TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Election time again
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]


Posted by batemanscott on Sep-16-2004 05:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Trance Nutter
Just don't have sex anytime before the election - imagine getting amongst it with some chick, looking out the window and seeing that ungly mutha....




Too late


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-16-2004 06:06:

quote:
Originally posted by batemanscott
What ur forgetting pkcraistlin is that public schools can't possibly accommodate all those students.

As you pointed out it's about 40 ercent of australian students in private schools. Imagine the student to teacher ratios if there were no private schools because people took advantage of free education.

It's in the public schools/students interest that private schools be equally well funded so that the numbers in private schools don't flood the public system.


nah man, we just wait til they go broke and we take the infrastructure away from them

and i dont see thats its necessarily in their interest if it creates two standards of education for the haves, haves mores & have nots.


Posted by rez on Sep-16-2004 06:08:

PKC your use of vocabulary indicates a much higher level of intelligence than first thought

considering your from tasmania n all.


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-16-2004 06:14:

quote:
Originally posted by rez
PKC your use of vocabulary indicates a much higher level of intelligence than first thought

considering your from tasmania n all.


um, thanks rez for the record im not *from* tassie, its just where i live at the moment, and a decent use of vocab is more often a sign of an education rather than intelligence


Posted by lethal on Sep-16-2004 12:58:

ust one point which i feel a lot of you private people seem to be throwing about (rather stupidly in my opinion).

So you guys fundraise to get your buildings - woop de fuckin doo!

Dont you think that somewhere like lakemba high prolly does that too but guess how much the people in that area can afford to give to the school compared to those in your areas! Lets face it if your able to send your kid to a private school you are obviously already from a higher financial background then most anyway, which means you can spend more money on your kids.

Look at the situation from all sides before opening your mouth!


Posted by Trance Nutter on Sep-16-2004 13:08:

If you read my post lethal, you will see why we keep bringing up that point!

People were claiming private schools have all the shit cos of government funding, we were saying government funding does NOT fund building projects, it funds EDU-FUCKING-CATION.

How bout you read the posts properly before you open your mouth


Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-17-2004 04:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Trance Nutter
You've been believing too many Union ads if you believe Private schools get more funding than Public schools.

Education funding is primarily the domain of the states. Its in the Constitution (or actually its not, thats why it is a state issue). The VAST majority of funding for schools comes from the states. The federal funding is a top up, and is really miniscule in comparison to state funding. To the best of my knowledge, the states DO NOT FUND PRIVATE SCHOOLS - ZERO, none whatsoever. If they do, it is incredibly small amount (there was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about it, I've forgotten the figures).
As a result, state schools get something like six or seven TIMES the amount of funding per student than private schools (I remember that one perfectly ), and on top of that they receive funding for the buildings/grounds and other things that private schools do not.

Another thing, private schools are not businesses (at least not here in SA). There are no owners, no creditors, no share holders - they are not for profit, same as a charity. Everything goes back into the school. You saying they are businesses is absolute bull shit.

No where in my posts does it say anything about private taking pressure off public - don't try to pin that on me.

ANyway, to repeat my comment, EVERY child has the right to receive government funding for education.


"This is despite the fact that 55 per cent of independent school students attend schools where the total average resource level for each student is higher than the average resources in government schools, according to a study by Dr Louise Watson of the lifelong learning network at the University of Canberra. And it is despite the fact that the total resources for each student available to Catholic systemic schools is arguably higher than for government schools"

-nuff said.


Posted by Trance Nutter on Sep-17-2004 04:58:

Resources are not funds

Remeber Independent schools have higher fees. The Catholic system also has their own organisation which funds the schools as well.

The quote you have used says "55 per cent .... higher than government schools." 55 per cent is only just over half! What about the other 45 per cent that have resources BELOW government schools? What is the example the author used beforehand, you may also be taking that out of context.

I'm NOT saying that public schools shouldn't have more funding, by all means they should! I'm defending funding of private schools.


Posted by batemanscott on Sep-17-2004 05:11:

quote:
Originally posted by lethal
Lets face it if your able to send your kid to a private school you are obviously already from a higher financial background then most anyway, which means you can spend more money on your kids.

Look at the situation from all sides before opening your mouth!


Lethal that is a pretty fucking stupid comment.
Its like saying people who earn more should pay more for groceries or gas or electricity, or that becasue you earn more than me you should pay a part of my rent or car payments?!

People dont just "get" wealthy, they work for it, they sacrifice for it. My family is well off from nothing but seven days a week of work and no spending, my parents didn't have a holiday in 13 years because they were nearly broke and wanted to get ahead.

Why should their kid's school's recieve less of "their" tax money than a the kid's schools who's family pisses their money up a wall and works 5 days a week and scream poverty.

They accept that they pay more in tax to subsidise the system for those less fortunate, but how can you honestly expect them to see less in return to their kid's schools than others??!

Don't get me wrong because i'm on labours side as far as the education debate goes; too many private schools get an absurd amount compared to other private and public schools; but that shouldn't mean they end up with less than others, just the same amount.

All schools should get the same amount and if parents want to invest in the school further than that should be their right, not their obligation!

Australians are all potentially wealthy people, it's those who waste money or don't work hard enough that aren't.


Posted by AussieTrance on Sep-17-2004 08:33:

Oh ffs, private schools are a choice. You want to send your kid to a top-of-the-line school, ive got no problems with that. But fork out the money, cos your school doesnt deserve shit from any government.

And lets not forget, even with more money going into private schools in the past, those schools still insist on raising their fee's (what for, to build the "all so necessary rifle range"?!)...
Every day our school system is turning out like the US one, and it plain sucks


oh, and one more thing...

quote:
Australians are all potentially wealthy people, it's those who waste money or don't work hard enough that aren't.


that has to be the biggest load of bullshit ever, seriously mate, pull your head out of your arse, its stopping the blood from flowing to your brain. In fact, most of what you've said above is absolute bullshit, get a sense of reality.


Posted by webmeister on Sep-17-2004 08:50:

Woah dude chill out a bit. Attack people's ideas, but don't just dismiss them as bullshit. We managed 12 pages of reasonably civil posts, lets have it continue


Posted by batemanscott on Sep-17-2004 08:57:

^^ mate if u dont think anybody in this country has the chance to be wealthy with work and saving and sacrifice, i'd think it's you with ur head up ur arse!

Do yourself a favour and read Frank Lowey's ( Westfield ) biography, couldn't speak engliash working in a factory at 25, now the 3rd richest man in australia. If he can do it, and others, why can't u??

And i'm not insisting u become a billionaire, just wealthy.
My mother in law fled a war at 26 not speaking english, put herself through uni here twice to get her degree and is quite welathy! How?? Becasue she doesn't waste her money on shit.

You might also want to check just what exactly most "private" schools are like. I went to one that had a shitload less facilities than the nearby public. The constant talk of schools like "kings" etc is a ridiculous genarlization of private schools.

If u had read my thread u'd note i don't agree with the funding going to schools like kings and support redistribution of funds.

I'd love to see how u'd react if the everyone had to pay the cost to educate their kids themselves....how far do u think the "typical" public school kids would go?? You'd have a real injustice then. Be grateful that people do make good money and pay more tax so we as a nation can afford to educate everyone, even kids from families that can't afford to educate them.

People like you complain because it's not made easy for you, and resent those that do it. Stop whining and make it happen.


Posted by Romp on Sep-17-2004 09:17:

quote:
Originally posted by AussieTrance
Oh ffs, private schools are a choice. You want to send your kid to a top-of-the-line school, ive got no problems with that. But fork out the money, cos your school doesnt deserve shit from any government.

And lets not forget, even with more money going into private schools in the past, those schools still insist on raising their fee's (what for, to build the "all so necessary rifle range"?!)...
Every day our school system is turning out like the US one, and it plain sucks


oh, and one more thing...



that has to be the biggest load of bullshit ever, seriously mate, pull your head out of your arse, its stopping the blood from flowing to your brain. In fact, most of what you've said above is absolute bullshit, get a sense of reality.


actually the US has a really good public education system for schools (not universities). The public schools there are really good, at least in the rich and moderately rich areas. Students in public schools in the US do as well on average as those in private schools. 90% of kids go to public schools. Private schools there dont receive any funding from the government.

Personally I prefer the US system but our system is really too entrenched to change now. If you took government funding away from private schools then most of them wouldn't be able to continue and you would have an education crisis.

Labor's policy is actually increasing funding to almost all private schools except for the top 100 or so, who simply do not need it.

quote:
Parents who send their kids to private schools are also tax payers, why should they subsidise public education? Don't their kids have a RIGHT to be entitled to funding that their parents pay for?


this argument doesnt really hold. Their kids are entitled to their funding, its their choice (or the parents) not to exercise that right. In any case there are many things that tax payers pay for which they dont use. Tertiary education for example. Are you saying that its not fair that people's taxes go to universities if they or their children dont want to go to university?

It's also in the interest of all Australians to help our public education system even if we dotn want to send our kids there. The better our education system the less our children will turn to crime or welfare, the more chance we have of producing great intellectuals, entrepreneurs etc


Posted by Ves on Sep-17-2004 14:47:

quote:
Originally posted by lethal
Lets face it if your able to send your kid to a private school you are obviously already from a higher financial background then most anyway, which means you can spend more money on your kids.



that's not the case...almost half the kids at my private school are on scholarships. a private school education doesn't indicate obvious wealth. a number of families make sacrifices to send their kids to an independant school.


Posted by eRRaTiK on Sep-18-2004 02:37:

OMFG Ves, you're alive


Posted by lethal on Sep-18-2004 03:10:

2 points.

1. The US education system is great isnt it seeing as only 89% of 18-24 year old americans can find the USA on a world map. Thats top class education right there! (source : http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/ )

2. [EDIT] i had a full comment here talking about the sacrifices my parents made to send me to a PUBLIC school but ive got too much respect for my parents to so blatantly use their story to win an argument on the net - you ******s arent worth it...

Vote for whoever you want but one day i hope you discover how the real world works - you'll see right then and their how much bullshit your dribblin!!


Posted by Trance Nutter on Sep-18-2004 05:02:

Lethal, maybe you should stop holding your farts in.

This is twice now, READ THE FUCKING POSTS!!!
People were criticising Private schools as being solely for rich people, and although I didn't write it, private school supporters were saying that there are plenty of average families who sacrifice to send their children there, it is not just rich families. They were RESPONDING to the SHIT that people were dribbling about private schools being just for rich people. There are plenty of average Australian families who send their kids to private schools, so stop this blatant lying by saying that it is for only rich families. They were not using their parents to win arguments, they were using their own experiences to point out that people are lying.

Maybe you should pull YOUR head out of your arse and actually realise this, and maybe while your heads out of your arse you will read the posts properly!!!!


Posted by Adnan1999'ing on Sep-18-2004 10:04:

quote:
Originally posted by AussieTrance
Oh and a decent and proper education (as well as public health, which he is yet to unviel) is a right, not a privilidge (as someone pointed out earlier), so yes, your taxes will be spent on education & health - put up and shutup. (some previous arguement against HECS was utter bullshit; sorry, but it was)


agreed


Posted by AussieTrance on Sep-20-2004 02:37:

quote:
Originally posted by webmeister
Woah dude chill out a bit. Attack people's ideas, but don't just dismiss them as bullshit. We managed 12 pages of reasonably civil posts, lets have it continue


yeah, sorry mate.. bad day Friday

anyway...
quote:
Originally posted by batemanscott
Do yourself a favour and read Frank Lowey's ( Westfield ) biography, couldn't speak engliash working in a factory at 25, now the 3rd richest man in australia. If he can do it, and others, why can't u??


To state that I suggested that no-one in this country can be wealthy through sacrifice, saving etc... is nonesense. To suggest that all Australians can be wealthy is nonesense. Frank doesnt represent all Australians...

quote:
Originally posted by batemanscott
People like you complain because it's not made easy for you, and resent those that do it. Stop whining and make it happen.


Haha, you think because I prefer the public system, that most private schools dont deserve public funding, and that I believe that not everyone has the chance of being wealthy, life isnt easy for me? Phwoar dude, you're long way off. (I could go on about my private life, but i cant be buggered, so ill leave it at this: im well off in life, and so is my family - take it face value or not, i couldnt care less)...


Posted by narcism on Sep-22-2004 14:08:

quote:
Originally posted by nicknack
i have a saying 'get private care you pov'


Why should i get private health cover, Private health insurance subsidies do not relieve the pressure on public hospitals, they end up costing taxpayers more for very little benefit.

1 in 6 beds in a hospital is occupied by someone under the age of 65. So that equates to 16% of people are under 65.
So with this figure what has johnnie suggested he wants to raise the rebate from 30% to 35% for people aged 65 to 69 years and to 40% for people older than 70 years. The rebates will begin in April 2005 at a cost of $445.5 million over four years if the Senate approves the plan.

Yep, 445.5 million dollars, think of where that funding can be distributed to provide equality for all people. Why not abolish it, its been estimated that the rebate costs the g'ment well over one billion a year. The quiestion that should be asked is where does this money come from, taken straight out of the funding for public hospitals!


And dont get me started on the doctors in private health, DHS in the mid 90's indicated that medical specialists preferred private hospitals & private health insurance because they could then charge "substantially more than the remuneration recieved as visiting medical officers in public hospitals."

"Mr Jones, i can book you in for a knee arthroscopy for tuesday, no waiting lists, by the way it will cost you $2,500. Its not a necessary procedure, i just need to do it to rule out any underlying causes for your pain."

Not only are they allowed to charge whatever they like, there has been an increase on procedures that have been found to be unnecessary. So next time your doctor wants to perform something, ask yourself are you funding his next holiday

And then there is the case of occupying a bed in a public hospital as a private patient, what will i get, maybe a single room, oohh there may be a vase on the cabinet next to my bed, but you have to remember the care you get is the same as 3 other people on that ward (seeing as nurses have 4 patients). Is this really a benefit??

Now, how many times do people end up out of pocket, i see it all the time, they are not covered for things outside the hospital, so they end up staying longer in the hospital eating up more resources, time and money.

Public vs Private hospitals, having worked in both i can sit here and say that i will choose public anyday. Its a known fact that public hospitals have better specialties such as ICU and emergency. Alfred hospital, public has the best trauma center. Royal Melb, public has the best ICU ect ect. What people need to understand that all teaching hospitals are public ones. So ten years previous when your surgeon was training he done it in a public hospital. Whats makes him so special "now" coz now he chooses to only work in a private hospital

So here i am paying for private health insurance, i will most definately end up out of pocket when a procedure is done. The doctors can charge whatever they like as there are no restrictions. The new rebate changes that johnnie wants to bring in will end up costing 445.5 million dollars over how many years, add that to the other funding that goes into it all and it eventuates to one billion a year.
So i ask again, why would i choose private health insurance?


Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.