Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[bodecea]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

Ah...and you buy what Rushbo says, don't you?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i still dont believe that it was my great great grandparents that were the cause of the big bang that distrupted the universe 4.9 million years ago.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the same problems with all union jobs. As long as you're moving and breathing, that's all it takes for you to have job protection.

Without a union, you have to perform to the best of your ability to keep your job.

I seem to remember it differently. I seem to remember growing up, everyone in the neighborhood was in one union or another, they went to work,t hey worked hard and they brought home a good paycheck.

What I see today is everyone works two jobs and are constantly afraid of being downsized, and you think this is an improvement.

To be honest I don't know anybody that works two jobs. When I was a kid, it was very common. Until I became a landlord, I either worked 6 to 7 days a week or had two or more jobs.

If I make a pickup or delivery at a company I've never been to before and know nothing about, I can tell you within five minutes whether they are union or not. The attitude and performance by the workers are completely different. In fact with my experiences with unions, I could write a book on them.

Our company doesn't deliver to auto plants anymore. Why? Unions. I could have a full trailer for an auto plant and spend nearly the entire day sitting there waiting to get unloaded. Go to a non-union company, I'm unloaded in 30 to 40 minutes in most cases.

 

[owebo]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

Ah...and you buy what Rushbo says, don't you?

You listen to Rush?

 

[bodecea]

What they are talking about is choice in education and employment. Liberals don't like choices. Choice means freedom.

They only like choice to kill babies

English grammar is hard, isn't it?

You should go back to school then!

Poor beknighted soul.......you really don't understand proper English grammar, do you?

 

[DGS49]

If unions confined themselves to trying to get the best deal they could for the employees that they represent, then no one outside their company or union would give a shit. Have at it.

But unions have decided that their real mission in life is promoting "creeping socialism" into our society, and have funded a virtual "jihad" against both employers and government officials (mainly elected officials) who try to resist. So they have brought this on entirely on their own.

Laws that demand that all employees pay union dues, regardless of what is funded by those dues, are an affront to independent-minded employees who don't want their hard-earned money promoting political activity that they do not like. So who can blame legislators - the victims of union political activity - from enacting law to try to allow dissenting employees to opt out. And if this "kills" a union or two, it was a suicide, not a homicide.

And as for government employee unions, they are an abomination and should be utterly abolished, as President F. Roosevelt observed many years ago. And it goes without saying that teachers' unions are the worst, doing more harm to American Public Education than even our worst enemies could have hoped to inflict.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

Ah...and you buy what Rushbo says, don't you?

Yes I do..........that is unless you can show me where he's wrong.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Again, like that other fellow, you seem to forget the law of supply and demand. if you give everyone a voucher, the costs of htose private schools will go up. There's only a finite number of available teachers and a finite number of schools. Right now, private, religious and charter schools only serve 9% of school age kids. Who is going to take care of the other 91% if you start diverting public monies to these schools?

Uh.... I don't know. Maybe the 91% that use them?

Are you saying that your 9% should pay for services they don't use? Yeah, that makes total sense.

 

[bodecea]

Much like people using PP isn't my problem....see how this works yet, dunce?

sure it is... they control the spread of unwanted pregnancies and STD's... dunce.

You mean by controlling unwanted pregnancies murdering the innocent....no thanks.

And you still haven't grasped it.....dunce. You really are not awfully bright

Well, yes....priests and altar boys don't reproduce, do they?

There are far more pedos in education than the Church....why don't you get informed and then comment?

And double the number of pedos in Catholic schools......but you don't care to check on that one, do you......?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

But you have to ask WHY do the Democrats get that money?

Oh, that's right, because they actually protect workers rights.

Here's the REAL problem with our public schools.

The poster I agree with.
The "workers rights" thing. No.....Money does not protect the rights of workers. Legislation does that.
The problem in states where public employees have many protections is two fold. One the workers soon realize they are unassailable in every way. They become complacent, Then instead of performing their jobs, they revert to "putting in their time". Complacency begets mediocrity. When merit is eliminated from the equation and the slackers are rewarded dime for dime as the best workers, the machine breaks down. Hence the reason why public school systems, especially in urban areas and some suburban areas are not performing as well as they once did.
Right to work....Its the best way to go. Workers MUST be given choices. It is their right to choose whether or not they wish to join a labor collective.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh.... I don't know. Maybe the 91% that use them?

Are you saying that your 9% should pay for services they don't use? Yeah, that makes total sense.

That's exactly what my sister did and she's in debt for life because she wanted to make sure her kids got a Catholic education. Her property taxes are almost as bad as mine. Over half of what we pay for property taxes here goes to the schools me nor any of my tenants have children in.

 

[jc456]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

The states with strong teachers' unions have the best educational records in the country.

Why fuck with that?

Horse shit. Take a look at New York City. Washington DC, Newark,.....Kansas City. Cleveland.
All have unionized teachers with tenure after three years, all spend more money per student than 99% of other districts, yet their graduation rates pale in comparison to areas where per student expenditure is less than HALF.....
So here we go. Another selfish greedy lib spouts off his belief that all problems can be solved by throwing money at them.
Why should teacher be able to use their union status to tell the taxpayers whom they serve "screw you. If you don;t pay us what we want, your kids aren't going to school"....
The existence of these labor collectives has turned things upside down. Teachers are public servants. They work for the PUBLIC. Not the other way around.
No one saying teachers need a beat down. Not at all. Teachers get the short end of the stick in that even where they are unionized, they get no support from the administration nor the parents. I have friends who are teachers. In the public school system of a nearby city, this one friend of mine who by the way has a law degree, loves teaching but has a I' don't give a shit if I rock the boat" attitude tells me that the teachers for the most part have to walk on egg shells. And they are unionized here as well. State law bars them from collective bargaining rights.
The idea is to strike a balance between the professionals and the taxpayers. Get rid of the "us vs them" mentality which is perpetuated by the union leaderships.

It's obvious that libturds like bad education and poor educated kids! They hate that children actually learn who they really are! It's all about libturdism

 

[bodecea]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

Ah...and you buy what Rushbo says, don't you?

Yes I do..........that is unless you can show me where he's wrong.

Ah...a Rushbo worshipper........he's right about you suckers.....

 

[TomParks]

Liberalism must be fought with school choice and in the Judiciary

 

[bodecea]

Uh.... I don't know. Maybe the 91% that use them?

Are you saying that your 9% should pay for services they don't use? Yeah, that makes total sense.

That's exactly what my sister did and she's in debt for life because she wanted to make sure her kids got a Catholic education. Her property taxes are almost as bad as mine. Over half of what we pay for property taxes here goes to the schools me nor any of my tenants have children in.

Well, if she didn't want to be in debt, she shouldn't have had kids she couldn't afford to educate.

 

[bodecea]

Found this on my local news station site and decided to throw it out there. The meat of the article says this:

"As President-elect Donald Trump leads an attempted makeover in Washington, Republican governors and state lawmakers will be simultaneously pushing an aggressive agenda that limits abortion, lawsuits and unions, cuts business taxes and regulations, and expands gun rights and school choice.

Republicans will hold 33 governors' offices, have majorities in 33 legislatures and control both the governor's office and legislature in 25 states - their most since 1952. Democrats will control both the governor's office and legislature in only about a half-dozen states; the rest will have politically divided governments."

Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

The states with strong teachers' unions have the best educational records in the country.

Why fuck with that?

Horse shit. Take a look at New York City. Washington DC, Newark,.....Kansas City. Cleveland.
All have unionized teachers with tenure after three years, all spend more money per student than 99% of other districts, yet their graduation rates pale in comparison to areas where per student expenditure is less than HALF.....
So here we go. Another selfish greedy lib spouts off his belief that all problems can be solved by throwing money at them.
Why should teacher be able to use their union status to tell the taxpayers whom they serve "screw you. If you don;t pay us what we want, your kids aren't going to school"....
The existence of these labor collectives has turned things upside down. Teachers are public servants. They work for the PUBLIC. Not the other way around.
No one saying teachers need a beat down. Not at all. Teachers get the short end of the stick in that even where they are unionized, they get no support from the administration nor the parents. I have friends who are teachers. In the public school system of a nearby city, this one friend of mine who by the way has a law degree, loves teaching but has a I' don't give a shit if I rock the boat" attitude tells me that the teachers for the most part have to walk on egg shells. And they are unionized here as well. State law bars them from collective bargaining rights.
The idea is to strike a balance between the professionals and the taxpayers. Get rid of the "us vs them" mentality which is perpetuated by the union leaderships.

It's obvious that libturds like bad education and poor educated kids! They hate that children actually learn who they really are! It's all about libturdism

^ Thus sayeth someone who cannot even manage correct English grammar......

 

[owebo]

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Umm. There are TONS of Charter Schools here.
The unions just took it in the shorts in Massachusetts. The State legislature is about to pass a law which raises the cap on the number of Charter Schools. There was a referendum on the statewide ballot which was in effect a question to allow the local boards have authority to expand Charters. That failed 2-1. The main reason is voters were concerned such a law would give local school districts too much power.
I have no idea other than to protect the unions, why left wingers are so fearful of parents having choices as to where their kids go to school.
As long as the kids are getting a good education in an environment that is conducive to same, who cares. I don;'t understand the mentality of a captive marketplace.

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

Ah...and you buy what Rushbo says, don't you?

Yes I do..........that is unless you can show me where he's wrong.

Ah...a Rushbo worshipper........he's right about you suckers.....

You listen to Rush?

 

[buckeye45_73]

So is this such a bad agenda? I predict more snowflakes a falling.

given that Charter schools have worse record than public schools, and that's before all the protections to keep the scams out are eliminated, um, yeah, that would be a bad thing.

The thing about it is, no one wants to set up Charter Schools in the Cleetus states. There's no money to be made there. They want to get into LA and NY and Chicago, where there are big old pots of money to be had.

Yeah public schools are awesome!!!! Don't introduce competition, Nah let the unions control everything, they really care about the kids and not about themselves.

You already have school choice. You want your kids to go to private school, send them. You want to homeschool, have at it.

Oh so this is the one time you don't give a fuck about the poor. Why are you so.afraid to make schools compete?

Afraid they might have to.educate kids and not teach liberal bullshit 24 7?

 

[Care4all]

Who are Republicans fighting for, when they go after unions and union busting? Are they in bed with the Corporations? Certainly not in bed with the citizens who work in Union jobs that pay well....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It goes back to what Rush says all the time. Unions are a way of getting tax money from the taxpayers to the Democrat party. We pay taxes for these schools--some of which ends up in the hands of the unions. Election time comes, and unions heavily support the Democrat party. So of course they are going to protect that money as much as possible.

But you have to ask WHY do the Democrats get that money?

Oh, that's right, because they actually protect workers rights.

Here's the REAL problem with our public schools.

I can't disagree with you on this one Joe. Yes, parents are a big problem no matter what education system you use.