out less important or popular things first." Actually, there are people who think just like you up here. They go around telling people that there is a lot of waste, the teachers are incompetent; the school administrators are stealing the school districts blind; school funding has doubled over the past 20 years but scores remain the same; that our kids are going to hell in a handbasket, etc. 1 - Again your putting words in to my mouth. Just about the only think I've said out of your list was "school funding has doubled over the past 20 years but scores remain the same", the rest is a collection of strawmen for you to attack. 2 - Even if there are quite a few people in your area who say all of that, it doesn't change the fact that education is one of the most popular areas to spend money, and arguably one of the more important areas. I'm sure you could find many better areas to cut Seattle and/or Washington spending. You've already provided one example, sports stadium subsidies, I'm sure you could find others, even without being against high government spending as I am. Wouldn't it be better to cut these areas first? The levies get voted down. School administrators have no choice but to cut programs. The state or local government could fund education out of other sources of income. Perhaps the politicians left the administrators with no choice but to cut, but not increasing taxes doesn't automatically mean education has to be cut. Also apparently you where talking about new or increased funding (new levies would not have to be voted on in a referendum if you just wanted to maintain funding), so your "cuts" where probably cuts in projected increases.