Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Ray From Cleveland]

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

I don't benefit from them seeing the movie, or eating dinner. I do benefit from the fact that there is an employable person at the ticket counter or cooking the food. You do too, despite all of your ridiculous posturing and excuses.

Sure I do. Education is a good thing at times. But what does that have to do with having the parents pay more of the bill than the rest of the public? Will these kids learn more if I pay for their education than their parent(s)?

You pay a percentage, just like they do.

It is just like income tax. Why are you so wrapped up in appearing to be ignorant and grouchy at the same time?

It's like income tax? Everybody pays the same amount or percentage?

I'm glad you think you are so perceptive that you can tell my mood by my words alone. There is nothing ignorant about my statements, it's just that you make your living off of us taxpayers and are outraged that some speak out.

I hope more speak out so there is some semblance of fairness in paying for schools, or get rid of public school altogether and find a better system. That would be problematic however because when you rob Peter to pay for Paul, the Paul's in your society generally have no objection.

 

[Papageorgio]

That is why we live in a republic and not a pure democracy.

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

More or less they are longtime party members and workers who are rewarded. For example.

11 Tennesseans Confirmed as Presidential Electors | TNGOP

The state gop executive committees were not, by and large, places where Trump got love. He ran an insurgent campaign to drain the swamp, after all. But that's not really the issue. Almost all electors will respect the votes of their states, even if they voted for someone else in the primary. (and Trump received a plurality not a maj in the primaries)

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the concept of the EC was 1. to prevent a tyrant or someone who didn't respect the notion of transfer of power based on elections and 2. preserve the numbers advantage of allocating the number of electors partially on each state having two senators despite population size.

There's no danger we Americans will elect someone who is not committed to the republic. If states just allocated electors based on the pop vote in each state, the protection for less populous states is still there. The EC is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the will of voters as well as it could. And I really have no idea who'd have won had the EC been figured proportionally. It still wouldn't be just a pop vote wins.

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

 

[initforme]

Perhaps its time then that we are alloiwef to opt out paying a bloated military too. It should be paid by only those that want it....correct?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps its time then that we are alloiwef to opt out paying a bloated military too. It should be paid by only those that want it....correct?

No, because the military is covered under the Constitution. Our representatives are charged with the protection of this country from enemies domestic and abroad.

 

[Flopper]

OK ray then how about nobody in america has kids except if they make at least 500 thousand dollars per year.
Then you would complain our military is shrinking because people aren't having enough kids. I would highly disagree and perhaps ahuge birthrate decline for many years would be the way to go. That means a lot more low paying jobs unfilled which to my retired viewpoint, and yes I collect social security...happily. With businesses struggling to find workers we all win.

You don't need a half-mil a year to educate your children. There are plenty of families making less than six figures that do it today. One of those families are tenants of mine. The father works as a computer tech (making nowhere near six figures) and his wife stays home and home schools their two children. A friend of mine the same. He works two full-time jobs and has been supporting his family since he and his wife got married. They raised three children all home schooled and again, he makes nowhere near six figures.

Now as far as public school, I don't mind doing my part. But I do believe that people with kids in the school should pay more than people with no kids in the school. As I stated earlier, I'm paying more to the schools with no children attending than other people on my street that do have kids in those schools. If anybody here thinks that's fair, I would sure love for them to explain to me how.

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

Families get a lot of financial breaks in our society, not just education. The IRS certainly gives families a break. Practically everywhere you go, you see half price for kids, kids eat free, half price to families. Apply for just about any social service and families get a break.

 

[Flopper]

Not really. If the elites who are the electors really voted their conscience, Trump wouldn't be the potus elect. And small states would still have the same clout v. big states if electoral votes in each state were awarded proportionally by the popular vote.

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

More or less they are longtime party members and workers who are rewarded. For example.

11 Tennesseans Confirmed as Presidential Electors | TNGOP

The state gop executive committees were not, by and large, places where Trump got love. He ran an insurgent campaign to drain the swamp, after all. But that's not really the issue. Almost all electors will respect the votes of their states, even if they voted for someone else in the primary. (and Trump received a plurality not a maj in the primaries)

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the concept of the EC was 1. to prevent a tyrant or someone who didn't respect the notion of transfer of power based on elections and 2. preserve the numbers advantage of allocating the number of electors partially on each state having two senators despite population size.

There's no danger we Americans will elect someone who is not committed to the republic. If states just allocated electors based on the pop vote in each state, the protection for less populous states is still there. The EC is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the will of voters as well as it could. And I really have no idea who'd have won had the EC been figured proportionally. It still wouldn't be just a pop vote wins.

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

I would say one of the major reasons electors follow the choice of the voters even when it turns their stomach to do so is they don't want to carry the stigma of being a faithless elector. They would be washed up in their party and in some states face legal penalties.

 

[Papageorgio]

Do you have proof they did not vote their conscience?

Electors are party officials. they are the insiders.

Electors are not all party insiders or elites. The Republican electors were pretty common people, except for a few. The Democratic electors had Clinton and a few high profile names, however for the most part not insiders or elites. I knew an elector a few years back and she was far from an insider or an elite. She was a coworker with a 8-5 job, two kids a husband who worked a job, were just buying a home a modest home in a modest neighborhood.

More or less they are longtime party members and workers who are rewarded. For example.

11 Tennesseans Confirmed as Presidential Electors | TNGOP

The state gop executive committees were not, by and large, places where Trump got love. He ran an insurgent campaign to drain the swamp, after all. But that's not really the issue. Almost all electors will respect the votes of their states, even if they voted for someone else in the primary. (and Trump received a plurality not a maj in the primaries)

But that's not really the issue. The issue is the concept of the EC was 1. to prevent a tyrant or someone who didn't respect the notion of transfer of power based on elections and 2. preserve the numbers advantage of allocating the number of electors partially on each state having two senators despite population size.

There's no danger we Americans will elect someone who is not committed to the republic. If states just allocated electors based on the pop vote in each state, the protection for less populous states is still there. The EC is an anachronism that doesn't reflect the will of voters as well as it could. And I really have no idea who'd have won had the EC been figured proportionally. It still wouldn't be just a pop vote wins.

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

I would say one of the major reasons electors follow the choice of the voters even when it turns their stomach to do so is they don't want to carry the stigma of being a faithless elector. They would be washed up in their party and in some states face legal penalties.

The legal penalty is a fine of $1000 in most cases and are rarely prosecuted. There was not enough evidence to change the vote. Trump was qualified and is not a great to be a tyrant. That is why the Electors voted for what their state voted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't need a half-mil a year to educate your children. There are plenty of families making less than six figures that do it today. One of those families are tenants of mine. The father works as a computer tech (making nowhere near six figures) and his wife stays home and home schools their two children. A friend of mine the same. He works two full-time jobs and has been supporting his family since he and his wife got married. They raised three children all home schooled and again, he makes nowhere near six figures.

Now as far as public school, I don't mind doing my part. But I do believe that people with kids in the school should pay more than people with no kids in the school. As I stated earlier, I'm paying more to the schools with no children attending than other people on my street that do have kids in those schools. If anybody here thinks that's fair, I would sure love for them to explain to me how.

You own more valuable properties, therefore you pay higher taxes. There ya go!

There you go what????

Because my property is valued better than others on the street, I should pay more for their kids education? Again, please explain the equity or how that makes any sense.

Your property is valued less than mine, but you have four kids in the school. I have no kids in school, yet I'm paying more into that school than you are and you call that fair?

I have a better idea: why don't people with kids in school pay more for the school than people that don't? That's much fairer than forcing people with higher property value to pay for education.

You have a strange concept of what is fair. THAT is the problem. Don't like it? Vote to change it. As it stands, that how we fund schools.

How is that a strange concept?

When you take your family to the movies, do you pay the same or less as the couple with no kids going to the movies?

When you go out to dinner with your family, do you insist you pay only as much as the guy sitting by himself at the counter eating his dinner?

It's not a strange concept at all, in fact it's the standard concept we use in just about everything but education.

Families get a lot of financial breaks in our society, not just education. The IRS certainly gives families a break. Practically everywhere you go, you see half price for kids, kids eat free, half price to families. Apply for just about any social service and families get a break.

I don't see that very much, but even if you did, they still pay more than a single person or couple.

The point is, the more you use a product or service, the more you pay except when it comes to education where you may pay the most for not using the service at all, or may even pay the least for using the service the most.

Thus far, nobody has been able to explain how that concept is fair.

 

[JoeB131]

I see, the union should be for others, not you. Interesting. I believe if you want to join a union fine, if you don't fine. Private companies union get collective bargaining, public employees get no collective bargaining.

Who would I unionize against, myself?

Public employees need the option of collective bargaining for the same reason that private employees do. Just ask all the cops who are wrongly accused of police brutality (yes, there are a lot) who would probably lose their jobs if the union didn't stick up for them. In the case of teachers, every time little Timmy's parents complained they made him do homework, they'd be in fear for their jobs. That's nuts.

So like Benghazi, the birthers and other nonsense I will wait but we currently have no real evidence that has been presented. I don't take government propaganda as fact. Time will tell.

So you really think once Trump is in charge, there's going to be a "real" investigation into how he stole the election? Really? YOu really think that?

 

[JoeB131]

The legal penalty is a fine of $1000 in most cases and are rarely prosecuted. There was not enough evidence to change the vote. Trump was qualified and is not a great to be a tyrant. That is why the Electors voted for what their state voted.

50 Trump electors were illegally seated, but don't let that stop you guys.

 

[JoeB131]

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

Again, people in Germany who didn't vote for Hitler in 1933, still schemed to make him Chancellor because of the same reasons.

It's sad when people who know better put political opportunism ahead of the good of the country, but that's where we are at.

 

[owebo]

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

Again, people in Germany who didn't vote for Hitler in 1933, still schemed to make him Chancellor because of the same reasons.

It's sad when people who know better put political opportunism ahead of the good of the country, but that's where we are at.

Thank god Trump isn't a politician....l

 

[JoeB131]

Thank god Trump isn't a politician....l

Right. Because you clearly want a doctor who didn't got to medical school.
Or a lawyer who didn't got to law school.

 

[owebo]

Thank god Trump isn't a politician....l

Right. Because you clearly want a doctor who didn't got to medical school.
Or a lawyer who didn't got to law school.

No, I'm not a liberal.....

 

[Papageorgio]

I see, the union should be for others, not you. Interesting. I believe if you want to join a union fine, if you don't fine. Private companies union get collective bargaining, public employees get no collective bargaining.

Who would I unionize against, myself?

Public employees need the option of collective bargaining for the same reason that private employees do. Just ask all the cops who are wrongly accused of police brutality (yes, there are a lot) who would probably lose their jobs if the union didn't stick up for them. In the case of teachers, every time little Timmy's parents complained they made him do homework, they'd be in fear for their jobs. That's nuts.

So like Benghazi, the birthers and other nonsense I will wait but we currently have no real evidence that has been presented. I don't take government propaganda as fact. Time will tell.

So you really think once Trump is in charge, there's going to be a "real" investigation into how he stole the election? Really? YOu really think that?

Unions are fine, public sector employees don't need collective bargaining. They will still have a union stick up for them but even FDR and Kennedy were smart enough not to want public employees to have the power to hold the people hostage.

You can have Independant council investigate it has been done millions of times. Obama opened an investigation, so far nothing.

 

[Papageorgio]

Even though they did not support Trump in the primaries, they cast their Electoral vote for Trump because they didn't feel Trump was a tyrant or unqualified. You offered nothing to contradict my claim, you just diverted.

Again, people in Germany who didn't vote for Hitler in 1933, still schemed to make him Chancellor because of the same reasons.

It's sad when people who know better put political opportunism ahead of the good of the country, but that's where we are at.

Trump isn't Hitler, I'm tried of unintelligent people invoking Hitler on every President since Reagan, it is really ignorant.

 

[Papageorgio]

The legal penalty is a fine of $1000 in most cases and are rarely prosecuted. There was not enough evidence to change the vote. Trump was qualified and is not a great to be a tyrant. That is why the Electors voted for what their state voted.

50 Trump electors were illegally seated, but don't let that stop you guys.

Speaking of fake news! Funny the mainstream media isn't going with the rubbish, Salon and Kos run with. You are as stupid as the Benghazi, birther and 911 nutters.

So even if the story is true, the vote goes to the House and Trump wins. Clinton loses votes to Sanders and Life goes on.

If ignorance is bliss, then you are the happiest guy alive.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Yep, that is how the people chose Trump, through the Electoral College.

 

[danielpalos]

the electoral college made the decision, not the People.

No, the college votes the way the people voted. That's the way it's supposed to be.

the electoral college is distinct from the popular vote.

Yep, that is how the people chose Trump, through the Electoral College.

not the popular vote.