It's time to reopen schools

[Cow Poke]

Thing is, school aged children in particular are the lowest risk group for the China flu, so all these extreme measures being suggested are really not warranted.

And I really have to wonder how far they're going to go with this. The common flu kills tens of thousands of people in the US every year, and if the current mitigation efforts can theoretically stop something as supposedly contagious and deadly as the Wuhan virus then just imagine how effective it would be in stopping the common flu. After all, if it has the potential to save even one life then it's worth it, right? Isn't that how the mantra goes?

They just need to tax more - that will solve the problem.

[DivineOb]

What a profoundly ignorant statement. The problem with liberals is that it's always "not enough money". Amazing that you go straight for the "doesn't tax enough".

How do you know what our tax rate is?
How do you know where that money is spent?
How do you know......

But, it made you feel good, eh? That was probably all there was to it.

This, on so many levels, is just an incredibly ignorant post.

Help me understand then. What possible reason could there be to *not* reduce the danger to children, both of death and of lifelong health issues, for a pro-lifer? This isn't intended as a cheap shot (though you probably don't believe that). Who cares what it would cost in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic?

[Cow Poke]

Help me understand then.

I think that won't be pretty much impossible, because you have already made Olympian jumps to conclusions...

What possible reason could there be to *not* reduce the danger to children,

And the only way to do that is to TAX MORE?

both of death and of lifelong health issues, for a pro-lifer?

And, there's that disingenuous "let's use this issue to attack a pro-lifer" nonsense.

This isn't intended as a cheap shot (though you probably don't believe that).

I believe you are doing what liberals do. The public school system is already in a mess because of liberals, but liberals always go to the "tax more" "solution".

Who cares what it would cost in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic?

Can you tell me what the cost would be to do this correctly?
Can you tell me HOW to do this correctly? Perhaps, put each child in a large rubber hamster ball with their own oxygen supply, and drive each one to school in a separate van?

People at the local level can't just print money. They have to look at what they can PRACTICALLY do with the finances available, for a reasonable expectation that there will actually be a good result.

So --- what, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the "opening schools" crisis?

[DivineOb]

I think that won't be pretty much impossible, because you have already made Olympian jumps to conclusions...

You claim that I'm making assumptions that you aren't taxing enough yet below you agree that you're restricted to what can be done "PRACTICALLY." It sounds like my assumption is pretty accurate.

And the only way to do that is to TAX MORE?

If you guys have the money to do the right thing yet choose not to isn't that even worse?

And, there's that disingenuous "let's use this issue to attack a pro-lifer" nonsense.

Don't get defensive. I'm asking for *consistency* of belief. You think it's reasonable for the government to get involved in unborn child health decisions. Why not ask your congresscritters to provide federal money to deal with this crisis?

I believe you are doing what liberals do. The public school system is already in a mess because of liberals, but liberals always go to the "tax more" "solution".

You live in a red district in a red state.

Can you tell me what the cost would be to do this correctly?
Can you tell me HOW to do this correctly? Perhaps, put each child in a large rubber hamster ball with their own oxygen supply, and drive each one to school in a separate van?

I would defer to the experts on this. If the school board is debating this issue then it must have been recommended from somewhere. If expert opinion is that increasing the number of buses won't help then don't do that.

People at the local level can't just print money. They have to look at what they can PRACTICALLY do with the finances available, for a reasonable expectation that there will actually be a good result.

So --- what, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the "opening schools" crisis?

Again, I would defer to the experts. And if what those experts recommend costs money (and it will), and you're a pro-lifer, then I'd expect you to say "We need to find a way to pay for this somehow." Not "don't increase my taxes, most kids won't die anyway."

[Cow Poke]

You claim that I'm making assumptions that you aren't taxing enough....

Yes, because your knee-jerk reaction was....

It just sounds tragic that you live somewhere which doesn't tax enough to provide even that minimal accommodation to child safety, even if it only helps a little. I mean, you're pro-life, right?

Perhaps you should have started with questions instead of ignorant accusations, along with the little "you're pro-life" comment.

Maybe you'd like to try again without jumping to conclusions?

[Cow Poke]

Don't get defensive.

When ignorant attacks are made, I will respond.

[Mountain Man]

When ignorant attacks are made, I will respond.

I find it funny when "Don't be defensive" really means "Don't defend yourself against a false accusation".

[Cow Poke]

I find it funny when "Don't be defensive" really means "Don't defend yourself against a false accusation".

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he wishes he had deleted that post. "TAX MORE" is not a solution, particularly when you don't know the problem.

[DivineOb]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he wishes he had deleted that post. "TAX MORE" is not a solution, particularly when you don't know the problem.

You said the problem was that the cost would be "outrageous." The only way that is true is if you live in an extremely sparsely populated area or your taxes are way too low.

[Cow Poke]

You said the problem was that the cost would be "outrageous."

No, that's blantantly false. Please use the quote function, because I don't trust you to portray what I actually said, which was...

... Our school board is currently battling this, because the cost would be outrageous....

That was part of the school board's discussion. THAT part had to do with buying or contracting for more buses, hiring more drivers, having far fewer children on each bus than the bus is designed to carry.... And for what benefit?

The only way that is true is if you live in an extremely sparsely populated area or your taxes are way too low

That's really a dumb conclusion. I would expect this level of assumption to come from only one other poster on Tweb.

[DivineOb]

No, that's blantantly false. Please use the quote function, because I don't trust you to portray what I actually said, which was...

I honestly don't know how I misrepresented what you said.

That was part of the school board's discussion. THAT part had to do with buying or contracting for more buses, hiring more drivers, having far fewer children on each bus than the bus is designed to carry.... And for what benefit?

I don't know. Ask the experts.

That's really a dumb conclusion. I would expect this level of assumption to come from only one other poster on Tweb.

Ok. So is your issue that the cost would be "outrageous," that it would be "ineffective," or that it would be an "inefficient" use of resources?

[Cow Poke]

I honestly don't know how I misrepresented what you said.

I'm not surprised at all.

I don't know. Ask the experts.

That's who was doing the debating, WITH the experts.

Ok. So is your issue that the cost would be "outrageous,"

No, the school board's issue is that CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS would be "outrageous" expenditures. FAR too expensive to justify any expected outcome.

that it would be "ineffective," or that it would be an "inefficient" use of resources?

Here, lemme help you out a bit....

In REAL LIFE, municipalities have budgets.
Those budgets are proposed and approved PRIOR to the year for which they are available.
The School District has a budget.
The Budget represents amounts of money they are allowed to spend, and IN those budgets, many of the categories are "specific use", and using them for things other than for what they are designated is illegal.
"Transportation" is a budget item.
In this case, the "Transportation budget" allows for the contract with the company that provides buses and drivers, training, operation, etc.
It's a fixed number.
ONE of the proposals was to double or quadruple the number of buses, and limit the number of children per bus.
Would that actually impact the likely hood that a child --- who we see are not generally a "target" of this virus --- would be LESS likely to contract COVID, or be "more safe"?

So, how exactly, would "TAX MORE" help that? It's just a dumb knee-jerk reaction from liberals. TAX MORE!!!!!

[DivineOb]

That's who was doing the debating, WITH the experts.

So what conclusion did the experts come to?

No, the school board's issue is that CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS would be "outrageous" expenditures. FAR too expensive to justify any expected outcome.

If the school board has the necessary scientific background to make that call then bully for them.

Here, lemme help you out a bit....

In REAL LIFE, municipalities have budgets.
Those budgets are proposed and approved PRIOR to the year for which they are available.
The School District has a budget.
The Budget represents amounts of money they are allowed to spend, and IN those budgets, many of the categories are "specific use", and using them for things other than for what they are designated is illegal.
"Transportation" is a budget item.
In this case, the "Transportation budget" allows for the contract with the company that provides buses and drivers, training, operation, etc.
It's a fixed number.
ONE of the proposals was to double or quadruple the number of buses, and limit the number of children per bus.
Would that actually impact the likely hood that a child --- who we see are not generally a "target" of this virus --- would be LESS likely to contract COVID, or be "more safe"?

So, how exactly, would "TAX MORE" help that? It's just a dumb knee-jerk reaction from liberals. TAX MORE!!!!!

Fine, delete "tax more" and replace it with "pay for it" *IF* it would help. If it wouldn't help, or would do less than providing masks / sanitizer / distance learning / whatever then do that instead. What was the scientific consensus on whether the bus issue would help?

[Cow Poke]

So what conclusion did the experts come to?

They're still debating. Which is EXACTLY why I said "... Our school board is currently battling this, because the cost would be outrageous...."

If the school board has the necessary scientific background to make that call then bully for them.

Wow. Maybe that should have been your first response!

Fine, delete "tax more" and replace it with "pay for it" *IF* it would help.

Um.... and where does the "pay for it" money come from, without "tax more"?

If it wouldn't help, or would do less than providing masks / sanitizer / distance learning / whatever then do that instead. What was the scientific consensus on whether the bus issue would help?

In the real world, decisions, at least on a local level, need to be made on the basis of cost/benefit ratios.
That's why we vote for school board members - to help oversee the expenditure of tax money in the most expeditious manner, and to look out for the children of our districts.

Many times, this goes AGAINST the Teachers Unions, like where we have to pay out exorbitant sums of money because Miss Sally had an improper sexual relationship with Johnny, but we can't fire Miss Sally because she's "union".

The problem isn't TAX MORE --- the problem is "how do we best utilize our school budget money" to produce better students.

So, deleting "TAX MORE" and replacing it with "PAY FOR IT" only serves to beg the question, from whence does the "pay for it" money come?

[DivineOb]

Wow. Maybe that should have been your first response!

It's not my fault you phrased things badly.

Um.... and where does the "pay for it" money come from, without "tax more"?

I don't know. Maybe pray on it?

In the real world, decisions, at least on a local level, need to be made on the basis of cost/benefit ratios.
That's why we vote for school board members - to help oversee the expenditure of tax money in the most expeditious manner, and to look out for the children of our districts.

Many times, this goes AGAINST the Teachers Unions, like where we have to pay out exorbitant sums of money because Miss Sally had an improper sexual relationship with Johnny, but we can't fire Miss Sally because she's "union".

The problem isn't TAX MORE --- the problem is "how do we best utilize our school budget money" to produce better students.

So, deleting "TAX MORE" and replacing it with "PAY FOR IT" only serves to beg the question, from whence does the "pay for it" money come?

I don't know. But kids are important, right? If we can't find the money to take necessary steps for their health then we are a failure as a society. Ask your congresscritters for help.