iwishiwascool Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Point 3: I don't think anyone is arguing that schools could manage money better. However, when it comes down to paying $400 more in taxes a year to support the Westerville Schools that have kept my property value relatively stable over the past 3 years, I say fuck yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 here is some good info about SWCS. http://www.swcs.us/community/Issue47/rumors_and_facts.htm oh and the comments about having fundraisers. to make up the money. Studies and past experience in the state show that fundraising alone cannot bring in enough revenue to fund all athletics and extracurricular activities. Volunteers would have to raise $2.5 million yearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Congratulations. My uncle Ned ran a marathon with a fake leg, they "graduated" 4 retarded kids from my high school, and Nicholas Cage stars in movies without a stitch of talent. There are exceptions in every normal distribution curve. Point 2: Graduating from college is not the only metric for success. Who's to say that you wouldn't have garnered better leadership skills in a sport or school musical that would have translated to an even better life lot for you right now? By and large, sports encourage the development of assets that are fundamental to social development and could even have been good for you. PS. I was only involved in one non-team "sport" myself, so I am not on some self-validating tirade. I too have excellent social and leadership skills. Maybe they would be even better had I not waited until my mid 20s to get involved in the world. I completely understand your point even though it is all opinion and speculation. You are 100% guessing that playing sports/music/art would have made me or anyone else "better" than I/we currently are. The reverse could just as easily be said, and you can apply your view to ANY decision you make. If you choose A instead of B: Well B could have increased your drive, built more character and helped you along your way more than A. Each decision you make has costs, the Cost of choosing A, is B+ some variable. So to say that those that played sports did not miss out on the things that I did and others that did not play school sports is bogus. By being in a school sport you are limited in what other activities, hobbies and general things you can do. This is why I do not agree with your point. Just for the record, I did play sports. I played rec league basketball and baseball for years, and still play basketball. Point 3: I don't think anyone is arguing that schools could manage money better. However, when it comes down to paying $400 more in taxes a year to support the Westerville Schools that have kept my property value relatively stable over the past 3 years, I say fuck yes. I do agree to a point, however, when is it too much? Will you always vote for school tax increases? What if the district has made bad choice after bad choice, and you see other states with different funding techniques have the same or less money surpass your state in all measurable ways? Will you continue to vote Yes? My point is that the government has 0, zero, NO incentive to change its ways when all of the tax increases are passed. I understand both sides of the argument and do find it to be a very tricky issue. I see no need for anyone to talk like ass holes when discussing these issues. (not saying you were) It can be done calmly even if you disagree. (general statement, not directed at anyone directly) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 here is some good info about SWCS. http://www.swcs.us/community/Issue47/rumors_and_facts.htm oh and the comments about having fundraisers. to make up the money. Studies and past experience in the state show that fundraising alone cannot bring in enough revenue to fund all athletics and extracurricular activities. Volunteers would have to raise $2.5 million yearly. If it supplements 1/2 of the cost, that is a success. I do not know how much it costs in a pay to play program, but considering these are really "luxuries" I see no reason they need to be provided free of charge. Obviously if it costs $1,000 to play a sport, that is crazy, but if it costs $500, and $250 is paid through fund-raising, I find that acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKilbourne Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 here is some good info about SWCS. http://www.swcs.us/community/Issue47/rumors_and_facts.htm oh and the comments about having fundraisers. to make up the money. Studies and past experience in the state show that fundraising alone cannot bring in enough revenue to fund all athletics and extracurricular activities. Volunteers would have to raise $2.5 million yearly. Only thing I was referring to fund raising was for the kids who couldn't afford the pay to play. That money isn't hard to gather. It might actually make some of these lazy ass kids get off of their asses and out from behind the damn video game console and actually do something to earn their "money". I'm still not going to read that website by the SWCS and take it as gospel. They have done enough in the past to make me think twice about what is put out by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboTank Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Only thing I was referring to fund raising was for the kids who couldn't afford the pay to play. That money isn't hard to gather. It might actually make some of these lazy ass kids get off of their asses and out from behind the damn video game console and actually do something to earn their "money". I'm still not going to read that website by the SWCS and take it as gospel. They have done enough in the past to make me think twice about what is put out by them. im with you dave, been there, went there. shits ridiculous. not happy about my taxes going up. maybe the casinos will offer some help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKilbourne Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 im with you dave, been there, went there. shits ridiculous. not happy about my taxes going up. maybe the casinos will offer some help? I think those of us that went through SWCS have a different view. I'm not out to ruin a kids chances here, I'm just pissed at the system behind it. I played baseball in high school and if I hadn't hurt my knee probably could have gotten some money to play in college, so I get that. I just hate that these bastards use the kids to get what they want. I've already heard that the district is going to reinstate some of the bussing before the money comes in. How are they paying for that? Maybe someone loaned them some money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Cranium Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 im with you dave, been there, went there. shits ridiculous. not happy about my taxes going up. maybe the casinos will offer some help? That would be awsome, but won't happen. It'll be the same thing all over again that it was with the Lottery. They will divert some of the tax money to schools, as they say they will. I don't doubt this for a minute, but they will also cut funding somewhere else and divert that money to politicians pet projects. Sure the schools will get casino money, but the total coming in won't change, just the source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 My point is that the government has 0, zero, NO incentive to change its ways when all of the tax increases are passed. Incorrect. The people asking for the increase in funds are elected officials. If they allocate the money incorrectly, then they should be voted out of office. Nothing motivates like the threat of a lost salary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Incorrect. The people asking for the increase in funds are elected officials. If they allocate the money incorrectly, then they should be voted out of office. Nothing motivates like the threat of a lost salary. In a perfect world, you are right. In our world, you are not. Greed, corruption and party bull shit = No change. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sciongirl Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 im glad it passed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 In a perfect world, you are right. In our world, you are not. Greed, corruption and party bull shit = No change. Just my opinion. exactly. the powers that be won't change a damn thing if we the people keep accepting more taxes to pay for things. think about it, times are tough and we are all cutting back to some degree, however, would you really cut back if you were given an influx of cash to help out? doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.