menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: An assault on old OU
Page: 6 of 7
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/22/2017 7:38 PM
Can't comment on that one. It's $19.95 to download.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
2/22/2017 8:29 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
There's an article in the Op-ed section of today's (2/21) The Record on Preschool (Preschool provides a boost,but benefits can fade fast).
Its written by Drew Bailey,Greg Duncan and Candice Odgers of the Wshington Post.

As I said,I'm a dinosaur,so I couldn't get it to link.

It talks about the benefits of preschool,but also points out that the gains it provides,can fade quickly.
Nothing like getting them ready with a good knife before they then go into a gunfight...

Point being - Preschool programs obviously have a benefit - even according to the source you reference. What we offer as a nation and/or states after that is not on the same level of commitment.

I never said good preschools don't have a benefit.

What the article points out is that the benefits don't seem to be long term.
It also seems that kids who don't attend preschool catch up to those who did quickly.

I think the most important issue raised in the article is,are the long term results worth the programs' costs ?
Absolutely. For ever dollar spent on preschool eight dollars are saved later.

http://equitablegrowth.org/report/the-benefits-and-costs-... /
Are you actually presenting this as though it is a politically neutral organization?
That thought hadn't entered my mind but if that's an issue for you, try this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775...
😂😂

Even the foundations that promote and study charter schools recognize the benefits of pre-schools. However, pre-schools help in families where parents are not active in the engagement of children's cognitive process. The sourrounding and support structure at home is the greatest determining factor in a child's success. Those who believe they can do nothing for 5 years and then all the sudden a teacher is going to solve all the problems are delusional.
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/22/2017 10:12 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Can't comment on that one. It's $19.95 to download.

Read the free abstract. It's free.
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/22/2017 10:13 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
There's an article in the Op-ed section of today's (2/21) The Record on Preschool (Preschool provides a boost,but benefits can fade fast).
Its written by Drew Bailey,Greg Duncan and Candice Odgers of the Wshington Post.

As I said,I'm a dinosaur,so I couldn't get it to link.

It talks about the benefits of preschool,but also points out that the gains it provides,can fade quickly.
Nothing like getting them ready with a good knife before they then go into a gunfight...

Point being - Preschool programs obviously have a benefit - even according to the source you reference. What we offer as a nation and/or states after that is not on the same level of commitment.

I never said good preschools don't have a benefit.

What the article points out is that the benefits don't seem to be long term.
It also seems that kids who don't attend preschool catch up to those who did quickly.

I think the most important issue raised in the article is,are the long term results worth the programs' costs ?
Absolutely. For ever dollar spent on preschool eight dollars are saved later.

http://equitablegrowth.org/report/the-benefits-and-costs-... /
Are you actually presenting this as though it is a politically neutral organization?
That thought hadn't entered my mind but if that's an issue for you, try this one:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775...
😂😂

Even the foundations that promote and study charter schools recognize the benefits of pre-schools. However, pre-schools help in families where parents are not active in the engagement of children's cognitive process. The sourrounding and support structure at home is the greatest determining factor in a child's success. Those who believe they can do nothing for 5 years and then all the sudden a teacher is going to solve all the problems are delusional.
Bingo,bango, bongo.
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 8:19 AM
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/23/2017 9:26 AM
One of the "news" "pop-ups" on AOL today lists the 20 worst public schools in
America.
Based on that article,if I counted correctly,8 out of 20 are in Ohio.

Oklahoma is second with 4.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 10:54 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
This may be true of their rhetoric, but it's definitely not true in practice. Philadelphia voters chose a Mayor who campaigned on a soda tax to fund universal pre-K in the city. The soda tax became law and now Philadelphia will have universal pre-K.

Here the rub though: GOP legislators in Harrisburg are pushing back and trying to have the soda tax declared unconstitutional. Most of these legislators are from districts far away from Philadelphia. This represents a common trend of Harrisburg trying to mettle in local politics in Philadelphia. Last summer GOP legislators tried to shut down Philly's immensely popular summer beer gardens, claiming they violated the spirit of the liquor license law.

How do you square these actions with the philosophy of wanting to keep decisions as local as possible? Maybe YOU personally want that, but the right in America has shown they only want local control when it benefits them.
Last Edited: 2/23/2017 10:55:15 AM by DelBobcat
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/23/2017 11:06 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
This may be true of their rhetoric, but it's definitely not true in practice. Philadelphia voters chose a Mayor who campaigned on a soda tax to fund universal pre-K in the city. The soda tax became law and now Philadelphia will have universal pre-K.

Here the rub though: GOP legislators in Harrisburg are pushing back and trying to have the soda tax declared unconstitutional. Most of these legislators are from districts far away from Philadelphia. This represents a common trend of Harrisburg trying to mettle in local politics in Philadelphia. Last summer GOP legislators tried to shut down Philly's immensely popular summer beer gardens, claiming they violated the spirit of the liquor license law.

How do you square these actions with the philosophy of wanting to keep decisions as local as possible? Maybe YOU personally want that, but the right in America has shown they only want local control when it benefits them.
There's an article in the business section of today's (2/23/17) The Record about the soda tax.
The article is entitled "Philadelphia soda tax killing sales;supermarket layoffs loom".
The article says the soda tax has cut beverage sales 30% to 50%.
Business owners are saying they expect layoffs.
The City said they expect sales to rebound after people get over "sticker shock".
The City also feels that the threats may be "fear mongering" to prevent the tax from spreading to other cities.

Question is,layoffs aside,if sales don't rebound,how do make up for the revenue your were counting to pay for Pre-K ?
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 11:30 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
How do you square these actions with the philosophy of wanting to keep decisions as local as possible? Maybe YOU personally want that, but the right in America has shown they only want local control when it benefits them.
Well, on principle but knowing nothing of the details of this case, I would side with the local government decision. I suppose the resistance is coming from Philadelphia business owners who feel their profits will suffer and are therefore appealing to their state representatives. I would further guess that conservatives in Philadelphia may feel overwhelmed by a, likely, liberal city government and are looking for relief from the state on the grounds that the decision is unconstitutional.

Taking soda pop out of the hands of Americans. That can't be constitutional! Philadelphia Freedom stops at the refrigerator case.
mail
person
Alan Swank
2/23/2017 11:32 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
Robert with all due respect, that might be one of the most inflammatory posts I've seen on here. This has nothing to do with left or right it's whether or not we want to morally and ethically invest in our children. Nothing more or less. Education is not a left or right thing. It's a humanitarian thing.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 11:36 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
How do you square these actions with the philosophy of wanting to keep decisions as local as possible? Maybe YOU personally want that, but the right in America has shown they only want local control when it benefits them.
Well, on principle but knowing nothing of the details of this case, I would side with the local government decision. I suppose the resistance is coming from Philadelphia business owners who feel their profits will suffer and are therefore appealing to their state representatives. I would further guess that conservatives in Philadelphia may feel overwhelmed by a, likely, liberal city government and are looking for relief from the state on the grounds that the decision is unconstitutional.

Taking soda pop out of the hands of Americans. That can't be constitutional! Philadelphia Freedom stops at the refrigerator case.
The Mayor campaigned on the issue and won 85% of the vote. Like I said, the legislators who have a problem with it are from elsewhere in the state mostly. If I were to rationalize their opposition I might say that they are worried that localities in their districts might follow suit. But I don't really think their opposition is rational.
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 11:40 AM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
If I were to rationalize their opposition I might say that they are worried that localities in their districts might follow suit. But I don't really think their opposition is rational.
And you may be right. In my mind, and if you're right that the opposition is NOT coming from Philadelphia, then they'd be wise to let Philadelphia do as they wish--and suffer the consequences.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 11:41 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
This may be true of their rhetoric, but it's definitely not true in practice. Philadelphia voters chose a Mayor who campaigned on a soda tax to fund universal pre-K in the city. The soda tax became law and now Philadelphia will have universal pre-K.

Here the rub though: GOP legislators in Harrisburg are pushing back and trying to have the soda tax declared unconstitutional. Most of these legislators are from districts far away from Philadelphia. This represents a common trend of Harrisburg trying to mettle in local politics in Philadelphia. Last summer GOP legislators tried to shut down Philly's immensely popular summer beer gardens, claiming they violated the spirit of the liquor license law.

How do you square these actions with the philosophy of wanting to keep decisions as local as possible? Maybe YOU personally want that, but the right in America has shown they only want local control when it benefits them.
There's an article in the business section of today's (2/23/17) The Record about the soda tax.
The article is entitled "Philadelphia soda tax killing sales;supermarket layoffs loom".
The article says the soda tax has cut beverage sales 30% to 50%.
Business owners are saying they expect layoffs.
The City said they expect sales to rebound after people get over "sticker shock".
The City also feels that the threats may be "fear mongering" to prevent the tax from spreading to other cities.

Question is,layoffs aside,if sales don't rebound,how do make up for the revenue your were counting to pay for Pre-K ?
The revenue projections factored in a 30% decrease in sales, so that's been accounted for. The tax collections in January were actually double what the city projected.

As for that layoffs, the numbers are small in the grand scheme of things and are offset by the jobs created. In addition to pre-K the tax will also fund renovations to parks and recreation centers. So we have both education and construction jobs being created--and the children's future employment prospects will be brighter as well. You can't quantify it, but how many of these pre-K students will go on to become successful entrepreneurs? How many of them would have ended up incarcerated otherwise? The research says we can expect long-term economic growth coming out of this policy.

FWIW, there has been a lot of hand wringing about how this tax will get passed through to the consumers, but the price of soda at my local store has not gone up at all.
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 11:44 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
The concept is divided, mostly along political boundaries. The question is not whether or not pre-school is beneficial, it's about who is in charge? The left, as always, wants the Feds in charge. The right, speaking for me personally, wants to keep the decision as local as possible.
Robert with all due respect, that might be one of the most inflammatory posts I've seen on here. This has nothing to do with left or right it's whether or not we want to morally and ethically invest in our children. Nothing more or less. Education is not a left or right thing. It's a humanitarian thing.
You're kidding. That post was the most inflammatory?
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 11:54 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
If I were to rationalize their opposition I might say that they are worried that localities in their districts might follow suit. But I don't really think their opposition is rational.
And you may be right. In my mind, and if you're right that the opposition is NOT coming from Philadelphia, then they'd be wise to let Philadelphia do as they wish--and suffer the consequences.
...and reap the rewards.

Philadelphia is the economic engine of the state. Philly and it's PA suburbs account for 32% of the population, 40% of the GDP, and only receives 23% of state tax dollars back. Yet GOP legislators in Harrisburg are always saying that Philly is a funding black hole. They were using alternative facts before our President ever came on the scene. We'd be better off if Harrisburg wasn't always trying to hold us back.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/23/2017 12:00 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
As for that layoffs, the numbers are small in the grand scheme of things and are offset by the jobs created.
That sounds nice unless,of course, you're one of the people who loses their job.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 12:11 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
As for that layoffs, the numbers are small in the grand scheme of things and are offset by the jobs created.
That sounds nice unless,of course, you're one of the people who loses their job.
Of course, and I don't mean to sound dismissive--but every policy (or decision not to implement a policy) affects people's jobs. That's the nature of the beast. The City of Philadelphia believes, and I believe they are correct, that this policy will create more jobs and a better city in the long-run. It sucks that some people may lose their job but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing a good policy.

Likewise, I would venture to guess that you think repealing Obamacare will be good for the country. Lots of people are going to lose their job if that happens too. But I presume that you think it'll even out in the long run and that the Republican policy that replaces it will create more jobs.
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 12:11 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
If I were to rationalize their opposition I might say that they are worried that localities in their districts might follow suit. But I don't really think their opposition is rational.
And you may be right. In my mind, and if you're right that the opposition is NOT coming from Philadelphia, then they'd be wise to let Philadelphia do as they wish--and suffer the consequences.
...and reap the rewards.

Philadelphia is the economic engine of the state. Philly and it's PA suburbs account for 32% of the population, 40% of the GDP, and only receives 23% of state tax dollars back. Yet GOP legislators in Harrisburg are always saying that Philly is a funding black hole. They were using alternative facts before our President ever came on the scene. We'd be better off if Harrisburg wasn't always trying to hold us back.
Well I assume this soda tax is a city tax, therefore the money will go directly to the city and they can do what they wish with the proceeds. We'll see how that goes.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 12:28 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
If I were to rationalize their opposition I might say that they are worried that localities in their districts might follow suit. But I don't really think their opposition is rational.
And you may be right. In my mind, and if you're right that the opposition is NOT coming from Philadelphia, then they'd be wise to let Philadelphia do as they wish--and suffer the consequences.
...and reap the rewards.

Philadelphia is the economic engine of the state. Philly and it's PA suburbs account for 32% of the population, 40% of the GDP, and only receives 23% of state tax dollars back. Yet GOP legislators in Harrisburg are always saying that Philly is a funding black hole. They were using alternative facts before our President ever came on the scene. We'd be better off if Harrisburg wasn't always trying to hold us back.
Well I assume this soda tax is a city tax, therefore the money will go directly to the city and they can do what they wish with the proceeds. We'll see how that goes.
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/23/2017 12:31 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
As for that layoffs, the numbers are small in the grand scheme of things and are offset by the jobs created.
That sounds nice unless,of course, you're one of the people who loses their job.
Of course, and I don't mean to sound dismissive--but every policy (or decision not to implement a policy) affects people's jobs. That's the nature of the beast. The City of Philadelphia believes, and I believe they are correct, that this policy will create more jobs and a better city in the long-run. It sucks that some people may lose their job but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing a good policy.

Likewise, I would venture to guess that you think repealing Obamacare will be good for the country. Lots of people are going to lose their job if that happens too. But I presume that you think it'll even out in the long run and that the Republican policy that replaces it will create more jobs.
My wife is a visiting nurse.she's already seen a lot of people in health care lose their job because of Obama care.

Obamacare also plays games with Medicare.
One example.
You go to the hospital for operation "A".
You go home.You trip and fall and break a hip and end up back in the hospital.
Even though it has nothing to do with the operation,if a patient ends up back in the hospital, for any reason,in X days,under Obama care medicare doesn't pay for pretty much anything.

I just want a healthcare system that delivers coverage at a reasonable cost.
(I also believe in Santa Clause and Easter Bunny)
From my experience,as well as my employees,that hasn't been the case under the Obama care.
mail
person
Robert Fox
2/23/2017 12:36 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
...and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem?
I assume the city's medium and small private employers are not in favor of this change. Those businesses will be far more likely to have to raise prices in order to pay for the tax. Their goods and services will then be more expensive for the consumer. Sure, the big companies are for it, offsetting the cost by improved wages for low-salary employees. That benefit is likely not felt by the smaller businesses.

With these examples, are you staking the claim that liberals are in favor of local rule?
Last Edited: 2/23/2017 12:37:05 PM by Robert Fox
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/23/2017 12:42 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.
New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 12:50 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
As for that layoffs, the numbers are small in the grand scheme of things and are offset by the jobs created.
That sounds nice unless,of course, you're one of the people who loses their job.
Of course, and I don't mean to sound dismissive--but every policy (or decision not to implement a policy) affects people's jobs. That's the nature of the beast. The City of Philadelphia believes, and I believe they are correct, that this policy will create more jobs and a better city in the long-run. It sucks that some people may lose their job but it shouldn't stop you from pursuing a good policy.

Likewise, I would venture to guess that you think repealing Obamacare will be good for the country. Lots of people are going to lose their job if that happens too. But I presume that you think it'll even out in the long run and that the Republican policy that replaces it will create more jobs.
My wife is a visiting nurse.she's already seen a lot of people in health care lose their job because of Obama care.

Obamacare also plays games with Medicare.
One example.
You go to the hospital for operation "A".
You go home.You trip and fall and break a hip and end up back in the hospital.
Even though it has nothing to do with the operation,if a patient ends up back in the hospital, for any reason,in X days,under Obama care medicare doesn't pay for pretty much anything.

I just want a healthcare system that delivers coverage at a reasonable cost.
(I also believe in Santa Clause and Easter Bunny)
From my experience,as well as my employees,that hasn't been the case under the Obama care.
I don't want to get into a debate about Obamacare, I was just using it as an example of how all policies have winners and losers. I know we disagree on its merits and I know we're not going to change each other's minds. I will only say (because I can't help myself, it's a flaw) that jobs in hospitals have grown from 4.57 million before Obamacare to 5.09 million today. Researchers at George Washington U. found that repealing Obamacare would result in a nationwide loss of about 3 million jobs and $2.6 trillion in total business activity between 2019 and 2023.

If we repeal Obamacare, jobs will be lost. My point is that I'm presuming you're ok with that because you think that more jobs will be created by whatever we replace it with. I may not agree, but I think that is a rational train of thought.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 12:56 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
...and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem?
I assume the city's medium and small private employers are not in favor of this change. Those businesses will be far more likely to have to raise prices in order to pay for the tax. Their goods and services will then be more expensive for the consumer. Sure, the big companies are for it, offsetting the cost by improved wages for low-salary employees. That benefit is likely not felt by the smaller businesses.

With these examples, are you staking the claim that liberals are in favor of local rule?
I assume there are some individuals out there who would be against such a change for those reasons, but I haven't heard about them. It's my understanding that small commercial properties would not take a huge hit since most are located in neighborhoods with lower property values. But skycraper office buildings would absorb the largest hit. Of course even small business owners would benefit from workers in the city having more disposable income from paying less wage tax.

But no, I'm not trying to stake that claim. I'm saying that liberals and conservatives alike are for local rule when it benefits their agenda and vice versa. Your statement that conservatives prefer local control and liberals prefer federal control does not ring true in many, many circumstances. In Philly, for example, liberals would rather have the state government butt out of their business, while conservatives in Harrisburg would rather take power away from the local government and centralize it under their control.
mail
DelBobcat
2/23/2017 1:02 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
That's correct, unless the Commonwealth Court decides it's unconstitutional.

Interestingly, in another battle with the state, Philadelphia would like to tax commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. This change would allow them to raise commercial property taxes in order to lower the city wage tax (which is currently about 3.9%, which everyone agrees is way too high). The plan has backing from the Philadelphia business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, the city's largest commercial landlord (Brandywine Realty Trust) and the city's largest private employers. They have said they would be willing to pay higher property taxes because lowering the wage tax will help them recruit top employees.

So what's the problem? The state constitution forbids taxing different types of property at different rates, so it would need to be amended. That can only be done through the legislature. However, the pro-local control, pro-business, state GOP has said they will only support the amendment if the city hands over more control of its taxation decisions to the state.

You seriously can't make this stuff up.
New Jersey has the same law.

Thing is,the tax rate is the same for all properties.But the amount of the real estate tax is based a property's value.
Commercial properties,have a much higher,so even though the rate is the same,they pay a lot more in taxes.

At one time they looked at doing what Philly wants to in N.J.
N.J. is solidly blue and the legislation went nowhere.
But should it be the state's decision whether Philly can have different rates? That's the big question. Whether you think it's a valid policy or not, it has support from everyone on both sides of the aisle in Philadelphia. It's not often that you get the Chamber of Commerce and organized labor fighting for the same policy.

And commercial properties have a higher property value is generally true but there are lots of exceptions. The Comcast Center has a higher property value than a single-family home in Northeast Philly, that's certainly true. But my apartment building in Center City has a much higher property value than a corner store in West Philly. Location is the most important factor to property value.
Showing Messages: 126 - 150 of 170
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)