goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Rage Against the McKee on December 02, 2011, 02:11:17 PM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal/?tag=re1.galleries (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal/?tag=re1.galleries)
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
You have to be 14 to work in this country. Do you really think kids younger than that should be going out and getting jobs? What kind of jobs do you think they are going to find?
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
You have to be 14 to work in this country. Do you really think kids younger than that should be going out and getting jobs? What kind of jobs do you think they are going to find?
Its not necessarily about a kid going out and looking for a job, although it could happen. Its more about inner city volunteers or businesses taking kids off the streets by offering them part time work to build self worth and learn what its about to work for money rather than sit on the couch eating walking tacos and waiting for the welfare check. Local grocery stores could have them bag groceries, gather carts, push a dust mop, stock shelves, etc. Car dealers could have them wash cars. They could deliver afternoon papers or Penny Saver type papers. Whatever. I realize many of the jobs I mentioned are now union jobs with huge bennies, but there are still plenty of independent businesses that could work with the poor kids to break the welfare cycle the democrats are trying to keep alive.
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
You have to be 14 to work in this country. Do you really think kids younger than that should be going out and getting jobs? What kind of jobs do you think they are going to find?
Its not necessarily about a kid going out and looking for a job, although it could happen. Its more about inner city volunteers or businesses taking kids off the streets by offering them part time work to build self worth and learn what its about to work for money rather than sit on the couch eating walking tacos and waiting for the welfare check. Local grocery stores could have them bag groceries, gather carts, push a dust mop, stock shelves, etc. Car dealers could have them wash cars. They could deliver afternoon papers or Penny Saver type papers. Whatever. I realize many of the jobs I mentioned are now union jobs with huge bennies, but there are still plenty of independent businesses that could work with the poor kids to break the welfare cycle the democrats are trying to keep alive.
Those sound like jobs that high schoolers work. :dunno: What do you propose should be the minimum age to work in America?
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
You have to be 14 to work in this country. Do you really think kids younger than that should be going out and getting jobs? What kind of jobs do you think they are going to find?
Its not necessarily about a kid going out and looking for a job, although it could happen. Its more about inner city volunteers or businesses taking kids off the streets by offering them part time work to build self worth and learn what its about to work for money rather than sit on the couch eating walking tacos and waiting for the welfare check. Local grocery stores could have them bag groceries, gather carts, push a dust mop, stock shelves, etc. Car dealers could have them wash cars. They could deliver afternoon papers or Penny Saver type papers. Whatever. I realize many of the jobs I mentioned are now union jobs with huge bennies, but there are still plenty of independent businesses that could work with the poor kids to break the welfare cycle the democrats are trying to keep alive.
Those sound like jobs that high schoolers work. :dunno: What do you propose should be the minimum age to work in America?
Why do you need a minimum? If a kid wants to work, the parents think the job is OK, and the employer is willing to pay them minimum wage, it really shouldn't matter as long as they are still going to school.
-
PROGRESS
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myessentia.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fchild-labour05d.jpg&hash=b9cf6a519758da360e2f82507927c9ff06703709)
-
PROGRESS
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myessentia.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Fchild-labour05d.jpg&hash=b9cf6a519758da360e2f82507927c9ff06703709)
:facepalm:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailyagenda.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fnewtchildlabor.png&hash=3151ed445d0ece5c1d982a4c55206904d9dc30c1)
-
He has a point. Some of the kids grow up without any work ethic because nobody in their families has ever had a legal job. They learn how to game the system and nothing else. All he is saying is they should be allowed to work if they want at designated places, not sweat shops.
Some kids have wealthy parents who go to work every day, yet they also have no work ethic.
You got that right. Bad parenting knows no income level. But, kids should be able to work if they like and should never be limited at this time, in this country.
-
Uh oh, the AFSCME is getting involved. :ohno:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthepoliticalcarnival.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fnewt-child-labor.jpg&hash=19f72547d6e14e7c63ac24e640849cc67de83837)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogforarizona.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341bf80c53ef015393e77cb7970b-320wi&hash=6fead8cf97f786aa7710b47cadea7933f45017e9)
The janitors are afraid of 9 year olds taking their jobs. :lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjoronomo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fnewt-gingrich-in-oliver-repeal-child-labor-laws.png&hash=4b25500bd7581d82e7d3d8d2eadddd0021d65eed)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi106.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm269%2Fkellyxnet%2FElection%25202012%2Fnewt-putting-kids-to-work.jpg&hash=03733a2f518a757a4514672d40c524de06790c28) (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.indecisionforever.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F12%2FNewt_Gingrich_175.jpg&hash=0f962142de17d8ea7a8ad5728be70925f2249441)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-50GgNPKyrA0%2FTssId_083QI%2FAAAAAAAADsU%2FLhxAm-MfBtU%2Fs400%2Fnewtjobsad.jpg&hash=0cf78b32b26e0011cd82a64885b441ad018c2b4f)
-
Anyone else surprised the left is taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting what was actually said? Didn't think so.
Stop being so rough ridin' ridiculous please. k thx
-
Anyone else surprised the left is taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting what was actually said? Didn't think so.
Stop being so rough ridin' ridiculous please. k thx
stating that child labor laws are "truly stupid" opens you up to such criticism. what confounds me is that the same party that is saying that we could provide opportunity and life lessons to young impoverished people by allowing them to push a mop is actively seeking to change the school finance structure to ensure that they receive a less than equitable education.
-
Anyone else surprised the left is taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting what was actually said? Didn't think so.
Stop being so rough ridin' ridiculous please. k thx
stating that child labor laws are "truly stupid" opens you up to such criticism. what confounds me is that the same party that is saying that we could provide opportunity and life lessons to young impoverished people by allowing them to push a mop is actively seeking to change the school finance structure to ensure that they receive a less than equitable education.
and I'm sure you actually believe all of that
WTF does "less than equitable education" even mean. Is there like a super democrat marketing team somewhere that invents these ridiculous talking points and then distributes them vis a vis a call tree or something?
Unadulterated lying is like breathing to the left. Absolutely no sense of reality, whatever fits the agenda at that moment in time. Psychopaths.
-
Anyone else surprised the left is taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting what was actually said? Didn't think so.
Stop being so rough ridin' ridiculous please. k thx
stating that child labor laws are "truly stupid" opens you up to such criticism. what confounds me is that the same party that is saying that we could provide opportunity and life lessons to young impoverished people by allowing them to push a mop is actively seeking to change the school finance structure to ensure that they receive a less than equitable education.
and I'm sure you actually believe all of that
WTF does "less than equitable education" even mean. Is there like a super democrat marketing team somewhere that invents these ridiculous talking points and then distributes them vis a vis a call tree or something?
Unadulterated lying is like breathing to the left. Absolutely no sense of reality, whatever fits the agenda at that moment in time. Psychopaths.
Great post as usual Brad!
it means when i worked in KC kids at Turner didn't have enought textbooks for a class set and kids in Olathe had a laptop for each student
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
See, there you go again with this "exploited" bullshit. How is paying a child to clean up the cafateria or shelve library books after class exploitation? You're being stupid.
If you pay a child an allowance for doing chores, is that exploitation?
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
See, there you go again with this "exploited" bullshit. How is paying a child to clean up the cafateria or shelve library books after class exploitation? You're being stupid.
If you pay a child an allowance for doing chores, is that exploitation?
If your neighbor pays your child $1 per hour to go shovel crap, that's exploitation. If you make your own child help around the house, that's instilling values. The school janitor job idea Newt had was only an example he gave to promote allowing children to work for less than minimum wage.
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
See, there you go again with this "exploited" bullshit. How is paying a child to clean up the cafateria or shelve library books after class exploitation? You're being stupid.
If you pay a child an allowance for doing chores, is that exploitation?
If your neighbor pays your child $1 per hour to go shovel crap, that's exploitation. If you make your own child help around the house, that's instilling values. The school janitor job idea Newt had was only an example he gave to promote allowing children to work for less than minimum wage.
Oh, I get it, you're screwing with me. Nobody could be this dumb. Congratulations, you got me! :lol:
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
See, there you go again with this "exploited" bullshit. How is paying a child to clean up the cafateria or shelve library books after class exploitation? You're being stupid.
If you pay a child an allowance for doing chores, is that exploitation?
If your neighbor pays your child $1 per hour to go shovel crap, that's exploitation. If you make your own child help around the house, that's instilling values. The school janitor job idea Newt had was only an example he gave to promote allowing children to work for less than minimum wage.
I must have missed that part.
-
I see, so when Newt suggested that there might be some benefit to schools and businesses being able to give after-school jobs to children to help promote the value of working for a wage... that means he wants sweat shops.
Aren't these the same liberals who want to pay children just to attend class (to get their free education)? But they can't be paid to push a mop or shelve library books after class?
Maybe Ann Coulter really is right, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Who wants to pay children to go to class? Where did you see that?
Just Google it. Here is one example. among others: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1076550)
Well, that's just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). It's not as Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) as wanting to allow children to get exploited for lower wages, but it's still Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
See, there you go again with this "exploited" bullshit. How is paying a child to clean up the cafateria or shelve library books after class exploitation? You're being stupid.
If you pay a child an allowance for doing chores, is that exploitation?
If your neighbor pays your child $1 per hour to go shovel crap, that's exploitation. If you make your own child help around the house, that's instilling values. The school janitor job idea Newt had was only an example he gave to promote allowing children to work for less than minimum wage.
I must have missed that part.
Who is going to hire a nine year old at $7.25 per hour? Really.
-
Anyone else surprised the left is taking this completely out of context and misrepresenting what was actually said? Didn't think so.
Stop being so rough ridin' ridiculous please. k thx
stating that child labor laws are "truly stupid" opens you up to such criticism. what confounds me is that the same party that is saying that we could provide opportunity and life lessons to young impoverished people by allowing them to push a mop is actively seeking to change the school finance structure to ensure that they receive a less than equitable education.
and I'm sure you actually believe all of that
WTF does "less than equitable education" even mean. Is there like a super democrat marketing team somewhere that invents these ridiculous talking points and then distributes them vis a vis a call tree or something?
Unadulterated lying is like breathing to the left. Absolutely no sense of reality, whatever fits the agenda at that moment in time. Psychopaths.
Great post as usual Brad!
it means when i worked in KC kids at Turner didn't have enought textbooks for a class set and kids in Olathe had a laptop for each student
Maybe the Turner School District property tax payers should "pay their fair share" like the Olathe taxpayers do. I suppose it should be the Olathe taxpayers' "duty as a citizens" to fund the Turner school district as well as their own. That's fair isn't it?
Call Tree Operator: Lickey, have you heard about the "less than equitable education system" we currently have in place?
Lickey: No, what's that?
Call Tree Operator": Well Lickey, the "less than equitable education system" is where kids in one school district have less amenities than kids in another school district, it's called the "less than equitable education system" and its all the Republicans fault and they are trying to make it worse, trust me
Lickey: My god! What can I do to stop this equitable system of education
Call Tree Operator: No! It's the "less than equitable education system", get it straight, "less than equitable education system", say it with me "less" [...leeesssss] "than" [ ....theennnn] "equitable" [.....equipicle] "education" [. .. ..eduvacation]. . . meh, close enough
Call Tree Opeartor: Now tell everyone, [abruptly hangs up]
Lickey: "less than equitable education system" :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
I wonder if the Republicans have a call tree promoting the "more than equitable education system"?
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7174%2F6452883965_396d4fc4ce.jpg&hash=3fcf5530615b089479f6a9b23412c6176b1728ba)
-
Call Tree Operator: Lickey, have you heard about the "less than equitable education system" we currently have in place?
Lickey: No, what's that?
Call Tree Operator": Well Lickey, the "less than equitable education system" is where kids in one school district have less amenities than kids in another school district, it's called the "less than equitable education system" and its all the Republicans fault and they are trying to make it worse, trust me
Lickey: My god! What can I do to stop this equitable system of education
Call Tree Operator: No! It's the "less than equitable education system", get it straight, "less than equitable education system", say it with me "less" [...leeesssss] "than" [ ....theennnn] "equitable" [.....equipicle] "education" [. .. ..eduvacation]. . . meh, close enough
Call Tree Opeartor: Now tell everyone, [abruptly hangs up]
Lickey: "less than equitable education system" :blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:
I wonder if the Republicans have a call tree promoting the "more than equitable education system"?
This sunovabitch tapped my phone. I'm on to you Pioli.
-
Really though my only point with creating a more leveled educational playing field isn't to deny kids in Olathe opportunities to succeed.
But rather to ensure that all individuals that have the potential to positively impact our state/country/planet have the chance to choose that path.
It is impossible to tell where the next great thinkers will come from. So why limit the pool of canidates?
-
It is impossible to tell where the next great thinkers will come from. So why limit the pool of canidates?
Exactly. That's why I'm pro life. :emawkid:
-
i appreciate the pro-life sentiment.
however i find that the people who are the strongest supporters of making sure kids are born often are the strongest opponents of ensuring the child has a chance when they arrive.
-
i appreciate the pro-life sentiment.
however i find that the people who are the strongest supporters of making sure kids are born often are the strongest opponents of ensuring the child has a chance when they arrive.
Conservatives and liberals define "has a chance" differently. No conservative I know disputes the necessity of some welfare to provide a safety net. The key is to avoid turning this net into a hammock. A hammock can actually harm children. Look at what decades of welfare expansion and victimhood did to the black community (ooh, that's gonna make liberal heads explode!) Thus, there is no hypocrisy in being pro-life and pro-welfare reform. By contrast, there is definitely hypocrisy in favoring unrestricted abortion and then decrying any efforts to reform welfare as "not caring about the children."
-
i was just mocked for stating that we should provide an equitable education to all students.
i do not remember masking for hammocks rather preparing students to not need a hammock
-
i was just mocked for stating that we should provide an equitable education to all students.
i do not remember masking for hammocks rather preparing students to not need a hammock
I disagree that spending more money on education means a better education. Past performance would not seem to support this. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published an interesting paper on this issue (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement) a few years back. The following chart compares total state and federal expenditures, per pupil, adjusted for inflation, against NAEP reading scores:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heritage.org%2Fstatic%2Freportimages%2F796DF8C7C231CFFE366308277E88CF57.gif&hash=0a42bf24c68bde2bc02003dfba3fe7e784e15ba2)
And call me crazy, but I want my property taxes to go to the schools in my community, where I will send my kids to school.
-
is that information adjusted for inflation???
also i am not saying we should just throw money at the problem and i understand your desire to keep your money close to home.
however that does not necessarily generate an equitable education system. I do not believe that education is a welfare program but one that is eesential to a functional first world nation. you have said that you agree that children born in poverty can be the leaders of tomorrow however you do not seem to want to shoulder the soceital burden of preparing them to do so.
It is impossible to tell where the next great thinkers will come from. So why limit the pool of canidates?
Exactly. That's why I'm pro life. :emawkid:
-
I don't mind funding projects that might actually improve education, but it's annoying that every school budget that passes has to be tied to something like a new gym or field turf. GMAFB.
-
I don't mind funding projects that might actually improve education, but it's annoying that every school budget that passes has to be tied to something like a new gym or field turf. GMAFB.
Or new computer labs. And yes, the numbers above are supposedly adjusted for inflation. Curbing education spending (its for the children!) is a political third rail.
-
I don't mind funding projects that might actually improve education, but it's annoying that every school budget that passes has to be tied to something like a new gym or field turf. GMAFB.
Or new computer labs. And yes, the numbers above are supposedly adjusted for inflation. Curbing education spending (its for the children!) is a political third rail.
New computer labs are fine. I don't support "laptop for every student" initiatives, though.