Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[JoeB131]

Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.

Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.

Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?

No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.

When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.

When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.

There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.

This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.

Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?

They didn't negotiate shit, unions and democrats are butt buddies with public tax dollars.


.

 

[Flopper]

Fact is the average charter school is the same or better than most public schools according to your articles and their numbers. But nice try, Obama has helped push for more charter schools because he sees the benefit to poor communities. The number of kids going to charter schools is increasing every year. As the years pass we will see more and more charter school students and the regressive left is just plain wrong. Stats bear it out.

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

A student can be expelled from a public school but the district still must offer the student an education. Private schools are under not such obligation. Not only can private schools expel the students but they can choose the best students, excluding discipline cases, those with learning disability, and children whose parents don't measure up to their standard. In other words, they can pick the cream of crop and leave the hard cases to the district. And what happens when they make a mistake and get a really screwed up kid. They contact the district and request help from Special Ed.

If a charter or private school takes public education money, we could make the stipulation in order to receive public funds then they are required to take all students.

When a private school agrees to take vouchers, they give up much of their ability to select students. In most states vouchers are issued only to students with IEP's or disabilities. This includes students with learning disabilities, serious emotional problems, and physical disabilities. Some states have opened up eligibility to students attending a public school with an F grade. Also some states limit vouchers to students living in poverty. Since all schools that accept vouchers place limits on the number accepted, the school ends up selecting what they consider the best for their school. State required admission policy and the difference between voucher amount and tuition has kept a lot private schools private. Due to limits that states put on voucher availability, they are not likely to ever become a major vehicle of school choice for most parents.

Charter Schools are a completely different way of giving parents a choice. They are mostly nonprofit. No voucher is involved because Charter Schools are tuition free public schools. They get the same or nearly the same amount of money per student that traditional public schools get but they can also raise money from outside sources. They hire their own teachers, pay salaries close to what traditional public schools pay but are more inventive with pay and benefits than traditional public schools. Most state regulations apply as far teacher certification, testing, requirements for graduation but management of the school and the classroom is left to the school.

Another major difference between Charter and traditional public schools is specialization. Most all Charter Schools specialize. Their specialty is written into their charter. They can select students but only within bounds of the charter. For example, a high school that specializes in math and science can select students based on test scores or grades in math and science but can not use other criteria. A charter school that limits enrollment to students below poverty level can only select students based on family income. IMHO, charters are probably the best vehicle for parent choice.

Another vehicle for school choice is freedom to select any public school in the district or adjoining districts. Not many districts are doing this because of the difficulty in managing it.

 

[Flopper]

Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?

Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.

I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.

Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.

I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.

 

[Papageorgio]

Some people just don't like choice. Choice means freedom. Some people are threatened with choice because in most cases, people will choose to get away from the status quo.

The bottom line is unions vs non-union. We've been told to believe (by the left) that unions are always good. Unions are American damn it! Get rid of unions, and the whole country comes tumbling down.

I love choice....Public Schools should get the choice as to taking and keeping students. If you disagree, you are against choice.

Public schools are under no obligation to keep trouble students. They can be suspended and expelled for getting too out of hand.

So what's with this hang-up of having a choice of what students they can take? I don't understand what that has to do with the discussion.

A student can be expelled from a public school but the district still must offer the student an education. Private schools are under not such obligation. Not only can private schools expel the students but they can choose the best students, excluding discipline cases, those with learning disability, and children whose parents don't measure up to their standard. In other words, they can pick the cream of crop and leave the hard cases to the district. And what happens when they make a mistake and get a really screwed up kid. They contact the district and request help from Special Ed.

If a charter or private school takes public education money, we could make the stipulation in order to receive public funds then they are required to take all students.

When a private school agrees to take vouchers, they give up much of their ability to select students. In most states vouchers are issued only to students with IEP's or disabilities. This includes students with learning disabilities, serious emotional problems, and physical disabilities. Some states have opened up eligibility to students attending a public school with an F grade. Also some states limit vouchers to students living in poverty. Since all schools that accept vouchers place limits on the number accepted, the school ends up selecting what they consider the best for their school. State required admission policy and the difference between voucher amount and tuition has kept a lot private schools private. Due to limits that states put on voucher availability, they are not likely to ever become a major vehicle of school choice for most parents.

Charter Schools are a completely different way of giving parents a choice. They are mostly nonprofit. No voucher is involved because Charter Schools are tuition free public schools. They get the same or nearly the same amount of money per student that traditional public schools get but they can also raise money from outside sources. They hire their own teachers, pay salaries close to what traditional public schools pay but are more inventive with pay and benefits than traditional public schools. Most state regulations apply as far teacher certification, testing, requirements for graduation but management of the school and the classroom is left to the school.

Another major difference between Charter and traditional public schools is specialization. Most all Charter Schools specialize. Their specialty is written into their charter. They can select students but only within bounds of the charter. For example, a high school that specializes in math and science can select students based on test scores or grades in math and science but can not use other criteria. A charter school that limits enrollment to students below poverty level can only select students based on family income. IMHO, charters are probably the best vehicle for parent choice.

Another vehicle for school choice is freedom to select any public school in the district or adjoining districts. Not many districts are doing this because of the difficulty in managing it.

Thank you for the in depth answer. You have given me some things to ponder over. The issue is not a cut and dry one way or the other. I want to give our youth the best possible education possible as it will help alleviate issues in the future. I also realize parents play a strong role in the development and education of the children.

I am not for throwing money at the issue, it has proven to be a waste. It's time to find effective ways inspire the kids of today.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, good for them......if they turned out so wonderful, why are you whining about it?

Because tax money only goes to public schools. At the very least, parents that send their kids to private school should not be funding the public school since their kids don't attend. Then they can use that money to help pay for their own children's education.

I don't have any children attending school. I pay taxes for everyone's kids to attend school.

Me too unfortunately. Here you are assessed tax by how much your property is worth and not by how much you use the school. Me nor any of my tenants have children in the school system. But I probably pay more tax to the school than the guy down the street with five kids in the school. I do have a problem with that.

I think you probably know the rebuttal to your post but I'll repeat it. The entire community benefits from an educated population. Businesses have better educated employees. Voters are more literate and likely to understand issues better if they are educated. New businesses prefer communities with better trained and educated employees. Crime is lower in better educated communities. Thus, since everyone benefits, everyone pays. In most states public schools is financed by both property taxes and sales taxes which tends to spread the burden of paying for education.

Does everybody benefit when yards are mowed nicely and hedges are trim? Why doesn't the public pay for that? Does everybody benefit by me going to work in the morning? I can feed myself, pay for the roof over my head, and create tax money for the city I work in and the city I live in. Should taxpayers buy me a new car every three years so I can get to work? The internet is a source for getting unlimited information. You can use that information to see weather patterns, to learn things you've never studied before, to help your children with homework. So why am I paying for my own internet when informed people benefits society so much?

You can use that "benefit society" for just about anything. Sure, educated children can benefit society, but it should not be their liability either. What's wrong with the parents educating (or paying for) their children? Society doesn't benefit anymore with me paying for their education than the parents.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

 

[Papageorgio]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

According to the leftwing nuts, Wisconsin may of had voter machines hacked and yet, they were completely wrong. Also before the election many liberals said that the leaked e-mails had did not hurt Clinton. We had lefty after lefty cry this very thing on the board. They said they wanted Trump to keep speaking because it would weaken him. Then the election comes and now they cry, bitch and moan because Clinton was unfairly treated. The left nuts need to figure out what is going on before the election instead of crying after the election.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

That is correct, but "hacking" has more of an impact on their voters. When you hear the word "hack" you automatically think of something being rigged, so they kept it.

Democrat voters don't read articles, they read headlines, and the word hacking plays right into that.

 

[JoeB131]

But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions.

NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.

Because you're stupid.

This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.

Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.

But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.

 

[JoeB131]

According to the leftwing nuts, Wisconsin may of had voter machines hacked and yet, they were completely wrong. Also before the election many liberals said that the leaked e-mails had did not hurt Clinton. We had lefty after lefty cry this very thing on the board. They said they wanted Trump to keep speaking because it would weaken him. Then the election comes and now they cry, bitch and moan because Clinton was unfairly treated. The left nuts need to figure out what is going on before the election instead of crying after the election.

Buddy, you won because the Russians cheated for you.

That makes you all worse traitors than the Rosenbergs...

 

[PoliticalChic]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

According to the leftwing nuts, Wisconsin may of had voter machines hacked and yet, they were completely wrong. Also before the election many liberals said that the leaked e-mails had did not hurt Clinton. We had lefty after lefty cry this very thing on the board. They said they wanted Trump to keep speaking because it would weaken him. Then the election comes and now they cry, bitch and moan because Clinton was unfairly treated. The left nuts need to figure out what is going on before the election instead of crying after the election.

Liberal whining, hyperbole, and fabrications aside, there is no way to explain the Trump victory based on experience nor logic.
In fact, they must recognize this as well, and, thus, are ready to accept any fable.

It defied every political science meme.

I see it as a miracle of biblical proportions, and one last chance for America to turn itself around.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

That is correct, but "hacking" has more of an impact on their voters. When you hear the word "hack" you automatically think of something being rigged, so they kept it.

Democrat voters don't read articles, they read headlines, and the word hacking plays right into that.

Coulter said much of the same thing....

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."


If they read....they might actually research....and they'd realize the lies they are fed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

According to the leftwing nuts, Wisconsin may of had voter machines hacked and yet, they were completely wrong. Also before the election many liberals said that the leaked e-mails had did not hurt Clinton. We had lefty after lefty cry this very thing on the board. They said they wanted Trump to keep speaking because it would weaken him. Then the election comes and now they cry, bitch and moan because Clinton was unfairly treated. The left nuts need to figure out what is going on before the election instead of crying after the election.

Buddy, you won because the Russians cheated for you.

That makes you all worse traitors than the Rosenbergs...

See what I mean?


Bill's wife actually received a higher vote total after the leaks, you dunce.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They didn't hack anything and even if they did, no proof whatsoever that emails had any impact on the elections. The woman ran with more baggage than any other contender in US history. Her emails were just a pice of the puzzle, not the puzzle itself.

Again, we don't know how far the Russian hacking went... but we know it happened.

My question is, why are you so keen on wanting Russia's candidate in the White House.

Benedict Donald, the Siberian Candidate.

I doubt very seriously if any of the actual votes cast on election were hacked, but the hacking into the emails is quite disconcerting to say the least. Clinton and the DNC were wrong in conspiring to make Clinton the nominee and CNN feeding her questions was wrong, however, Russians hacking the emails is far worse.

What goes around comes around and I wish both sides would realize that.

Let's remember that there is no evidence of Russians doing so, only conjecture....and Bill's wife actually received more votes after the 'leaks' than before.


Also....the appropriate term is 'leaks,' not hacking, as there is not even a hint...not a smidgen....or any voting machines being taken over.

That is correct, but "hacking" has more of an impact on their voters. When you hear the word "hack" you automatically think of something being rigged, so they kept it.

Democrat voters don't read articles, they read headlines, and the word hacking plays right into that.

Coulter said much of the same thing....

" Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything … That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."


If they read....they might actually research....and they'd realize the lies they are fed.

Ohhhh Lord. Don't tell me I'm starting to think like Coulter. That's a sign of insanity.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

NO, i can understand perfectly well why you are against unions.

Because you're stupid.

No, because in my line of work, I seen the jobs leave. We lost countless customers because of those unions that caused companies to either close down or move out of the country. That's why I'm against unions. If not for them, all those companies and all those jobs would still be here in the Cleveland area.

Again, guy, you are jealous you didn't negotiate such a good deal for yourself, but that's on you.

But I'm sure your boss is happy with that dressage horse he bought on your hard work.

Yes he is, and his limo and yacht too.

There are no negotiations. The union asks and Democrat politicians give. It's not their money so they don't care what they give away. If it was their money, they would be paid the same as the rest of us with the same kind of benefits.

 

[Papageorgio]

According to the leftwing nuts, Wisconsin may of had voter machines hacked and yet, they were completely wrong. Also before the election many liberals said that the leaked e-mails had did not hurt Clinton. We had lefty after lefty cry this very thing on the board. They said they wanted Trump to keep speaking because it would weaken him. Then the election comes and now they cry, bitch and moan because Clinton was unfairly treated. The left nuts need to figure out what is going on before the election instead of crying after the election.

Buddy, you won because the Russians cheated for you.

That makes you all worse traitors than the Rosenbergs...

How did they cheat? Why is it okay for the Democratic Party leaders to decide who wins their primaries and not the average Democrat?

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.

Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?

No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.

When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.

When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.

There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.

This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.

I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.

Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.

They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, because I'm the one that will be paying for that early retirement and health benefits. When I'm working and paying other people who are not, you bet I have something to say about it. It's a better reason than any to get rid of the public unions.

Because they stood up for their rights and negotiated a better deal than you did before HAL9000 takes your truck driving job?

No, because nobody is protecting our tax dollars.

When an employer pays his workers what he wants, that's his business.

When taxpayers are paying workers what we don't want to pay them, that's ours.

There is nobody on our side. That's why these public sector unions are running states into the deep red. Liberal politicians use our money to buy votes as always and I'm about sick of it. But you pork chops still can't figure out why we are against unions. They didn't negotiate a better deal because we were not at the table to make the deal.

This money laundering scheme works like this: politicians give union workers what they want. The unions collect dues and send some of them to the Democrat party come election time. In the meantime, public workers mostly vote Democrat because of the taxpayer paid gifts they gave them. They retire early, and we continue to work to support them.

I'm good with public unions, I don't think they should be allowed collective bargaining.

Liberals that love unions are not part of the unions, ever wonder why? Joe claims to love unions but doesn't belong to one. He could form one, however he won't. One percenter claims to love unions but then tells us his businesses aren't unionized.

They have excuses but they don't back their words with actions. It's all BS.

To be totally honest, I don't believe One Percenter one bit. I know successful people, and they don't talk anything like that.

If you want to know where the great jobs are, just look at the hardest places to get in. Government jobs are not a dime a dozen. It's pure luck if you are able to get one. Either that or you know a politician somewhere.

I don't mind unions either provided they are not running your state into a hole and their employees are doing way better than those in the private market. I don't mind my money paying a worker decent wages and benefits, just not ridiculous wages and benefits.