How Will You All Adapt to $4.00 per gallon gasoline?
SMH
When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
how will you adapt to it?
Were you all pretty much expecting it?
With bad economies, people tend to lose their jobs to layoffs! What plans
do you have? Do you fear for your employment?
max
SMH <s...@munged.address.com> wrote:
I'm going to let the air out of SUV tires!
and put some more smug stickers on my Yaris.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
actually, i fear greatly for my job as they're going to lay off 10% of
my coworker (and nobody know's who's on the block, including me), but it
has less to do directly with the current economic situation and more to
do with the US' general retreat from science, research and development
and academic or intellectual excellence.
in fact, i'm on furlough now (no work, no pay, no vacation $).
Rod Speed
> When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been
> saying for weeks and to which one prominent politician has
> been completely oblivious, how will you adapt to it?
Wont change at all, just keep using the economical car just like I do now.
> Were you all pretty much expecting it?
That its likely to increase over time, yes.
> With bad economies, people tend to lose their jobs to layoffs!
Have fun explaining how the unemployment rate has stayed at 4.x%
> What plans do you have?
Like I said, dont plan to do anything different.
> Do you fear for your employment?
Nope.
Samantha Hill - take out TRASH to reply
> When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
> weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
> how will you adapt to it?
I use less than 5 gallons of gas a week, so it's not going to bother me
that much.
val189
A tank lasts me about 5 weeks, so I'm not sweating it too much. I'm
getting about 32 city, 39 highway. However, a long road trip is
probably going to be canceled -
Gary Heston
>When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
>weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
>how will you adapt to it?
I live 3.3 miles from work. It's not a big concern for me.
>Were you all pretty much expecting it?
Everytime Gulfstream opens another production facility, the price goes up
to cover all the new jets the corporate management orders.
>With bad economies, people tend to lose their jobs to layoffs! What plans
>do you have? Do you fear for your employment?
No worries; the network will still need to be administered.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
We live in amazing times, when one person can invent both the Internet
and global warming, then get awarded a "peace prize".
Al Bundy
I spend less on gas now than when it was $2. I cut out driving by
consolidating trips, biking and walking. The bonus of saving on
maintenance has been quite noticeable too. It would be hard to go back
to the old ways. I believe if others conserved, the demand would be
reduced enough to help prices. That's not going to happen where I live
at least. My neighbors keep spending like there is no tomorrow.
Escalades and Denalis are everywhere. When I drove my old former car
to pick up the kids at school, the security guard came over to check
me out. He thought I was from the really big city to the east. No
poverty in these parts (locally).
Shawn Hirn
The security of my job is not dependent on the price of gas and I drive
a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
bidding in the White House.
Dave
> prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
> bidding in the White House.
You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old? Or
perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white house
has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
oron. -Dave
George Grapman
max
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
that's a very silly thing to say.
The White House can most certainly influence the patterns, rates, and
rates-of-change of use of non-renewable assets.
He may not have absolute control, but he has more than all but maybe 3
or 4 of the 303,500,000 people currently residing in the US.
now, what were you saying about orons?
Rod Speed
> Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote
>>> a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
>>> prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing
>>> their bidding in the White House.
>> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old?
>> Or perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the
>> white house has no control over the dwindling supply of a
>> non-renewable asset, moron.
> that's a very silly thing to say.
Nope.
> The White House can most certainly influence the patterns,
> rates, and rates-of-change of use of non-renewable assets.
Nope. In spades world wide.
> He may not have absolute control,
He has no control what so ever.
> but he has more than all but maybe 3 or 4 of the
> 303,500,000 people currently residing in the US.
None of those individuals have any control either except of their own
personal use, and that has no effect whatever on the global usage.
> now, what were you saying about orons?
He obviously saw you coming.
Rod Speed
In your dreams.
P.O.W.
And how will you respond to $5 gas? It's coming.
as for me I'll be riding the motorcycle more often and will be enjoying
meeting fewer cars. The enemy. and I'll be enjoying cleaner air with
fewer cars on the road. How many "trips" are unnecessary ?
That's what I'm doing combining chores.
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails.
clams_casino
You are kidding right? Or just naive? GW's family investments have
been primarily in oil / Cheney's in coal. They have managed to
significantly improve their family wealth by creating fear in the world
of oil / energy. Increasing the cost / profits of energy has been been
their primary agenda since they were elected.
Janie
"SMH" <s...@munged.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5476BD...@207.115.33.102...
I plan to do just as I have been doing. I leave the car in the driveway and
walk to most destinations. The car is used only if I have to go to several
locations on the same day or have a large number of items to bring home.
This works for me because I am retired. I truly feel sorry for people who
live long distances from their jobs and shopping locations.
I live in a semi-rural area that lacks public transportation. If we had
taxicabs and buses here then I would not own a car. I have actually
considered moving to a city just so I don't have to own a car.
>
Dave
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:UPvyj.10464$yk5....@newsfe18.lga...
OMFG, the level of ignorance here is astounding. I am no fan of the pres,
think he should have been impeached many times over, for various reasons.
But to claim that he has any control over the cost of a barrel of oil is
like blaming him when a bad blizzard shuts down the freeway. If he benefits
financially from the freeway being closed, it is not logical to say that he
created the blizzard that closed the road. In fact, it is PRETTY FUCKING
STUPID.
Within our lifetime, oil will go well above a thousand dollars (U.S.
Dollars) per barrel. That's not a prediction, I don't have a crystal ball.
It is simple supply and demand. The president can't significantly influence
that equation, as the supply will be ever more restricted. Anybody who
believes otherwise is simply burying their head in the sand. -Dave
h
Shrug. I'm self-employed and my business is doing just fine. I work at home,
and live five miles from the post office and grocery store, which are pretty
much the only places I need to go. A trip once or twice a week means I only
fill the tank about 5-6 times a year. I frankly couldn't care less about the
price of gas. It's property/school/income taxes that are killing me.
Bill
of the energy sector...
-Get a highly fuel efficient car.
-Get a solar water heater for your home.
-Get solar electric for your home.
Dave
> home, and live five miles from the post office and grocery store, which
> are pretty much the only places I need to go. A trip once or twice a week
> means I only fill the tank about 5-6 times a year. I frankly couldn't care
> less about the price of gas. It's property/school/income taxes that are
> killing me.
>
No shit, my property taxes have doubled over the past couple of years.
DOUBLED. -Dave
clams_casino
>
> "clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
> news:UPvyj.10464$yk5....@newsfe18.lga...
>
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>>>> a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
>>>> prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
>>>> bidding in the White House.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old?
>>> Or perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the
>>> white house has no control over the dwindling supply of a
>>> non-renewable asset, oron. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> You are kidding right? Or just naive? GW's family investments
>> have been primarily in oil / Cheney's in coal. They have managed
>> to significantly improve their family wealth by creating fear in the
>> world of oil / energy. Increasing the cost / profits of energy has
>> been been their primary agenda since they were elected.
>
>
> OMFG, the level of ignorance here is astounding. I am no fan of the
> pres, think he should have been impeached many times over, for various
> reasons. But to claim that he has any control over the cost of a
> barrel of oil is like blaming him when a bad blizzard shuts down the
> freeway. If he benefits financially from the freeway being closed, it
> is not logical to say that he created the blizzard that closed the
> road. In fact, it is PRETTY FUCKING STUPID.
So the invasion into Iraq and his world-wide fear mongering is now an
act of nature? Amazing.
clams_casino
A second reason the price of oil is so high is a direct result of the
Bush economic policies - shrinking value of the dollar. A euro was
about 94 cents when GW was placed into office vs. over $1.50 today. If
it wasn't for the continually failing GW policies, gas would under $2 /
gallon just on exchange rate.
Dave C.
> > pres, think he should have been impeached many times over, for various
> > reasons. But to claim that he has any control over the cost of a
> > barrel of oil is like blaming him when a bad blizzard shuts down the
> > freeway. If he benefits financially from the freeway being closed, it
> > is not logical to say that he created the blizzard that closed the
> > road. In fact, it is PRETTY FUCKING STUPID.
>
>
> So the invasion into Iraq and his world-wide fear mongering is now an
> act of nature? Amazing.
>
OK, so maybe you aren't a total moron, you just fail to see the big picture.
The invasion and occupation of iraq is all about oil. That much is obvious.
In the long run however, it simply doesn't matter. We could own every
fricking oil well in the whole world, and it wouldn't stop the cost of
gasoline from rising. Not for very long anyway.
Imagine if all of the world's possible oil reserves were on U.S. soil. When
the oil runs out, is it going to matter that we are supplying our own? Not
really. We're facing a global crisis, and focusing on the fiasco in iraq,
or insinuating that the president is getting rich from oil, those are just
distractions. Focus on the problem, not symptoms or convenient (for some
people) results.
Again, the president has no influence over events that happened way back
before recorded history. Oil was formed. Oil is being used faster than it
can reform. Oil therefore will run out. Soon. -Dave
max
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> "clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
> news:UPvyj.10464$yk5....@newsfe18.lga...
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> >>> a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
> >>> prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
> >>> bidding in the White House.
> >>
> >>
> >> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old? Or
> >> perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white
> >> house has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
> >> oron. -Dave
> >
> >
> > You are kidding right? Or just naive? GW's family investments have
> > been primarily in oil / Cheney's in coal. They have managed to
> > significantly improve their family wealth by creating fear in the world of
> > oil / energy. Increasing the cost / profits of energy has been been
> > their primary agenda since they were elected.
>
> OMFG, the level of ignorance here is astounding. I am no fan of the pres,
> think he should have been impeached many times over, for various reasons.
> But to claim that he has any control over the cost of a barrel of oil is
> like blaming him when a bad blizzard shuts down the freeway. If he benefits
> financially from the freeway being closed, it is not logical to say that he
> created the blizzard that closed the road. In fact, it is PRETTY FUCKING
> STUPID.
That's not an arguement, baseless, fact-free rant.
First of all, the question was about $4/gallon gasoline, not the price
of a barrel of oil.
So. What could have the president done, over the last 7 years?
He could have:
1. instituted demand reduction policies by pressing for fleet mileage
increases
1a. instituted demand-reduction policies by promoting bicycling as a
meaningful alternative transportation.
2. Could have chosen tax incentives that rewarded fuel efficient cars
instead of the most fuel wasteful SUVs
2a provided meaningful support to alt energy (electric) automobiles and
storage battery tech.
3. Could have paid more than lip service to alt. fuel production
4. Could have assured his nominal programs already announced were
actually funded.
5. Could have pushed the production of nuclear fuel systems and waste
internment.
6. Could have pushed the creation of more refining capacity.
7. Could have made energy conservation a sincere national goal for the
country through directives to the military and executive branch agencies
and through public outreach messages via PSAs and speechmaking from
himself and cabinet officers.
8 we won't even get into reigning in the cancerous growth of suburbia.
9. not embark on national military policy that stokes petroleum market
volatiity.
for starters, while i'm waiting for my coffee to brew.
Obviously, some of these steps are antagonistic to others (1 & 6 in
particular).
Each of these steps would be a significant step in reducing the rate of
rise in gasoline prices.
> Within our lifetime, oil will go well above a thousand dollars (U.S.
> Dollars) per barrel. That's not a prediction, I don't have a crystal ball.
> It is simple supply and demand. The president can't significantly influence
> that equation, as the supply will be ever more restricted. Anybody who
> believes otherwise is simply burying their head in the sand. -Dave
--
h
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:fqeb5l$eh9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
I've been in my house for 23 years, and my property/school taxes are now 10%
of the purchase price, so I "re-buy" the house every 10 years. Considering
that the value of the house has only doubled in 23 years my property/school
taxes really shouldn't have gone from $1,500 to $6,000 in that amount of
time, should they? $6000/year for a house worth/assessed at $120,000 seems a
bit excessive to me.
clams_casino
Thanks for proving you are totally naive.
Hint - Oil consumption & limited supply does not account for the massive
increase in price since GW was placed in office.
Logan Shaw
> Dwindling supply? Are you all fools? You mean the supplies that your
> President and Vice President are doing their utmost to restrict the
> flow of so their own little oil companies don't suffer whilst your
> little economy is slowly suffering??
"Their own little oil companies"? What oil company does Bush or Cheney
have a financial interest in, in either in the present or at any point
during their terms?
I'm no fan of Bush, but as far as I know, Bush's financial interest in
and connection with energy companies ended about 15 to 20 years ago.
I'm not saying he wouldn't be willing to use his power in government
in order to advance himself personally (his involvement with the
Texas Rangers -- the baseball team, that is -- show this), but I
just don't see how he can benefit financially from manipulating oil
when he doesn't own anything related to that.
- Logan
Dave C.
> So. What could have the president done, over the last 7 years?
> He could have:
>
(snip)
And none of it would matter one bit, unless he could invent a way to cheaply
manufacture crude oil, without using crude oil.
You all are totally missing the point. The point is, we are using oil
faster than it will ever be replenished. The president? Bad-mouth him all
you want, but that's like complaining about the price of swiss cheese while
your house burns to the ground. The president is powerless to do anything
about the impending oil crisis. Criticizing him won't help one bit, even
though he deserves it. NOW do you get it? Didn't think so. -Dave
Dave C.
> >before recorded history. Oil was formed. Oil is being used faster than
it
> >can reform. Oil therefore will run out. Soon. -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Thanks for proving you are totally naive.
>
> Hint - Oil consumption & limited supply does not account for the massive
> increase in price since GW was placed in office.
You're like somebody worrying that a plane is going to crash and kill him,
while standing on the railroad tracks oblivious to the oncoming train. By
the time you get a clue..
Look moron, if GW has done something to influence the price of oil, that
makes him even worse of a president than *I* thought he was, and it still
doesn't fucking matter. If there are three rare comic books and I
deliberately destroy two of them to make the price of the third triple,
where are you going to get a copy of that rare comic book after someone else
destroys the third
copy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Oh fuckit, there's no intelligent life in here. Why do I even bother?
-Dave
rick++
Logan Shaw
> When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
> weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
> how will you adapt to it?
What am I going to do? I'm going to pay the $4/gallon.
2 or 3 years ago when gas prices started going up, I worked at home,
so I was mostly immune. I filled up about once a month, and my car
(being pretty fuel-efficient) didn't even have a large tank.
Now, I work at a different job, it's 9 miles away, and the commute
is not good for mileage because (a) it's hilly and (b) there are a
lot of stop lights (and very little freeway). My current car gets
good mileage in general, but on all these hills, it's more like 22
mpg, whereas on a freeway commute it's be upper 20's. So that's
annoying.
However, none of my options for changing any of this are all that
attractive:
(1) I could switch jobs. But being at the right job for my career
is a much higher priority than worrying about gas prices, and
choosing the best career path will make more difference to the
bottom line.
(2) I could move closer to work. However, the part of town I work
in is expensive, so that would save me on gas but would cost
me more overall. And there are some affordable places that
are not near work but are nearer than where I live now, but
they're in a very inconvenient location for everything else,
and so would increase my *other* driving.
(3) I could bike to work. This is actually appealing on one level.
But (a) because it's hilly, it would not be an easy ride, and
(b) there is only ONE way to get to my work, and it involves
riding on the shoulder of a curvy, hilly road with a speed
limit of 60 or 65 mph.
So basically, the point is that the best trade-off for me appears
to be to continue to pay whatever they charge. :-(
- Logan
max
"Dave C." <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> >
> > So. What could have the president done, over the last 7 years?
> > He could have:
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> And none of it would matter one bit, unless he could invent a way to cheaply
> manufacture crude oil, without using crude oil.
you're not competent to enter into conversation on this topic.
>
> You all are totally missing the point. The point is, we are using oil
> faster than it will ever be replenished.
> you want, but that's like complaining about the price of swiss cheese while
> your house burns to the ground. The president is powerless to do anything
> about the impending oil crisis. Criticizing him won't help one bit, even
> though he deserves it. NOW do you get it? Didn't think so. -Dave
For your remediation i commend to you first fo all, The History Of
Petroleum, found at the DOE'a energy information agency's website.
The price of gasoline is dependant on a great deal more than the price
of crude, and the price of crude, as it has stood for the last year or
so, is completely disassociated from any scarecity at the wellhead.
hchi...@hotmail.com
Property tax was one of the factors that influenced us to move, and we
hadn't reached near that percentage figure. We realized that taxes
were no longer going to "services" that were provided to us in return,
but to support stadiums, never used parks, upgrading water systems to
support new growth, and so on. When we moved, it was to an area with
minimal taxes and minimal services and a restricted county government.
I suggest that, if possible, you vote with your feet. If you can't,
then perhaps a challenge to the valuation is required. I know I
wouldn't pay top dollar for a house that was under such a taxation
burden.
ChairMan
clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>spewed forth:
Are you REALLY this stupid?
Last time I check Opec was in charge and the chinese are our beggist
competetor for the oil.
Not to mention the asshole Chavez and his nutcase behavoir
Supply and demand dumbass.
Peter Bruells
> However, none of my options for changing any of this are all that
> attractive:
> (1) I could switch jobs. But being at the right job for my career
> is a much higher priority than worrying about gas prices, and
> choosing the best career path will make more difference to the
> bottom line.
> (2) I could move closer to work. However, the part of town I work
> in is expensive, so that would save me on gas but would cost
> me more overall. And there are some affordable places that
> are not near work but are nearer than where I live now, but
> they're in a very inconvenient location for everything else,
> and so would increase my *other* driving.
> (3) I could bike to work. This is actually appealing on one level.
> But (a) because it's hilly, it would not be an easy ride, and
> (b) there is only ONE way to get to my work, and it involves
> riding on the shoulder of a curvy, hilly road with a speed
> limit of 60 or 65 mph.
>
> So basically, the point is that the best trade-off for me appears
> to be to continue to pay whatever they charge. :-(
You could use a moped, of course.
Cheapo Groovo
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, gweh...@bellsouth.net says...
>
>
> A tank lasts me about 5 weeks, so I'm not sweating it too much. I'm
> getting about 32 city, 39 highway. However, a long road trip is
> probably going to be canceled -
>
I walk everywhere I can. I always ride in a car with at least 2 people.
I lve close to the things I need on a daily/weekly basis. I work from
home and use alternative income streams!
h
<hchi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ssqls3l80dohms7ol...@4ax.com...
I've looked all over around here, and everything comparable is MUCH more
expensive. The property/school taxes in this county is what keeps the home
values so much lower than in surrounding counties. Plus, I've got my
workspace set up just the way I want, and it takes up about a quarter of the
square footage. I'd never be able to find an existing space set up properly.
So, even if we could find something we could afford in a lower tax rate
county, we'd have to build on or remodel and it wouldn't be cheap. I've
resigned myself to staying here forever, which is fine because I adore the
house and the area (boonies). The only thing that sucks is the taxes and the
almost total lack of services. We don't have sewers, natural gas, garbage
pickup, or even a dump, and we only got city water recently. We have a
volunteer fire department but a HUGE police force for virtually no crime
(speed traps on every road, though). We don't even have a community center
or any place with a public pool. We do have great snowplowing services,
which is a plus in upstate NY. Still, I can't fathom what they're spending
my $6,000 a year on. It's about half for schools, and, of course, I never
had kids.
brother mouse
> When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
> weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely
> oblivious, how will you adapt to it?
1. drive a paid-for 129K Protege that gets 32mpg
2. ride a paid-for motorcycle (DR650) that gets 52mpg
3. laugh at SUV and big-truck drivers.
Of course, I'm doing these already.
Nexus7
> perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white house
> has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
> oron. -Dave
Your understanding is in error. Not only does the US have overwhelming
military assets in the neighborhood, but the Saudis owe us big time
for having attacked Saddam twice. In other words, the entire region
would be a complete conflagration without the US guaranteeing certain
regimes' continues existence and prosperity. On a more strategic
level, the US economy is only a few government initiatives away from
significantly reduced dependence on Saudi/OPEC oil.
However this particular "puppet" has his family's financial well-being
joined at the hip with that of the Saudis, with continued occupation
of the Middle East, and continuing unreasonable policies towards South
American countries; which is why he is not only not going to
intervene; but is going to waste tax-payer monies into silly pie-in-
the-sky initiatives such as the giveaway to the Detroit Three for
hydrogen cars.
As for the price of gasoline; I hope it keeps going up and up. There
are moron drivers around me who drive huge vehicles for no good
reason; and drive in an extremely fuel-inefficient manner which also
happens to increase my stress level during my commute. A price that is
hard on me is many times harder on these imbeciles. The environment
must change enough that natural selection will drive these weeds out
of it.
clams_casino
Fully agree. Property taxes (school taxes) are by far our single
biggest cost.
Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation when
adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to the local
teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too low, not
that the local teachers ($54k in 2005) are paid too much. Meanwhile,
the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not uncommon for teachers
here to be getting $70k/yr (plus benefits, including full family medical
at minimal cost) for less than a full time job. No wonder property
taxes are going out of sight.
clams_casino
>In 2010 I'll view $4 gasoline as being a bargain.
>
>
Actually, I consider $3 to be a bargain. Even at $4/gallon, that's only
16 cents / mile (25 mpg) vs. 25-30 cents / mile for typical
depreciation / maintenance.
I try to minimize my driving, but not because of the cost of gas. I
figure every mile I don't drive delays the outlay (cost) for a
replacement vehicle.
George Grapman
I have to disagree with your thinking that it is not a full time
job.The hours in the class room are not 40 hours a week x 52 weeks but
you have to look at time on after school meetings and lesson plans.
Napoleon
>>>property/school
>>>taxes really shouldn't have gone from $1,500 to $6,000 in that amount of
>>>time, should they? $6000/year for a house worth/assessed at $120,000.
> We do have great snowplowing services,
>which is a plus in upstate NY. Still, I can't fathom what they're spending
>my $6,000 a year on. It's about half for schools, and, of course, I never
>had kids.
Ah, yes. I knew you were in upstate NY just by the property tax
figure. We pay $4,000 on an assessed value of 117,500.
Property taxes are so high in upstate NY for the following reasons:
1. Every county has to have a million villages, towns and cities all
with separate governments. There is absolutely no consolidation of
governmental services whatsoever.
2. Every county has to have a million school districts for each town,
city and village. Unlike down south where there are only county or
city schools. Here we have no county schools, just city, village, and
town schools. Again no consolidation of services whatsoever.
3. We pay (aka subsidize) for downstate NYC schools.
4. Businesses do not pay property taxes. First there are no large
manufacturing businesses left upstate, and second, those businesses
that are left get tax breaks left and right (empire zone benefits).
5. Schools do not pay property taxes. In Syracuse, where I live,
Syracuse University is gobbling up more and more city property. It
pays no property taxes. Hence those residents left in the city have to
pick up the cost.
6. Medicare, medicaid and worker compensation costs are astronomical
in this state. Simply unmanageable. As the state shifts such costs to
local governments, you pay the bill.
7. And I could go on and on... Nothing will ever be fixed since that
would require 'NEW" thinking. We can't have that in America, now can
we?
-N
Don Klipstein
>Dave C. wrote:
>
>>OK, so maybe you aren't a total moron, you just fail to see the big picture.
>>The invasion and occupation of iraq is all about oil. That much is obvious.
>>
>>In the long run however, it simply doesn't matter. We could own every
>>fricking oil well in the whole world, and it wouldn't stop the cost of
>>gasoline from rising. Not for very long anyway.
>>
>>Imagine if all of the world's possible oil reserves were on U.S. soil. When
>>the oil runs out, is it going to matter that we are supplying our own? Not
>>really. We're facing a global crisis, and focusing on the fiasco in iraq,
>>or insinuating that the president is getting rich from oil, those are just
>>distractions. Focus on the problem, not symptoms or convenient (for some
>>people) results.
>>
>>Again, the president has no influence over events that happened way back
>>before recorded history. Oil was formed. Oil is being used faster than it
>>can reform. Oil therefore will run out. Soon. -Dave
>>
>Thanks for proving you are totally naive.
>
>Hint - Oil consumption & limited supply does not account for the massive
>increase in price since GW was placed in office.
Even though the dollar fell a lot in the past 7.1 years, oil prices have
gone up quite a bit even in euros. Gasoline prices have increased quite a
bit in Canada.
If the dollar did not fall against other currencies, crude oil would be
maybe $65 per barrel instead of $102, and if the lower price did not
result in a demand increase that pushes prices back up somewhat, and if no
other factors in pump price were changed, then $3.16 per gallon would be
$2.28 per gallon.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
10. Not brought back an annual budget deficit. Fiscal responsibility
helps currency strength, and the decline of the US dollar is part of the
problem of high prices in US dollars of globally traded commodities.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Going from $1,500 to $6,000 in 23 years is an annual inflation rate of
6.2% - I think you are not especially hard-hit as far as local taxation
burden goes. In that time period, Philadelphia instituted a local sales
tax and most of the more-populated municipalities in Montgomery County PA
instituted local income taxes.
A good bit of that is for health insurance benefits for municipal,
county and school district employees. I also think the courts got a
little busier in the past 23 years.
Many other municipalities have lower municipal taxes, while requiring
many duties that I consider municipal ones to be the responsibility of
HOAs.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Time for some new blood to run for office. This only requires that
voters are fed up enough to get off their kiesters and make their voices
heard in a non-presidential primary election, and are willing enough for
some new blood to run for office. The voters have to get serious enough
about change to not have change restricted to trying the other major
party.
Since this sounds like a rural area, it sounds a little easier for new
blood candidates to get the voters interested in cleaning house.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Shawn Hirn
"Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> > a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
> > prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
> > bidding in the White House.
>
> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old? Or
> perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white house
> has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
> oron. -Dave
The price of gas isn't going up due to any shortage in supply. Its going
up because of greet, pure and simple.
Marsha
> Property tax was one of the factors that influenced us to move, and we
> hadn't reached near that percentage figure. We realized that taxes
> were no longer going to "services" that were provided to us in return,
> but to support stadiums, never used parks, upgrading water systems to
> support new growth, and so on. When we moved, it was to an area with
> minimal taxes and minimal services and a restricted county government.
>
> I suggest that, if possible, you vote with your feet. If you can't,
> then perhaps a challenge to the valuation is required. I know I
> wouldn't pay top dollar for a house that was under such a taxation
> burden.
Our last tax evaluation valued our property at 50% more than the last
one. Knowing that a drive-by evaluation was BS, we challenged it and
asked for a formal review. Lo and behold, they did three comparable
evaluations and our tax assessment miraculously went down by 40%, which
is where it should have been in the first place.
Marsha
George Grapman
to mind.
Marsha
> clams_casino wrote:
> I have to disagree with your thinking that it is not a full time
> job.The hours in the class room are not 40 hours a week x 52 weeks but
> you have to look at time on after school meetings and lesson plans.
Is it even 40 hrs week x 52 weeks? Even with ongoing education, I don't
think it's anywhere near that, with summers off and 2-week Christmas
breaks, Spring break, and all the holidays. Are teachers working at all
of those times? Is is even an 8-hour day?
Marsha
George Grapman
meetings.
Snowbound
"Dave C." <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> And none of it would matter one bit, unless he could invent a way to cheaply
> manufacture crude oil, without using crude oil.
You obviously were just a gleam in your daddy's eye during the oil
embargoes of the 70s (that was when the CIA was predicting the end of
usable oil reserves by the year 2000).
Then, the U.S. diminished its demand for imported oil so fast,
turban-bedecked heads spun like Reagan MacNeil's head in The Exorcist.
Of course, then there weren't so many fat assed urban pussies who needed
SUV dicks to hide the space between their legs.
Ask your doctor if getting off your ass is right for you!
Snowbound
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote:
> Last time I check Opec was in charge and the chinese are our beggist
> competetor for the oil
Ah so. Mebbe you check again. Mebbe you look at ah histoly.
> Not to mention the asshole Chavez and his nutcase behavoir
Ah so. Yes, Chavez invade many cunt-trees. Oh, wait,no. That BUSH!
> Supply and demand dumbass.
Ploof again that supply outstlip demand for dumbasses in newsglupe.
Mebbe that why you so cheep.
Logan Shaw
> Still, I can't fathom what they're spending
> my $6,000 a year on. It's about half for schools, and, of course, I never
> had kids.
And of course, you don't benefit in any way by having others' kids
becoming educated. If they all couldn't read or write and turned
to crime instead of working, that'd be just as good?
- Logan
Logan Shaw
> Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation when
> adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to the local
> teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too low, not
> that the local teachers ($54k in 2005) are paid too much. Meanwhile,
> the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not uncommon for teachers
> here to be getting $70k/yr
Even though I think unions are, by and large, dumb and outdated, I
agree with the teachers' union in this case. Education is sort of
important, partly because it makes better citizens and better human
beings, and partly because without it, our economy is sunk, especially
with globalization where we now have to compete with other countries
more and more. And yet we pay teachers a lot less than other
professionals. I think it would be a lot of fun and would be very
satisfying to be a teacher, but there's no way I'm going to actually
DO it -- I'd have to give up approximately half my income over the
course of my career. I'd like to give something back to society, but
I'm not going to do it in a way that could practically cut in half
what I'd earn over the course of my life. That's too much to ask.
So I never seriously considered it.
So I guess what I think is that if you make teachers' salaries so
much lower than what people can make in industry, most people who
have options are going to avoid teaching. And that's a shame,
because when I was a kid, I liked it when teachers had actual
brains, and if I myself had kids, I would want them learning from
someone who knows what they're talking about.
- Logan
Logan Shaw
How is that safer than riding a bike? With a bike, I can really
get away with riding on the shoulder. On a moped, I don't think
I can ride on the shoulder, and yet I can't keep up with traffic
either. If I were going to go for a 2-wheeled vehicle, I think a
motorcycle would be the safest. But to me, the risk isn't worth
it. If I have to choose between using more gas vs. significantly
increasing my chances of dying, I'll pick using more gas.
- Logan
Rod Speed
> clams_casino wrote
>> Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation
>> when adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to
>> the local teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too low, not that the local teachers ($54k in
>> 2005) are paid too
>> much. Meanwhile, the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not
>> uncommon for teachers here to be getting $70k/yr
> Even though I think unions are, by and large, dumb and outdated, I agree with the teachers' union in this case.
More fool you.
> Education is sort of important, partly because it makes better citizens and better human beings, and partly because
> without it, our economy is sunk, especially with globalization where we now have to compete with other countries more
> and more.
Nope, the vast bulk of jobs in the service sector cant ever be exported.
Fast food is a tad cold when it comes from india etc.
> And yet we pay teachers a lot less than other professionals.
And you wont get a better result with the students just by paying the teachers more.
> I think it would be a lot of fun and would be very satisfying to be a teacher,
Not for those who basically dont like kids and for those who cant control the brats either.
> but there's no way I'm going to actually DO it -- I'd have to give up approximately half my income over the course of
> my career.
Sure, but the vast bulk of teachers dont have that option, they arent
capable of earning that higher income. There's a reason they ended
up as teachers and it aint for the reasons you list just above.
> I'd like to give something back to society, but I'm not going to do it in a way that could practically cut in half
> what I'd earn over the course of my life. That's too much to ask. So I never seriously considered it.
See above.
> So I guess what I think is that if you make teachers' salaries so much lower than what people can make in industry,
That isnt what has happened.
> most people who have options are going to avoid teaching.
How odd that there is no shortage of teachers at the current pay rates.
> And that's a shame, because when I was a kid, I liked it when teachers had actual brains, and if I myself had kids, I
> would want them learning from someone who knows what they're talking about.
Sure, but their current pay is perfectly adequate for that.
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 11:33:18 -0500, <h> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>> news:fqeb5l$eh9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Shrug. I'm self-employed and my business is doing just fine. I
>>>> work at home, and live five miles from the post office and grocery
>>>> store, which are pretty much the only places I need to go. A trip
>>>> once or twice a week means I only fill the tank about 5-6 times a
>>>> year. I frankly couldn't care less about the price of gas. It's
>>>> property/school/income taxes that are killing me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No shit, my property taxes have doubled over the past couple of
>>> years. DOUBLED. -Dave
>>
>> I've been in my house for 23 years, and my property/school taxes are
>> now 10% of the purchase price, so I "re-buy" the house every 10
>> years. Considering that the value of the house has only doubled in
>> 23 years my property/school taxes really shouldn't have gone from
>> $1,500 to $6,000 in that amount of time, should they? $6000/year for
>> a house worth/assessed at $120,000 seems a bit excessive to me.
>>
> least tripled in the 5 short years since we bought it. The local
> market has gone ballistic, which is of course meaningless since we
> like it here and have no plan to sell. An entrepreneur type would sell
> now and rent a while waiting for the market to have a reality check.
Nope, because thats not going to happen.
> Inflation in that time has been running at about 5% or less
> mark but our rates (which you probably call property taxes)
Nope, theirs also pay for the local schools etc.
> don't seem to have any trouble rising around the 10% mark per annum.
Logan Shaw
> And you wont get a better result with the students just by paying the teachers more.
I'm not proposing that paying the current set of teachers more
will make a difference. I'm proposing that if teaching positions
paid well, you might be able to (eventually) replace most of the
current set of teachers with a whole new set of people.
There are a lot of teachers out there who are pretty good at what
they do, but then there is also a prevailing attitude (although
it's not often stated) that the purpose of schools is to babysit and
to socialize kids, rather than for them to learn actual academic
stuff, and the current low pay for teachers is going to attract
a lot of people who don't know their stuff as well as would be
needed to actually teach kids stuff.
- Logan
h
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfsmm6...@manx.misty.com...
Except the house has only doubled in value; it's the rates that have risen
ridiculously. We pay higher taxes (dollars to valuation) here in the boonies
than they do on Long Island. The rate was 2.5% of full value when I bought
the house ($60,000) and now it's 5% of full value. I'm not saying that the
taxes shouldn't have gone up, but the RATES have doubled. It's completely
insane. The town has determined that my house is worth $120,000, however
neighbors with a similar house (200 year old farm house, 1800 sq. ft) just
sold theirs for $90,000. No one is willing to pay "full price" for a house
with such high taxes. Now, do you think that the neighbors will get any
money back from the town since their house was really only worth 90K? Yeah,
though not.
h
>
> Since this sounds like a rural area, it sounds a little easier for new
> blood candidates to get the voters interested in cleaning house.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Just the opposite. Around here you have to be a middle-aged republican to
get elected. Back when primaries were done by party, I used to vote late in
the day and I was usually the 5th or 6th democratic voter of the day. I may
live in a blue state, but it's a rabidly red county.
h
"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47cb8466$0$6120$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Ah yes. Breeder bingo. How about if you have kids YOU pay to have them
educated? I went to private school on my parent's dime. My parents paid for
my extracurricular activities, not the property owners of my town (sports,
etc.). Why on earth should the government be involved in education? If I had
kids I certainly wouldn't want the state determining what they learned. If
you have kids you should pay to have them educated instead of sticking your
hands in my pocket.
Shawn Hirn
Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> The_Source wrote:
> > Dwindling supply? Are you all fools? You mean the supplies that your
> > President and Vice President are doing their utmost to restrict the
> > flow of so their own little oil companies don't suffer whilst your
> > little economy is slowly suffering??
>
> "Their own little oil companies"? What oil company does Bush or Cheney
> have a financial interest in, in either in the present or at any point
> during their terms?
>
> I'm no fan of Bush, but as far as I know, Bush's financial interest in
> and connection with energy companies ended about 15 to 20 years ago.
>
> I'm not saying he wouldn't be willing to use his power in government
> in order to advance himself personally (his involvement with the
> Texas Rangers -- the baseball team, that is -- show this), but I
> just don't see how he can benefit financially from manipulating oil
> when he doesn't own anything related to that.
>
> - Logan
Both Cheney and Bush work for Haliburton which has tons of oil company
interests both in the United States and abroad. If they are not so
beholden to the oil companies, then why won't they release the reports
about their meetings with Enron and oil industry representatives and how
they formed federal energy policy? Their excuse, when challenged in
court is that this information is a matter of national security. The
same court that appointed Bush to office in 2000 sided with them and
quashed the information from public scrutiny. What have Bush and his
boss Cheney got to hide? Why not be candid with the American people
about how they formed OUR energy policy?
Shawn Hirn
ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article <Xns9A5476BD...@207.115.33.102>,
> SMH <s...@munged.address.com> wrote:
>
> >When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
> >weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
> >how will you adapt to it?
>
> I live 3.3 miles from work. It's not a big concern for me.
I live very close to work too. Keep in mind; however, that the high gas
prices effect everyone, including those who don't drive at all. The food
you eat is going up in price, due in part to higher energy costs. The
cost of utilities is going up. Higher gas prices have a ripple effect,
which boosts the costs of goods and services across the board. For me,
the increased cost of gas is not a significant factor YET, but if gas
keeps getting more expensive, even those people who don't drive at all
will feel the bite in their wallet.
clams_casino
Is there a professional job (other than government) that doesn't work
45-50 hrs / week these days (typically with far less vacation / holiday
time than teachers)?
On an hourly basis, I'm finding teachers (at least where I live) earn
far more than engineers, chemists, IT professionals, etc who typically
do work much overtime (beyond 40hrs) and typically have significant less
benefits (teachers here, for example, get full medical with minimal, if
any cost).
clams_casino
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation
>> when adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to the
>> local teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too
>> low, not that the local teachers ($54k in 2005) are paid too much.
>> Meanwhile, the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not uncommon
>> for teachers here to be getting $70k/yr
>
>
> Even though I think unions are, by and large, dumb and outdated, I
> agree with the teachers' union in this case. Education is sort of
> important, partly because it makes better citizens and better human
> beings, and partly because without it, our economy is sunk, especially
> with globalization where we now have to compete with other countries
> more and more. And yet we pay teachers a lot less than other
> professionals.
Name a few (compared on an hourly basis). Certainly not a typical /
average engineer, chemist or IT professional, for example..
> I think it would be a lot of fun and would be very
> satisfying to be a teacher, but there's no way I'm going to actually
> DO it -- I'd have to give up approximately half my income over the
> course of my career. I'd like to give something back to society, but
> I'm not going to do it in a way that could practically cut in half
> what I'd earn over the course of my life.
I'm impressed. With teachers typically earning 70k + very generous
benefits here, I'm hard pressed to find too many at $100k jobs that
would be comparable on an hourly basis (after factoring in extensive
vacation, holidays & other benefits).
> That's too much to ask.
> So I never seriously considered it.
>
> So I guess what I think is that if you make teachers' salaries so
> much lower than what people can make in industry, most people who
> have options are going to avoid teaching.
No shortage of teachers here.
George
> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>>> news:fqeb5l$eh9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Shrug. I'm self-employed and my business is doing just fine. I work
>>>>> at home, and live five miles from the post office and grocery
>>>>> store, which are pretty much the only places I need to go. A trip
>>>>> once or twice a week means I only fill the tank about 5-6 times a
>>>>> year. I frankly couldn't care less about the price of gas. It's
>>>>> property/school/income taxes that are killing me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No shit, my property taxes have doubled over the past couple of
>>>> years. DOUBLED. -Dave
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've been in my house for 23 years, and my property/school taxes are
>>> now 10% of the purchase price, so I "re-buy" the house every 10
>>> years. Considering that the value of the house has only doubled in 23
>>> years my property/school taxes really shouldn't have gone from $1,500
>>> to $6,000 in that amount of time, should they? $6000/year for a house
>>> worth/assessed at $120,000 seems a bit excessive to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> biggest cost.
>>
>> Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation
>> when adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to the
>> local teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too
>> low, not that the local teachers ($54k in 2005) are paid too much.
>> Meanwhile, the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not uncommon
>> family medical at minimal cost) for less than a full time job. No
>> wonder property taxes are going out of sight.
>
> I have to disagree with your thinking that it is not a full time
> job.The hours in the class room are not 40 hours a week x 52 weeks but
> you have to look at time on after school meetings and lesson plans.
Thats the official union spin they are supposed to tell everyone. In my
state the teachers union is the most powerful union and most powerful
lobby. If you are a gov't school teacher here the average workday is <6
hours/day. Teachers typically get any paperwork done during the study
periods they have each day. Lesson plans are purchased with the text
books. My friend got a job in the local school district and was applying
herself making lesson plans and she was pulled on the side and told to
use what came from the textbook manufacturers.
They get 12 months pay for 9 months so they can goof off for the summer
or choose to teach summer school etc. They get every possible holiday
and if there is any possibility of snow etc they can just turn off the
alarm and not worry about it. The union rules require that they be paid
for any time outside the classroom. For example if there is a bake sale
in the gym and even if 20 parents are there to supervise the union rules
require that 2 teachers be present and paid $150/ea.
And as the other poster said the average salary here is more than
someone with an equivalent education. Plus if one were working outside
of academia you would be putting in 10 hour (or more) days and attending
whatever meetings/traveling etc to get that salary and you wouldn't have
a 3 month paid vacation in the summer.
Also they get the super extra good ultra deluxe medical insurance that
has no possibility of any out of pocket expense whatsoever that costs us
>$1,400/month for each of them. On nearby district was just on strike
for a month because the school board was trying to put a $5 prescription
copay into effect.
George
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> Marsha wrote:
>>
>>> George Grapman wrote:
>>>
>>>> clams_casino wrote:
>>>> I have to disagree with your thinking that it is not a full time
>>>> job.The hours in the class room are not 40 hours a week x 52 weeks
>>>> but you have to look at time on after school meetings and lesson plans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it even 40 hrs week x 52 weeks? Even with ongoing education, I
>>> don't think it's anywhere near that, with summers off and 2-week
>>> Christmas breaks, Spring break, and all the holidays. Are teachers
>>> working at all of those times? Is is even an 8-hour day?
>>>
>>> Marsha
>>>
>> Classes from at least 8:30 to 3:30. Add to that lesson plans and
>> meetings.
>
>
> Is there a professional job (other than government) that doesn't work
> 45-50 hrs / week these days (typically with far less vacation / holiday
> time than teachers)?
I don't know of any. The example cited was the typical 6 hour day for
government teachers. Any job I know of typically has stated hours of 8-5
with extra (unpaid) hours the norm.
>
> On an hourly basis, I'm finding teachers (at least where I live) earn
> far more than engineers, chemists, IT professionals, etc who typically
> do work much overtime (beyond 40hrs) and typically have significant less
> benefits (teachers here, for example, get full medical with minimal, if
> any cost).
Similar situation here. And then when you consider the 3 month paid
summer vacation teachers get there is a real imbalance. And union
teachers here can retire with 80% of their salary and the ultra deluxe
extra good medical plan paid for life after 25 years.
cat
> I live very close to work too. Keep in mind; however, that the high gas
> prices effect everyone, including those who don't drive at all. The food
> you eat is going up in price, due in part to higher energy costs. The
> cost of utilities is going up. Higher gas prices have a ripple effect,
> which boosts the costs of goods and services across the board. For me,
> the increased cost of gas is not a significant factor YET, but if gas
> keeps getting more expensive, even those people who don't drive at all
> will feel the bite in the wallet.
I am a nurse, and our hospital has been out of plastic wash basins for a
week now. The supervisor told me yesterday that the manufacturer has
stopped making them for now, due to the price of petroleum which is used in
the making of the plastic for the basins. So our patients suffer due to the
price of gas, and they're not even getting out of bed.
William Souden
And there is a reason you wound up as a dropout and lifetime welfare
leech.
>
>> I'd like to give something back to society, but I'm not going to do it in a way that could practically cut in half
>> what I'd earn over the course of my life. That's too much to ask. So I never seriously considered it.
>
> See above.
>
>> So I guess what I think is that if you make teachers' salaries so much lower than what people can make in industry,
>
> That isnt what has happened.
>
>> most people who have options are going to avoid teaching.
>
> How odd that there is no shortage of teachers at the current pay rates.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7929051
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8375981
This is where Rod says "bullshit or irrelevant"
Rod Speed
> ghe...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote
>> SMH <s...@munged.address.com> wrote
>>> When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have
>>> been saying for weeks and to which one prominent politician
>>> has been completely oblivious, how will you adapt to it?
>> I live 3.3 miles from work. It's not a big concern for me.
> I live very close to work too. Keep in mind; however, that the high
> gas prices effect everyone, including those who don't drive at all.
> The food you eat is going up in price, due in part to higher energy
> costs. The cost of utilities is going up. Higher gas prices have a
> ripple effect, which boosts the costs of goods and services across
> the board. For me, the increased cost of gas is not a significant
> factor YET, but if gas keeps getting more expensive, even those
> people who don't drive at all will feel the bite in their wallet.
Nope, because that effect is quite small.
Even on the price of some of the more stupid consumer products like bottled water etc.
Rod Speed
> Shawn Hirn <sr...@comcast.net> wrote
>> I live very close to work too. Keep in mind; however, that the high
>> gas prices effect everyone, including those who don't drive at all.
>> The food you eat is going up in price, due in part to higher energy
>> costs. The cost of utilities is going up. Higher gas prices have a
>> ripple effect, which boosts the costs of goods and services across
>> the board. For me, the increased cost of gas is not a significant
>> factor YET, but if gas keeps getting more expensive, even those
>> people who don't drive at all will feel the bite in the wallet.
> I am a nurse, and our hospital has been out of plastic wash basins
> for a week now. The supervisor told me yesterday that the
> manufacturer has stopped making them for now, due to the price of
> petroleum which is used in the making of the plastic for the basins.
How odd that there are so many other plastic products so readily available.
> So our patients suffer due to the price of gas,
Nope, not if you lot have enough of a clue to buy different plastic basins.
> and they're not even getting out of bed.
How odd that we havent seen a massive stink about other hospital patients affected.
Someone is feeding you a line of bull and is likely to be stupid enough to actually believe it.
Rod Speed
Just the usual stuff, what they get involved in outside their public office.
> Why not be candid with the American people about how they formed OUR energy policy?
You aint established that there was any energy policy formation involved.
Rod Speed
>>> Still, I can't fathom what they're spending my $6,000 a year on.
>>> It's about half for schools, and, of course, I never had kids.
>> And of course, you don't benefit in any way by having others' kids becoming educated. If they all couldn't read or
>> write and turned to crime instead of working, that'd be just as good?
> Ah yes. Breeder bingo. How about if you have kids YOU pay to have them
> educated? I went to private school on my parent's dime. My parents paid for my extracurricular activities, not the
> property owners of my town (sports, etc.). Why on earth should the government be involved in education?
Essentially because hordes of kids wouldnt get any education at all if their parents had to pay for that.
> If I had kids I certainly wouldn't want the state determining what they learned.
More fool you on the basics of what they have to be taught.
> If you have kids you should pay to have them educated instead of sticking your hands in my pocket.
Wrong, because you benefit from all kids getting a basic education.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> And you wont get a better result with the students just by paying the teachers more.
> I'm not proposing that paying the current set of teachers more will make a difference.
Thats what the unions are proposing, so you dont in fact agree with the union position at all.
> I'm proposing that if teaching positions paid well, you might be able to (eventually) replace most of the
> current set of teachers with a whole new set of people.
Nope, because that aint what determines whether you get the ones you need.
> There are a lot of teachers out there who are pretty good at what they do,
Depends entirely on how you define that. The modern reality is that
the kids that matter quality of education wise arent those who will
end up in the professions etc on the whole, those get a very adequate
education even when the teachers are nothing special, just because
the system has always handled those kids quite adequately.
The main problem is with the kids who dont see the point in getting
a decent education, and who dont have parents who have enough
of a clue to ensure that they are adequately educated so that they
do have a decent choice of jobs once they leave school. There are
bugger all teachers that do very well in that situation, and thats
primarily because of the way the education system is structured,
not because of the quality of the individual teacher involved.
> but then there is also a prevailing attitude (although it's not often stated) that the purpose of schools is to
> babysit and to socialize kids,
And that isnt going to change regardless of what the teachers are paid
within the limits that are feasible given that all those kids need to be educated.
> rather than for them to learn actual academic stuff,
The bulk of the kids dont need any academic stuff, just the basics.
> and the current low pay for teachers is going to attract a lot of people who don't know their stuff as well as would
> be needed to actually teach kids stuff.
The current pay rates are perfectly adequate to get teachers who can teach.
And there isnt a shred of evidence than paying them what the unions are
demanding will do a damned thing about the quality of the teachers at all.
Vic Smith
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>Is there a professional job (other than government) that doesn't work
>45-50 hrs / week these days (typically with far less vacation / holiday
>time than teachers)?
>
Probably depends on the individual. Since I always valued family and
personal time, my goal was to work 40 hours, and that's what I worked.
There were exceptions when something critical needed addressing, and
then there was no limit to hours worked. I usually got most of those
hours back with time off.
Of course when I was at work, I was actually working.
Long hours are usually pushed by bad management to squeeze workers.
One of the reasons unions were born in the first place.
Sometimes the worker feels inadequate and decides he has to work long
hours. Sometimes the worker actually *likes* working long hours.
I did that my first 5 or so years in IT, so as to learn enough to keep
up with peers, and pass them if possible. I suppose plenty of
teachers do this too. I hope so. Anyway, these are often personal
decisions.
A 45-50 hour work week as some kind of standard is just bullshit.
>On an hourly basis, I'm finding teachers (at least where I live) earn
>far more than engineers, chemists, IT professionals, etc who typically
>do work much overtime (beyond 40hrs) and typically have significant less
>benefits (teachers here, for example, get full medical with minimal, if
>any cost).
They aren't so highly paid around here, except management.
Administrators, such as principals and board of education members, are
very highly paid, and often of questionable value.
There is a lot of fat in education budgets.
That's where I would start to look for savings.
Then look hard at what teachers are demanding, and if it's
"unreasonable" take it to the public and start busting the union.
Yeah, I know. Easy to say.
But the public footing the bill usually keeps things on a somewhat
even keel.
--Vic
Too_Many_Tools
> > a Prius which averages around 40MPG. Only a fool didn't expect gas
> > prices to climb. After all, the oil industry has a puppet doing their
> > bidding in the White House.
>
> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old? Or
> perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white house
> has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
> oron. -Dave
If that is true then I assume we can expect you to not complain if the
price of fuel doesn't drop under the next President...a Democrat.
TMT
Dennis
<lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Even though I think unions are, by and large, dumb and outdated, I
>agree with the teachers' union in this case. Education is sort of
>important, partly because it makes better citizens and better human
>beings, and partly because without it, our economy is sunk, especially
>with globalization where we now have to compete with other countries
>more and more. And yet we pay teachers a lot less than other
>professionals. I think it would be a lot of fun and would be very
>satisfying to be a teacher, but there's no way I'm going to actually
>DO it -- I'd have to give up approximately half my income over the
>course of my career. I'd like to give something back to society, but
>I'm not going to do it in a way that could practically cut in half
>what I'd earn over the course of my life. That's too much to ask.
>So I never seriously considered it.
>
>So I guess what I think is that if you make teachers' salaries so
>much lower than what people can make in industry, most people who
>have options are going to avoid teaching. And that's a shame,
>because when I was a kid, I liked it when teachers had actual
>brains, and if I myself had kids, I would want them learning from
>someone who knows what they're talking about.
I agree that teachers should be reasonably well paid, but I also think
that taxpayers should get good value for their money. That means
abolish the current practices of tenure and advancement based on
seniority and make it a meritocracy like you see in most successful
businesses (at least in lower levels).
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
clams_casino
>>
>>
>>
>
>I live very close to work too. Keep in mind; however, that the high gas
>prices effect everyone, including those who don't drive at all. The food
>you eat is going up in price, due in part to higher energy costs. The
>cost of utilities is going up. Higher gas prices have a ripple effect,
>which boosts the costs of goods and services across the board. For me,
>the increased cost of gas is not a significant factor YET, but if gas
>keeps getting more expensive, even those people who don't drive at all
>will feel the bite in their wallet.
>
>
All very good points. Price of gas at the pump is minor compared with
its inflationary effect on goods & services.
Lou
> In <betatron-80A6AC...@news.ftupet.com>, max wrote in part:
> >In article <fqeae0$atv$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> >
> >> "clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:UPvyj.10464$yk5....@newsfe18.lga...
> >> > Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> OMFG, the level of ignorance here is astounding. I am no fan of the
pres,
> >> think he should have been impeached many times over, for various
reasons.
> >> But to claim that he has any control over the cost of a barrel of oil
is
> >> like blaming him when a bad blizzard shuts down the freeway. If he
benefits
> >> financially from the freeway being closed, it is not logical to say
that he
> >> created the blizzard that closed the road. In fact, it is PRETTY
FUCKING
> >> STUPID.
> >
> >That's not an arguement, baseless, fact-free rant.
> >
> >First of all, the question was about $4/gallon gasoline, not the price
> >of a barrel of oil.
> >
> >So. What could have the president done, over the last 7 years?
> >He could have:
> >
> >1. instituted demand reduction policies by pressing for fleet mileage
> >increases
> >
> >1a. instituted demand-reduction policies by promoting bicycling as a
> >meaningful alternative transportation.
> >
> >2. Could have chosen tax incentives that rewarded fuel efficient cars
> >instead of the most fuel wasteful SUVs
> >
> >2a provided meaningful support to alt energy (electric) automobiles and
> >storage battery tech.
> >
> >3. Could have paid more than lip service to alt. fuel production
> >
> >4. Could have assured his nominal programs already announced were
> >actually funded.
> >
> >5. Could have pushed the production of nuclear fuel systems and waste
> >internment.
> >
> >6. Could have pushed the creation of more refining capacity.
> >
> >7. Could have made energy conservation a sincere national goal for the
> >country through directives to the military and executive branch agencies
> >and through public outreach messages via PSAs and speechmaking from
> >himself and cabinet officers.
> >
> >8 we won't even get into reigning in the cancerous growth of suburbia.
> >
> >9. not embark on national military policy that stokes petroleum market
> >volatiity.
>
> 10. Not brought back an annual budget deficit. Fiscal responsibility
> helps currency strength, and the decline of the US dollar is part of the
> problem of high prices in US dollars of globally traded commodities.
Well, yes, but the federal budget deficit is only a part of it - by far the
biggest part is the nation's tendency to import more than it exports. Every
time someone buys an imported car, bottle of wine, bottle of water, makes a
phone call abroad, etc. they're contributing to the weakening of the dollar.
Rod Speed
Correct.
> by far the biggest part is the nation's tendency to import more than it exports.
Wrong.
> Every time someone buys an imported car, bottle of wine, bottle of water, makes
> a phone call abroad, etc. they're contributing to the weakening of the dollar.
Wrong.
A bigger factor is the relative interest rates on offer.
Rod Speed
> Shawn Hirn wrote
Nope, you have that backwards. Its what most actually use
personally that has the biggest effect on their personal outgoing.
Essentially because say the cost of the diesel is only a
very small part of the price you pay for even stupiditys
like bottled water, let alone the price of say a steak.
Jeff
>>> Again, the president has no influence over events that happened way back
>>> before recorded history. Oil was formed. Oil is being used faster than
> it
>>> can reform. Oil therefore will run out. Soon. -Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for proving you are totally naive.
>>
>> Hint - Oil consumption & limited supply does not account for the massive
>> increase in price since GW was placed in office.
>
> You're like somebody worrying that a plane is going to crash and kill him,
> while standing on the railroad tracks oblivious to the oncoming train. By
> the time you get a clue..
>
> Look moron, if GW has done something to influence the price of oil,
Forget Peak Oil for a bit, we'll get to it later...
Everything he has done has influenced the price of oil.
W has driven down the value of the dollar, remember that oil is priced
in dollars. That is maybe $30/barrel. Did you know that one of the
reasons for the Iraq war was the Saddam wanted to move off the dollar
standard?
Oil is traded on the futures market. Uncertainty raises the cost of
futures contracts. That is somewhere between $15 and $30/barrel
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_11/b3975011.htm
Oil is a commodity and is dependent on supply and demand. So what has
happened to the country with second largest reserves in the world, Iraq?
It's stalled below pre invasion levels. Currently that is 2 million bpd.
As far as the their reserves, they have been damaged by post invasion
policies with seawater seeping into the southern fields.
What about talking the Saudis into ramping up production. George W
Bush famously remarked (December 1999) that he would jawbone OPEC. Funny
how oil was at $27/barrel at the time. The Saudis are laughing at W now.
No one has any incentive to do anything to please the US. And why should
W care, Exxon once again posted a record quarterly profit.
Now, let's look at Peak Oil, exactly what has George W Bush done to
lower the future consumption of the US? We're not at peak oil yet
(probably another decade or so), but the hope for the future is just as
mired as the Mideast Peace policy.
At every possible Y in the road George W Bush has taken the path that
has made *tripling* the price of oil possible.
Jeff
> makes him even worse of a president than *I* thought he was, and it still
> doesn't fucking matter. If there are three rare comic books and I
> deliberately destroy two of them to make the price of the third triple,
> where are you going to get a copy of that rare comic book after someone else
> destroys the third
> copy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> Oh fuckit, there's no intelligent life in here. Why do I even bother?
>
> -Dave
>
>
Dave
>
> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old? Or
> perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the white house
> has no control over the dwindling supply of a non-renewable asset,
> oron. -Dave
If that is true then I assume we can expect you to not complain if the
price of fuel doesn't drop under the next President...a Democrat.
TMT
(my reply)
I might complain, but i wont bitch about the president not doing his job, as
I know he is powerless. -Dave
George Grapman
Rod Speed
> Dave C. wrote
>>>> Again, the president has no influence over events that happened
>>>> way back before recorded history. Oil was formed. Oil is being
>>>> used faster than it can reform. Oil therefore will run out. Soon.
>>> Thanks for proving you are totally naive.
>>> Hint - Oil consumption & limited supply does not account for the massive increase in price since GW was placed in
>>> office.
>> You're like somebody worrying that a plane is going to crash and kill him, while standing on the railroad tracks
>> oblivious to the oncoming train. By the time you get a clue..
>> Look moron, if GW has done something to influence the price of oil,
> Forget Peak Oil for a bit, we'll get to it later...
> Everything he has done has influenced the price of oil.
Nope. It would have done what its done anyway.
> W has driven down the value of the dollar,
Nope.
> remember that oil is priced in dollars.
Nope.
> That is maybe $30/barrel.
Nope.
> Did you know that one of the reasons for the Iraq war was the Saddam wanted to move off the dollar standard?
Pig ignorant lie.
> Oil is traded on the futures market. Uncertainty raises the cost of futures contracts.
Nope.
> That is somewhere between $15 and $30/barrel
You're just plucking those stupid numbers out of your arse.
> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_11/b3975011.htm
> Oil is a commodity and is dependent on supply and demand.
Wota surprise.
> So what has happened to the country with second largest reserves in the world, Iraq?
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with the rate at which OPEC chooses to supply it.
> It's stalled below pre invasion levels. Currently that is 2 million bpd.
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with the rate at which OPEC chooses to supply it.
> As far as the their reserves, they have been damaged by post invasion policies with seawater seeping into the southern
> fields.
Doesnt have a damned thing to do with the rate at which OPEC chooses to supply it.
> What about talking the Saudis into ramping up production.
Easy to say, hell of a lot harder to actually do.
> George W Bush famously remarked (December 1999) that he would jawbone OPEC.
And only fools ever bought that line.
> Funny how oil was at $27/barrel at the time. The Saudis are laughing at W now.
Nope.
> No one has any incentive to do anything to please the US.
Nothing to do with the shrub.
> And why should W care, Exxon once again posted a record quarterly profit.
Nothing to do with the shrub.
> Now, let's look at Peak Oil, exactly what has George W Bush done to lower the future consumption of the US?
Nothing, just like every other US prez.
> We're not at peak oil yet (probably another decade or so),
Nope.
> but the hope for the future is just as mired as the Mideast Peace policy.
Nothing to do with the shrub.
> At every possible Y in the road George W Bush has taken the path that has made *tripling* the price of oil possible.
The price of oil has got fuck all to do with any particular US prez, everything
to do with global demand for oil and what OPEC chooses to ship.
Like that or lump it.
>> makes him even worse of a president than *I* thought he was, and it
>> still doesn't fucking matter. If there are three rare comic books
>> and I deliberately destroy two of them to make the price of the
>> third triple, where are you going to get a copy of that rare comic
>> book after someone else destroys the third
>> copy?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>> Oh fuckit, there's no intelligent life in here. Why do I even bother?
You love the sound of your own voice ?
Too_Many_Tools
Why complain when the $4...$5...$10 gallon gas happens at all if the
President...Republican or Democrat ....has no influence?
I on the other hand consider that the President can greatly influence
the price you and I pay...and it is evident that Bush is lining his
pockets.
TMT
TMT
Rod Speed
> Dave <no...@nohow.not> wrote
>>> You saying the puppet in the white house is billions of years old?
>>> Or perhaps you think he's got a time machine? That puppet in the
>>> white house has no control over the dwindling supply of a
>>> non-renewable asset, moron.
>> If that is true then I assume we can expect you to not complain if
>> the price of fuel doesn't drop under the next President...a Democrat.
>> I might complain, but i wont bitch about the president
>> not doing his job, as I know he is powerless.
> Why complain when the $4...$5...$10 gallon gas happens at all
> if the President...Republican or Democrat ....has no influence?
> I on the other hand consider that the President can greatly influence the price you and I pay...
More fool you. No US prez has any real effect on global oil prices.
Its all about global demand and what OPEC chooses to supply.
> and it is evident that Bush is lining his pockets.
Or he has enough of a clue to realise what oil prices would do as the demand
from china and india booms as their economys finally get their act into gear.
jo...@phred.org
>
> "Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:47cb8466$0$6120$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >h wrote:
> >> Still, I can't fathom what they're spending my $6,000 a year on. It's
> >> about half for schools, and, of course, I never had kids.
> >
> > And of course, you don't benefit in any way by having others' kids
> > becoming educated. If they all couldn't read or write and turned
> > to crime instead of working, that'd be just as good?
> >
>
> Ah yes. Breeder bingo. How about if you have kids YOU pay to have them
> educated?
We have no breeding licenses for humans in this country -- how do you
propose enforcing that ideal?
If you don't plan to enforce it, how do you plan to cope with the kids
whose parents barely get them to school as it is, let alone feed them
breakfast or make sure they do their homework?
Sure, our public schools could be more efficiently run, but do you
really want to live with the results of abandoning universal education?
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
jo...@phred.org
teacher, who has been with the district a few years, makes about 13%
less than the Parks Department in the same city is offering for a new-
hire "Maintenance Worker I - Parks", a manual labor position requiring
"High school diploma or equivalent AND one year of full-time paid
related work experience."
An interesting comparison. Personally, for that money, I'd rather work
out in the rain and mud than deal with the school bureaucracy....
h
<jo...@phred.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.223685de1...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>
> Sure, our public schools could be more efficiently run, but do you
> really want to live with the results of abandoning universal education?
>
Why should universal education be free? If "parents" can't pay to educate
their kids and cope with getting them to school, they shouldn't be allowed
to retain custody. They should lose custody immediately and permanently, and
the kids should be adopted out. Besides, with the world popluation nearing 7
billion no one should have more than one child anyway. That's a law I would
love to see, and I would be thrilled if it could be enforced (tubal ligation
performed immediately after every childbirth). If people only had one, it
would be much easier to care for and educate that child. It's not frugal to
have even one child, and it should be criminal to have more than one.
Shawn Hirn
> "SMH" <s...@munged.address.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A5476BD...@207.115.33.102...
> >
> > When gasoline hits $4 per gallon as all the experts have been saying for
> > weeks and to which one prominent politician has been completely oblivious,
> > how will you adapt to it?
> >
> > Were you all pretty much expecting it?
> >
> > With bad economies, people tend to lose their jobs to layoffs! What plans
> > do you have? Do you fear for your employment?
> >
>
> Shrug. I'm self-employed and my business is doing just fine. I work at home,
> and live five miles from the post office and grocery store, which are pretty
> much the only places I need to go. A trip once or twice a week means I only
> fill the tank about 5-6 times a year. I frankly couldn't care less about the
> price of gas. It's property/school/income taxes that are killing me.
Yup, and there's the narrow-minded view. Do you think the fire and
police officers' vehicles run on air? What about the truckers who
deliver the food to your favorite grocery store? Your real estate taxes
are going up in part due to the high price of gas and so is the cost of
the food you eat. The price of energy filters down to every product and
service you buy, including the taxes you pay.
Shawn Hirn
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:fqeb5l$eh9$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> Shrug. I'm self-employed and my business is doing just fine. I work at
> >> home, and live five miles from the post office and grocery store, which
> >> are pretty much the only places I need to go. A trip once or twice a week
> >> means I only fill the tank about 5-6 times a year. I frankly couldn't
> >> care less about the price of gas. It's property/school/income taxes that
> >> are killing me.
> >>
> >
> > No shit, my property taxes have doubled over the past couple of years.
> > DOUBLED. -Dave
>
> I've been in my house for 23 years, and my property/school taxes are now 10%
> of the purchase price, so I "re-buy" the house every 10 years. Considering
> that the value of the house has only doubled in 23 years my property/school
> taxes really shouldn't have gone from $1,500 to $6,000 in that amount of
> time, should they? $6000/year for a house worth/assessed at $120,000 seems a
> bit excessive to me.
Did you ever try to dispute the assessment? My parents did and they won.
I am told in some communities, they do tend to side with the home owners
in such disputes.
Shawn Hirn
>
> Except the house has only doubled in value; it's the rates that have risen
> ridiculously. We pay higher taxes (dollars to valuation) here in the boonies
> than they do on Long Island. The rate was 2.5% of full value when I bought
> the house ($60,000) and now it's 5% of full value. I'm not saying that the
> taxes shouldn't have gone up, but the RATES have doubled. It's completely
> insane. The town has determined that my house is worth $120,000, however
> neighbors with a similar house (200 year old farm house, 1800 sq. ft) just
> sold theirs for $90,000. No one is willing to pay "full price" for a house
> with such high taxes. Now, do you think that the neighbors will get any
> money back from the town since their house was really only worth 90K? Yeah,
> though not.
Have you gone to the town government to dispute the assessment? If not,
you definitely should.
Shawn Hirn
Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
> > Average teacher salaries in our state are the highest in the nation when
> > adjusted for the local cost of living. When pointed out to the local
> > teacher's union, the reply has been that the US average is too low, not
> > that the local teachers ($54k in 2005) are paid too much. Meanwhile,
> > the teachers are on strike yet again. It's not uncommon for teachers
> > here to be getting $70k/yr
>
> Even though I think unions are, by and large, dumb and outdated, I
> agree with the teachers' union in this case. Education is sort of
> important, partly because it makes better citizens and better human
> beings, and partly because without it, our economy is sunk, especially
> with globalization where we now have to compete with other countries
> more and more.
I agree. I have a master's degree in education. I do not teach, nor am I
in a union. When I was working on my bachelors in math, there was a
heavy emphasis on recruiting math and science majors to teach K-12. Few
of my classmates went in that direction. All of my classmates with whom
I kept touch got a much better paying job in private industry.
Becoming qualified to teach K-12 is time-consuming and expensive. In
most states, becoming teacher certified requires an UNPAID internship
which typically means an extra year of college. It is nearly impossible
to teach K-12 without certification anywhere. If teaching was so easy,
why are so many school districts having time hiring good teachers? You
get what you pay for.
For example, a math major can minor in several areas such as computer
science, actuarial science, or science education. If he or she takes an
actuarial exam and a few actuarial science courses for a minor, that
student can rake in the money right out of college, so why teach and
start out at 30K (or whatever it is now) instead of taking a job in
private industry earning twice that amount, if not more to start and
graduate from college sooner (no unpaid internship).
People who bash teachers for their high salaries fail to realize that
schools are competing for workers with private industry. Good teachers
who understand their subject are hard to find, and a good part of that
reason is because the pay to teach is not competitive with private
industry, even in our current economy.
The tuition for my Masters degree was paid for by my employer. My job
required that I earn a masters, and I had an option to major in any of
several areas, so I went with education. My degree concentration was in
statistical research and learning styles. Despite years working in the
computer field, including some college level teaching, and a Masters
degree in education, I am not qualified to teach computers at the K-12
level, and getting qualified would require that I take a year off from
work to return to school, do an unpaid internship, and then for what? To
take a job that pays half of what I earn now to start? Who would do
that? Not me? That's the problem with the American educational system,
not enough is being invested to hire good teachers, and the
certification process is far too onerous and turns off good people
toward other careers.