Tiberius Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 What oil barons are in charge? Damn, new administration isn't even in yet and you are falling behind. Dumb question
Chef Jim Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 Damn, new administration isn't even in yet and you are falling behind. Dumb question What oil barons are in charge?
Tiberius Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 What oil barons are in charge? Look it up, I won't tell you
Chef Jim Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 Look it up, I won't tell you Nope. Once again that's not how it's done. You brought it up you back it up.
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2017 Posted January 18, 2017 Look it up, I won't tell you You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you?
B-Man Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Trump Health Secretary Pick’s Longtime Foes: Big Government and Insurance Companies.
boyst Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you?baron hilton
Nanker Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you? He thinks it's this:
B-Man Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Think cartoonish.............thats all left loons like Gator can grasp..............................It's the "Oil Baron's"...............oh no !
Joe Miner Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you? Are they anything like the Red Baron?
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you? Yes Too Much Time On Your Hands Tom, I do not. I suppose you'd like to argue about it down in your rabbit hole? Anyway, Betsy DeVos and the Grizzly Bear thing is funny!
B-Man Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 RICH LOWRY: The Shameful War On Betsy DeVos. “The controversy over the nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education has been, if nothing else, clarifying. We now know that working to give poor kids more educational opportunities is considered a disqualifying offense for the Left.” .
Nanker Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 The Dems are the new Party of NO! They have little power and their ideas are bankrupt. They have no bench. They turned their backs on middle America more than a decade ago and lots of those votes aren't coming back to a party that's increasingly petulant, bitter, hateful, spiteful, angry, hostile to any form of comity, and run by arrogantly insufferable elitists who "know" what's best for everyone and are hell bent to force people to live by their rules.
nkreed Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 RICH LOWRY: The Shameful War On Betsy DeVos. “The controversy over the nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education has been, if nothing else, clarifying. We now know that working to give poor kids more educational opportunities is considered a disqualifying offense for the Left.” How great on the surface. Lets forget that poor kids will have really not be given the opportunities to get better education, students with disabilities will be left behind and that the public schools will be forced to pay for it anyway. Poor kids will not have the opportunity to move to a different school because outreach of these programs doesn't reach poor communities. Whether it be purposeful deceit (by government) or sheer lack of resources, it will disproportionately affect those from poorer neighborhoods. Students with disabilities will not be required to be taught at different schools (especially if they are private). Either the private school won't have the resources to provide for disabilities or they won't pay for it (it is privatization after all). The bill is still coming from the taxpayers. No matter how we look at it, the taxpayers in the community pay for it. So if most of the students bus to a different district, then you close the schools in the neighborhood, leaving behind no community gathering place. Kids spend more time at school and a substantial amount of time on buses. There is no educational savings as a result and people in a community without a school are just going to get mad they pay taxes for no schools. These are just my initial thoughts, since no plan is without it's downfalls.
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 How great on the surface. Lets forget that poor kids will have really not be given the opportunities to get better education, students with disabilities will be left behind and that the public schools will be forced to pay for it anyway. Poor kids will not have the opportunity to move to a different school because outreach of these programs doesn't reach poor communities. Whether it be purposeful deceit (by government) or sheer lack of resources, it will disproportionately affect those from poorer neighborhoods. Students with disabilities will not be required to be taught at different schools (especially if they are private). Either the private school won't have the resources to provide for disabilities or they won't pay for it (it is privatization after all). The bill is still coming from the taxpayers. No matter how we look at it, the taxpayers in the community pay for it. So if most of the students bus to a different district, then you close the schools in the neighborhood, leaving behind no community gathering place. Kids spend more time at school and a substantial amount of time on buses. There is no educational savings as a result and people in a community without a school are just going to get mad they pay taxes for no schools. These are just my initial thoughts, since no plan is without it's downfalls. They don't care a fig for any of that. They just know that the teachers are unionized and they want to crush the teachers unions. A goal supported by many poor Trump voters
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 You don't actually know what an "oil baron" is, do you? Is it close to a "Bush oil buddy"? They don't care a fig for any of that. They just know that the teachers are unionized and they want to crush the teachers unions. A goal supported by many poor Trump voters And of course there's no connection between the two. Here in CA, municipalities are now ordered to turn over a portion of their budget to the state to cover unfunded pension liabilities (Go union!). The lost funding means schools have to cut art, music, etc. Obviously the cuts will go deeper in poor communities but who cares so long as the union chiefs get their cut, amirite?
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Is it close to a "Bush oil buddy"? And of course there's no connection between the two. Here in CA, municipalities are now ordered to turn over a portion of their budget to the state to cover unfunded pension liabilities (Go union!). The lost funding means schools have to cut art, music, etc. Obviously the cuts will go deeper in poor communities but who cares so long as the union chiefs get their cut, amirite? Good, then the Conservatives should argue that instead of the voucher crap which is a dodge
IDBillzFan Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Good, then the Conservatives should argue that instead of the voucher crap which is a dodge Why are you opposed to taxpayers having a choice of where to send their child to school? Perhaps if public schools had to compete for students, they might focus on providing a solid, competitive product instead of the status quo of bad teachers collecting salary and bennies with no accountability. But we can't have that, because it would mean the end of the money laundering scheme known as the teacher's unions.
Nanker Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Mnuchin's interrogation is interesting. Reminds me a bit of Tim Geithner's failure to pay taxes kerfuffle.
Tiberius Posted January 19, 2017 Posted January 19, 2017 Why are you opposed to taxpayers having a choice of where to send their child to school? Perhaps if public schools had to compete for students, they might focus on providing a solid, competitive product instead of the status quo of bad teachers collecting salary and bennies with no accountability. But we can't have that, because it would mean the end of the money laundering scheme known as the teacher's unions. This is not really my issue, but are you of the same opinion on police, firefighter and nurses unions? If the good students are pulled out of public schools they will do worse and you guys will use that as an excuse to hurt education even more.
Recommended Posts