Republicans to target unions, expand school choice in states

[Flopper]

Why is not having kids a bad thing even for those who can easily afford them? If the birthrate drops big time nobody fills low wage jobs(great great thing) and there are lots of jobs available. Could be the answer to strengthen the country.

Although there are some positive aspects of a falling birth rate there are negative ones. For example, falling birth rates can lessen the demand for new homes and other products marketed to families. Less workers means lower government revenue to pay the increasing cost of providing for the elderly which is growing significantly. Although lower birth rates may be good news for low skilled workers who can't find a job, it's bad news for employers who can't find enough high skilled workers to meet their needs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Yeah, you see, it's very simple to explain.

The Russians hacked the election, and a lot of the usual safeguards we have to prevent EXACTLY THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING didn't engage.

The Media normalized Trump's behavior. Normally, you say things like he said, your career is over and you are putting a newspaper in front of your face when you leave your house in the morning.

Now we are stuck with this guy, and he will be a disaster.

Again, how did they hack the election? I hear all about hacking but I heard they hacked the Democratic Party's emails, then leaked the emails.

Are you saying they hacked the voting machines?

Hacking the actually voting machines and not being discovered is almost impossible because they are not online during the voting. The votes are either stored on a cartridge, hard drive, paper punched card, or a marked card. All machines produce a paper backup. The danger in manipulating votes is in counting, not the voting.

The Russian hacking had no effect on the voting process. The question of whether it had any effect on voter decisions is unknown and will remain so. However, Russia has had a long history of inference in the political process of selecting leaders in other nations. To think that Russia would not attempt to do so in US elections seems a bit naive.

This is not the first time Russia has meddled in US presidential elections. Russia attempted to persuade Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, to run again and offered to support him. This is probably the best documented attempt but there are others.
The Russians Tried Once Before to Meddle in a U.S. Presidential Election

1. "The Russian hacking had no effect on the voting process."
I appreciate you posting this...but, based on this line from your link....what's your point??

2. "The question of whether it had any effect on voter decisions is unknown and will remain so. "
That's false.
Watch:
..the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????
If anything....it increased the criminal's vote tally.


3. May I point out that the real news is that Trump actually won the popular vote, once you discount the illegal alien vote that was ginned up by the snake in the White House.

I was attempting to answer your question, "Are you saying they hacked the voting machines? The answer was obviously, no. However, Russia was attempting to influence the election as they have done in other countries such as France by stealing private sensitive information and seeing it was leaked to public in order to discredit a candidate they did not want see elected.

I don't think many cared about those emails. If what Hillary did in the past didn't convince you not to vote for her, nothing would have. It's not like she came in with integrity and a clean slate. She was being investigated by the FBI for crying out loud.

Take notice how the MSM and Democrats continue using the word "hack" to describe those emails. They didn't stop using the word hack for no reason. Also Hannity is airing his interview with Assange tonight who openly stated Russia had nothing to do with those emails.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yeah, you see, it's very simple to explain.

The Russians hacked the election, and a lot of the usual safeguards we have to prevent EXACTLY THIS SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING didn't engage.

The Media normalized Trump's behavior. Normally, you say things like he said, your career is over and you are putting a newspaper in front of your face when you leave your house in the morning.

Now we are stuck with this guy, and he will be a disaster.

Again, how did they hack the election? I hear all about hacking but I heard they hacked the Democratic Party's emails, then leaked the emails.

Are you saying they hacked the voting machines?

Hacking the actually voting machines and not being discovered is almost impossible because they are not online during the voting. The votes are either stored on a cartridge, hard drive, paper punched card, or a marked card. All machines produce a paper backup. The danger in manipulating votes is in counting, not the voting.

The Russian hacking had no effect on the voting process. The question of whether it had any effect on voter decisions is unknown and will remain so. However, Russia has had a long history of inference in the political process of selecting leaders in other nations. To think that Russia would not attempt to do so in US elections seems a bit naive.

This is not the first time Russia has meddled in US presidential elections. Russia attempted to persuade Adlai Stevenson, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, to run again and offered to support him. This is probably the best documented attempt but there are others.
The Russians Tried Once Before to Meddle in a U.S. Presidential Election

Well we don't know if Russia leaked the emails or not, their reputation precedes them. However, no one has given solid proof who hacked the computers and no one has proof the Russians are involved, it is all speculation.

The US government has an obligation to it's citizens to investigate and then let the citizens know if the Russians are involved or not and what the evidence is. Simply retaliating against Russia is not proof of anything.

The current tactic is saying yes they are involved and not releasing proof is highly suspicious.

Security agencies such as the CIA and the FBI usually don't want to release a lot of details that involves on going operations for obvious reasons. I don't know if it's possibility to gather enough evidence to prove the Russians are guilty in this politically charged court of public opinion. My guess is they would be able to establish a fairly high level of probability but not absolute proof. Kind of like the farmer who has lost 3 chickens, finds bloody feathers and sees a chicken hawk hanging around. It's possible a fox he has never seen did it but not likely.

Assuming the CIA has a huge amount evidence and released it, would it be enough and would it be worth divulging information that would be potentially damaging to their operation? I think this would definitely be a consideration when the president elect has already said he didn't believe it.

 

[initforme]

When companies struggle to find good workers, that isn't a bad thing. Chances are every open job is a bad one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The charters schools aren't doing any better on average.

That may well be the case, but the Stanford University CREDO study in 2015 shows that urban charter schools are greatly outperforming public schools.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowl...charter-schools-making-a-difference-in-cities

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/03/16/why-charter-schools-work-or-dont

But, I feel that with Charter Schools and allowing the money to follow the student, competition in the school system is a good thing. It enables parents to choose any school, public, private, or charter, that best meets their children's needs.

As for your assertion that troubled or special needs children are shuttled off to only public schools is patently incorrect. Whether a child is exceptional, troubled, or special needs, there are many private and charter schools that cater to such children, with outstanding results. Especially in urban areas.

So what about the vast numbers of kids with no opportunity for charter or private schools?

Florida has vouchers when I was a teacher there. Do you know how many private high schools accepted vouchers? None. We were the largest school district in Florida and had no high school students choose vouchers.

Where I taught last year, the private Catholic school stops at 8th grade. All of the students go to public high school. Where I teach now has no private or parochial schools inside about a 40 mile radius. Where do those kids go?

The Florida Voucher programs is limited to Students with certain disabilities
and students with IEP's. However, in Miami Dade, the largest school district, there are many charter schools. I would estimate at least a hundred. They are tuition free but may have admission requirements.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools - Senior high Schools Directory
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

Thanks for your input but it is off topic from my response.

BTW, Miami is NOT the largest.

Didn't you say, "we were the largest school district in Florida?" Miami-Dade is the largest school district in Florida and the 5th largest in the nation with a student population of 347,000 students.
List of the largest school districts in the United States by enrollment - Wikipedia

My mistake. You are correct.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Doubling down on stupid? If that is the case, you are not worth continuing the conversation.

Um, the conversation ended when you called him stupid.

His comments were stupid, lacking in any facts or logic.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

 

[initforme]

Why should I pay for the roads to be p!lowed so business can use the roads? I have no interest in the business succeeding as its not mine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why should I pay for the roads to be p!lowed so business can use the roads? I have no interest in the business succeeding as its not mine.

Ahhh, because everybody use the roads??????????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

 

[Flopper]

Why should I pay for the roads to be p!lowed so business can use the roads? I have no interest in the business succeeding as its not mine.

Ahhh, because everybody use the roads??????????

Roads like Education are used indirectly by everyone. Businesses need educated worker just as they need roads. Therefore they should pay a share of the cost of both which they do.

Families need education for their kids just as they need roads and they should pay a share of both as they do.

 

[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.

Ray, the reasoning behind you paying higher property taxes for education is because your property has a high value due in part because an education system exist in your community.

In essential all states education is supported jointly by property taxes and sales taxes. Most of the money for education that comes from property taxes is paid by businesses who benefit indirectly form public education. Most of the money for education that comes from sales taxes is paid by those in middle and lower income brackets which are the people most likely to benefit directly from education.

The idea that parents should bear the cost of educating their children may seem equitable but it's not practical. The average cost in the US is $11,009 a year per child. How many young families with 2 kids could afford an additions $22,000 a year in expenses for education.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Ray, the reasoning behind you paying higher property taxes for education is because your property has a high value due in part because an education system exist in your community.

In essential all states education is supported jointly by property taxes and sales taxes. Most of the money for education that comes from property taxes is paid by businesses who benefit indirectly form public education. Most of the money for education that comes from sales taxes is paid by those in middle and lower income brackets which are the people most likely to benefit directly from education.

The idea that parents should bear the cost of educating their children may seem equitable but it's not practical. The average cost in the US is $11,009 a year per child. How many young families with 2 kids could afford an additions $22,000 a year in expenses for education.

How is that my problem, that's the question.

If you bought a house you can't afford, why should I be taxed to pay it for you? Or your car? Or your swimming pool or boat?

Children are an expense, it's one of the reasons I never had any. You act as if having children is something people can't control. Oh, I just happened to end up with three kids, but I don't have the money to educate them. Well, that's not my problem, that's my neighbors problem!

And again, if people are too stupid to have kids they can't afford to educate, fine. I'll chip in, but I shouldn't be paying more than you are when I don't use the schools and you do. That's about as stupid as taxing me more than you to pay for public transportation that you use and I don't.

 

[JoeB131]

Zero proof doesn't work for me....

It worked fine for you with the E-mails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Obama's Birth Certificate...

Now you want "Proof" (you know, like 17 intel agencies saying, Yup, the Russians did it!)

 

[JoeB131]

Well...you're correct if one counts the illegal aliens that the snake, Obama, told to go vote and there'd be no "investigations."

But in America we eschew counting illegal alien votes.

I don't. first, no evidence illegals voted. Second, who cares even if they did? They are here, they pay taxes, they work hard. They aren't going anywhere and they are going to be effected by how badly the orange buffoon screws up the economy.

On the other hand, the Russians hacking the vote. That's a big deal.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is exactly how your puppet masters planned it.

So the puppet masters where the ones who made Trump call on the Russians to hack Hillary's Emails?

You see, that's the problem you guys have. Trump really did play footsies with the Russians. And that's just the stuff he was dumb enough to blurt out, we aren't even talking about what he's hiding in his tax returns.

Listening to the radio today, I heard the host remind his audience several times of the Assange interview with Hannity being aired tonight. In that interview, Assange swears that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with those emails.

So the guy who hates America says he loves Trump, and you guys are good with that?

Well we don't know if Russia leaked the emails or not, their reputation precedes them. However, no one has given solid proof who hacked the computers and no one has proof the Russians are involved, it is all speculation.

The US government has an obligation to it's citizens to investigate and then let the citizens know if the Russians are involved or not and what the evidence is. Simply retaliating against Russia is not proof of anything.

The current tactic is saying yes they are involved and not releasing proof is highly suspicious.

Good idea. Let's release all the evidence, including the names of the spies we have in Russia who tracked it down. Let's also tell the Russians how our electronic survellience works.

You are just full of awesome ideas!

 

[owebo]

Well...you're correct if one counts the illegal aliens that the snake, Obama, told to go vote and there'd be no "investigations."

But in America we eschew counting illegal alien votes.

I don't. first, no evidence illegals voted. Second, who cares even if they did? They are here, they pay taxes, they work hard. They aren't going anywhere and they are going to be effected by how badly the orange buffoon screws up the economy.

On the other hand, the Russians hacking the vote. That's a big deal.

Link?

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think many cared about those emails. If what Hillary did in the past didn't convince you not to vote for her, nothing would have. It's not like she came in with integrity and a clean slate. She was being investigated by the FBI for crying out loud.

And the FBI found she didn't do anything that wrong. Not that it mattered to you guys. Mere accussation was good enough.

Now your boy has much more serious accusations against him,and you want 'proof'. But don't actually investigate. We can't have that!

 

[owebo]

I don't think many cared about those emails. If what Hillary did in the past didn't convince you not to vote for her, nothing would have. It's not like she came in with integrity and a clean slate. She was being investigated by the FBI for crying out loud.

And the FBI found she didn't do anything that wrong. Not that it mattered to you guys. Mere accussation was good enough.

Now your boy has much more serious accusations against him,and you want 'proof'. But don't actually investigate. We can't have that!

No, the FBI didn't find that....

 

[Rustic]

Well...you're correct if one counts the illegal aliens that the snake, Obama, told to go vote and there'd be no "investigations."

But in America we eschew counting illegal alien votes.

I don't. first, no evidence illegals voted. Second, who cares even if they did? They are here, they pay taxes, they work hard. They aren't going anywhere and they are going to be effected by how badly the orange buffoon screws up the economy.

On the other hand, the Russians hacking the vote. That's a big deal.

It's best if you stay in your mothers basement in seclusion, you don't know your ass from A hole in the ground.
Your political correctness makes you weak