goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2014, 09:08:37 AM
-
The American people gave the GOP another chance last night, in a historic drubbing that will likely net 9 senate seats and 10+ house seats. There can be no question that this wave election was driven in no small part by dissatisfaction with Obama's policies and the perceived state of the economy.
Now the GOP has a choice: This can either be a springboard to a conservative resurgence and retaking the White House in 2016, or it can be just a brief gasp of air before being sucked back down into the GOP's recent whirlpool of mediocrity. It will all come down to how they govern.
Step 1: Immigration. This has to be first, because Obama seems sure to make good on his promise to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegals by year's end, before the GOP Senate is sworn in. It is a bitterly cynical ploy, designed to both shore up Hispanic support and fracture the GOP between tea party and pro-big business elements.
It is no longer enough to criticize the President and threaten unrelated punitive actions, like another budget battle. That is exactly what Obama wants. Instead, the GOP must present an alternative. A unified congress must pass tough but fair comprehensive immigration reform that confers temporary legal status, for a price, but shuts down chain migration and effectively terminates illegal immigration with a combination of enhanced border security, accelerated deportation procedures, and employer verification requirements. The American people will support this , and by lawfully passing such legislation and placing it on the president's desk, any unilateral executive action by Obama will blow up in his face.
Step 2: Pick up "easy wins" along the way. The Republicans need to focus on advancing smaller pieces of legislation that have broad popular support - stuff that will again backfire on Obama if he dares to veto it. Energy policy, such as easing drilling permit restrictions and "greenlighting" the Keystone pipeline, is fertile ground.
Step 3: Put Obamacare back on Obama's desk. It is finally time for a unified GOP to make good on their promise to put "repeal and replace" on Obama's desk. There are already good bills percolating in the House to do just that. Of course, Obama will never sign any such legislation, but it is essential for 2016 that such legislation be presented and that he be forced to veto it.
Step 4: Dismantle Obamacare. Once Obama has vetoed the above, it is time for smaller bills dismantling Obamacare one stinky brick at a time. Start with low hanging fruit like the medical device tax and go from there.
Step 5: Pass a budget that dramatically cuts spending across every agency. This one goes without saying. It is exciting to think that, at long last, a unified GOP congress is finally in a position to move towards a balanced budget.
Follow these 5 steps and you can say hello to President Walker/Cruz in 2016. Fail and it's hello Hillary.
-
1. Your immigration policy would absolutely wreck the economy and ensure the GOP loses in 2 years. Best case for the republicans is to pass a law like that that gets vetoed.
2. Agree
3. Yep
4. waste of time, probably would do more harm than good
5. Sequestration is already cutting funding across every agency.
-
answer to thread question- sit on my thumb.
-
Reign in or completely expel the idiot barkers like Huels'ey. There is no need for those guys anymore with control of both houses and they don't add to the needed productivity. The party absolutely has to regain itself from the sensationalists and extremists. Cons are the party of business. Get back to business and quit messing with wedge issues, the agenda of the religious extreme, and gotcha bullshit. Get back to dollars and sense(see what I did there?).
No way 'pubs get the white house if they keep up their crazy. Actual change, leadership, and logical action is needed. Put up or shut up.
-
Pretty much nothing will change
-
well, yeah. This thread is about what we want to happen, though.
-
The American people gave the GOP another chance last night, in a historic drubbing that will likely net 9 senate seats and 10+ house seats. There can be no question that this wave election was driven in no small part by dissatisfaction with Obama's policies and the perceived state of the economy.
Now the GOP has a choice: This can either be a springboard to a conservative resurgence and retaking the White House in 2016, or it can be just a brief gasp of air before being sucked back down into the GOP's recent whirlpool of mediocrity. It will all come down to how they govern.
Step 1: Immigration. This has to be first, because Obama seems sure to make good on his promise to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegals by year's end, before the GOP Senate is sworn in. It is a bitterly cynical ploy, designed to both shore up Hispanic support and fracture the GOP between tea party and pro-big business elements.
It is no longer enough to criticize the President and threaten unrelated punitive actions, like another budget battle. That is exactly what Obama wants. Instead, the GOP must present an alternative. A unified congress must pass tough but fair comprehensive immigration reform that confers temporary legal status, for a price, but shuts down chain migration and effectively terminates illegal immigration with a combination of enhanced border security, accelerated deportation procedures, and employer verification requirements. The American people will support this , and by lawfully passing such legislation and placing it on the president's desk, any unilateral executive action by Obama will blow up in his face.
Step 2: Pick up "easy wins" along the way. The Republicans need to focus on advancing smaller pieces of legislation that have broad popular support - stuff that will again backfire on Obama if he dares to veto it. Energy policy, such as easing drilling permit restrictions and "greenlighting" the Keystone pipeline, is fertile ground.
Step 3: Put Obamacare back on Obama's desk. It is finally time for a unified GOP to make good on their promise to put "repeal and replace" on Obama's desk. There are already good bills percolating in the House to do just that. Of course, Obama will never sign any such legislation, but it is essential for 2016 that such legislation be presented and that he be forced to veto it.
Step 4: Dismantle Obamacare. Once Obama has vetoed the above, it is time for smaller bills dismantling Obamacare one stinky brick at a time. Start with low hanging fruit like the medical device tax and go from there.
Step 5: Pass a budget that dramatically cuts spending across every agency. This one goes without saying. It is exciting to think that, at long last, a unified GOP congress is finally in a position to move towards a balanced budget.
Follow these 5 steps and you can say hello to President Walker/Cruz in 2016. Fail and it's hello Hillary.
Do you know how checks and balances work? Someone give this dude a copy of schoolhouse rock or an elementary school social studies book.
Before the republicans worry about this stuff I'd suggest addressing the factions in the party, the true reason why this current congress will go down in history as the least productive ever. I mean we can pretend that it was the Senate hampering the legislative process but we all know that isn't true.
There is no way in hell a Walker/Cruz ticket would happen. The tea partiers got their asses kicked in the '12 primary. I know extremists like you don't get this concept but independents and moderate conservatives can't stand Ted Cruz. BTW he pretty much said last night on CNN that he is going to take on Mitch McConnell, that is going to be hilarious. These selfish tea partiers can't help themselves, going after party leaders on what should have been a night of celebration.
-
Walker/Cruz LOL
-
Obama needs to take a page from the book of the most popular president of our time, Bill Clinton, and declare the end of big government. Sign the balanced budgets that are put forth by congress and watch prosperity reign (this is what we want to happen, not what will).
-
Obama needs to take a page from the book of the most popular president of our time, Bill Clinton, and declare the end of big government. Sign the balanced budgets that are put forth by congress and watch prosperity reign (this is what we want to happen, not what will).
Love the revisionist history here.
-
In the face of a monumental beatdown, dems still think they know what people want. Fascinating.
The only people that don't seem to understand (more like don't care) checks and balances are the current administration, which will go down in history as the most abusive, reckless and least productive in the modern era. Choke on it.
-
MIDTERMS 2014 - DEMOCRATS WORST LOSS SINCE GETTYSBURG
-
Do you know how checks and balances work? Someone give this dude a copy of schoolhouse rock or an elementary school social studies book.
Yes, which is why I said that Obama will likely be required to finally veto some legislation. That's Ok, as long as it is good legislation that sets up a good debate for 2016.
Before the republicans worry about this stuff I'd suggest addressing the factions in the party, the true reason why this current congress will go down in history as the least productive ever. I mean we can pretend that it was the Senate hampering the legislative process but we all know that isn't true.
You may "know" that to be true, but you're wrong. Laughably wrong, but I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
As for factions within the party, the GOP united to deliver these midterm results. It is possible the party will splinter again over immigration (that's what Obama is counting on) - which is exactly why I noted my concern above.
Let the butthurt flow through you, MIR.
-
Obama needs to take a page from the book of the most popular president of our time, Bill Clinton, and declare the end of big government. Sign the balanced budgets that are put forth by congress and watch prosperity reign (this is what we want to happen, not what will).
Love the revisionist history here.
Which part isn't true?
-
Obama needs to take a page from the book of the most popular president of our time, Bill Clinton, and declare the end of big government. Sign the balanced budgets that are put forth by congress and watch prosperity reign (this is what we want to happen, not what will).
Love the revisionist history here.
Which part isn't true?
That Bill Clinton was beloved. Nothing is funnier than the "if Obama was more like Clinton narrative."
-
Do you know how checks and balances work? Someone give this dude a copy of schoolhouse rock or an elementary school social studies book.
Yes, which is why I said that Obama will likely be required to finally veto some legislation. That's Ok, as long as it is good legislation that sets up a good debate for 2016.
Before the republicans worry about this stuff I'd suggest addressing the factions in the party, the true reason why this current congress will go down in history as the least productive ever. I mean we can pretend that it was the Senate hampering the legislative process but we all know that isn't true.
You may "know" that to be true, but you're wrong. Laughably wrong, but I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
As for factions within the party, the GOP united to deliver these midterm results. It is possible the party will splinter again over immigration (that's what Obama is counting on) - which is exactly why I noted my concern above.
Let the butthurt flow through you, MIR.
That immigration debate goes to why these midterms don't matter. This election does nothing to fix the two biggest reasons why the Republicans weren't able to defeat such an apparently so unpopular president.
-A fascination with social issues that don't speak to the general electorate. Namely immigration and Obamacare. Ted Cruz last night said that he wants to force Obama to veto a repeal of Obamacare and Obamacare previsions.
-A problem with demographics. Bottom line is that the numbers still aren't there in a national election and not compromising on immigration will not help that. If the republicans insist on pushing immigration, they are going to have to allow amnesty.
-
Obama needs to take a page from the book of the most popular president of our time, Bill Clinton, and declare the end of big government. Sign the balanced budgets that are put forth by congress and watch prosperity reign (this is what we want to happen, not what will).
Love the revisionist history here.
Which part isn't true?
That Bill Clinton was beloved. Nothing is funnier than the "if Obama was more like Clinton narrative."
In hindsight, Clinton is much more popular now than while in office, even to conservatives. This won't be the case with Obama. Clinton, with all of his terrible flaws, was a pragmatist.
-
Do you know how checks and balances work? Someone give this dude a copy of schoolhouse rock or an elementary school social studies book.
Yes, which is why I said that Obama will likely be required to finally veto some legislation. That's Ok, as long as it is good legislation that sets up a good debate for 2016.
Before the republicans worry about this stuff I'd suggest addressing the factions in the party, the true reason why this current congress will go down in history as the least productive ever. I mean we can pretend that it was the Senate hampering the legislative process but we all know that isn't true.
You may "know" that to be true, but you're wrong. Laughably wrong, but I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
As for factions within the party, the GOP united to deliver these midterm results. It is possible the party will splinter again over immigration (that's what Obama is counting on) - which is exactly why I noted my concern above.
Let the butthurt flow through you, MIR.
That immigration debate goes to why these midterms don't matter. This election does nothing to fix the two biggest reasons why the Republicans weren't able to defeat such an apparently so unpopular president.
-A fascination with social issues that don't speak to the general electorate. Namely immigration and Obamacare. Ted Cruz last night said that he wants to force Obama to veto a repeal of Obamacare and Obamacare previsions.
-A problem with demographics. Bottom line is that the numbers still aren't there in a national election and not compromising on immigration will not help that. If the republicans insist on pushing immigration, they are going to have to allow amnesty.
Once again, your analysis is devoid of facts. Libtard turnout was less in 2012 than 2008. Romney carried self-described "independents." He lost because millions of social conservatives stayed home. So it's kind of like what you said - only exactly backwards, which unfortunately refutes any point you were trying to make.
-
Do you know how checks and balances work? Someone give this dude a copy of schoolhouse rock or an elementary school social studies book.
Yes, which is why I said that Obama will likely be required to finally veto some legislation. That's Ok, as long as it is good legislation that sets up a good debate for 2016.
Before the republicans worry about this stuff I'd suggest addressing the factions in the party, the true reason why this current congress will go down in history as the least productive ever. I mean we can pretend that it was the Senate hampering the legislative process but we all know that isn't true.
You may "know" that to be true, but you're wrong. Laughably wrong, but I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
As for factions within the party, the GOP united to deliver these midterm results. It is possible the party will splinter again over immigration (that's what Obama is counting on) - which is exactly why I noted my concern above.
Let the butthurt flow through you, MIR.
That immigration debate goes to why these midterms don't matter. This election does nothing to fix the two biggest reasons why the Republicans weren't able to defeat such an apparently so unpopular president.
-A fascination with social issues that don't speak to the general electorate. Namely immigration and Obamacare. Ted Cruz last night said that he wants to force Obama to veto a repeal of Obamacare and Obamacare previsions.
-A problem with demographics. Bottom line is that the numbers still aren't there in a national election and not compromising on immigration will not help that. If the republicans insist on pushing immigration, they are going to have to allow amnesty.
Once again, your analysis is devoid of facts. Libtard turnout was less in 2012 than 2008. Romney carried self-described "independents." He lost because millions of social conservatives stayed home. So it's kind of like what you said - only exactly backwards, which unfortunately refutes any point you were trying to make.
Wait. You're refuting that the Republican party has a problem with demographics? Either you're a rough ridin' moron, illiterate, or a pathological liar. I'm going to go with all four. crap man I heard 3 different republicans on two different networks discussing the demographic problem last night.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/22/the-republican-demographic-problem-is-just-going-to-keep-getting-worse/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118076/brookings-survey-republican-fear-changing-demographics-immigration
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/11/do_demographics_really_work_against_the_gop_121538.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/05/14/heres-where-republicans-are-winning-with-hispanics-2/
http://news.yahoo.com/predict-presidential-elections-by-demographic-interactive-widget-225441066.html
If you want more links I have plenty, I know that pinko dimlib rag, Forbes, can't be trusted.
I look forward to seeing what stupidity you reply with given your inability to shut the eff up even after playing the fool.
-
Republicans have the most power they've had since the 20's, but demographics
-
Republicans carried 64% of the college educated minority vote. Let that sink in.
-
That immigration debate goes to why these midterms don't matter. This election does nothing to fix the two biggest reasons why the Republicans weren't able to defeat such an apparently so unpopular president.
-A fascination with social issues that don't speak to the general electorate. Namely immigration and Obamacare. Ted Cruz last night said that he wants to force Obama to veto a repeal of Obamacare and Obamacare previsions.
-A problem with demographics. Bottom line is that the numbers still aren't there in a national election and not compromising on immigration will not help that. If the republicans insist on pushing immigration, they are going to have to allow amnesty.
Once again, your analysis is devoid of facts. Libtard turnout was less in 2012 than 2008. Romney carried self-described "independents." He lost because millions of social conservatives stayed home. So it's kind of like what you said - only exactly backwards, which unfortunately refutes any point you were trying to make.
Wait. You're refuting that the Republican party has a problem with demographics? Either you're a rough ridin' moron, illiterate, or a pathological liar. I'm going to go with all four. crap man I heard 3 different republicans on two different networks discussing the demographic problem last night.
I'm going to need a ruling here from the board - did I say anything about demographics in my post above? I was only addressing your idiotic first point about how an emphasis on social issues has lost the electorate - just the opposite is true.
As for changing demographics, the issue isn't so much a matter of race as it is poverty. I don't deny that if we continue to import poverty into this country at record levels, that's going to hurt the Republicans in the long term. Of course, a greater emphasis on social issues (your first foolish point) will actually help the Republicans connect with black and hispanic voters, but we also need to clamp down on illegal immigration.
-
Republicans carried 64% of the college educated minority vote. Let that sink in.
link plz
-
I would have voted republican this election if we had any incumbent democrats.
-
That immigration debate goes to why these midterms don't matter. This election does nothing to fix the two biggest reasons why the Republicans weren't able to defeat such an apparently so unpopular president.
-A fascination with social issues that don't speak to the general electorate. Namely immigration and Obamacare. Ted Cruz last night said that he wants to force Obama to veto a repeal of Obamacare and Obamacare previsions.
-A problem with demographics. Bottom line is that the numbers still aren't there in a national election and not compromising on immigration will not help that. If the republicans insist on pushing immigration, they are going to have to allow amnesty.
Once again, your analysis is devoid of facts. Libtard turnout was less in 2012 than 2008. Romney carried self-described "independents." He lost because millions of social conservatives stayed home. So it's kind of like what you said - only exactly backwards, which unfortunately refutes any point you were trying to make.
Wait. You're refuting that the Republican party has a problem with demographics? Either you're a rough ridin' moron, illiterate, or a pathological liar. I'm going to go with all four. crap man I heard 3 different republicans on two different networks discussing the demographic problem last night.
I'm going to need a ruling here from the board - did I say anything about demographics in my post above? I was only addressing your idiotic first point about how an emphasis on social issues has lost the electorate - just the opposite is true.
As for changing demographics, the issue isn't so much a matter of race as it is poverty. I don't deny that if we continue to import poverty into this country at record levels, that's going to hurt the Republicans in the long term. Of course, a greater emphasis on social issues (your first foolish point) will actually help the Republicans connect with black and hispanic voters, but we also need to clamp down on illegal immigration.
You could argue that discussing "libtard turnout" is a demographics discussion, but if you don't consider it a demographics topic you really didn't refute anything he said, either.
-
Republicans carried 64% of the college educated minority vote. Let that sink in.
link plz
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29908199
64% Non-white college graduates supported the Republicans
-
#demo[crat]graphicproblems
The problem here is that the libtards are watching too much MSNBC
-
Republicans carried 64% of the college educated minority vote. Let that sink in.
link plz
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29908199
64% Non-white college graduates supported the Republicans
Hmm, this says they went 70% Democrat:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2014/exit-polls
:dunno:
-
Gosh maybe some legislation will actually make through to President. After spending years locked up by Harry Reid who likely and should go down as the worst Senate Majority Leader in modern U.S. history.
Maybe even a . . . budget? :crossfingers:
-
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a budget. It will probs be titled The President Obama Hates America and Wants To Eat Your Children To Honor His True Satantic Worshiping Kenyan Self Budget For America.
It will probably be a good budget, too.
-
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a budget. It will probs be titled The President Obama Hates America and Wants To Eat Your Children To Honor His True Satantic Worshiping Kenyan Self Budget For America.
It will probably be a good budget, too.
Insert the word "Omnibus" at the front (they really like to use that word) and you're probably dead on.
-
Republicans carried 64% of the college educated minority vote. Let that sink in.
link plz
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29908199
64% Non-white college graduates supported the Republicans
Hmm, this says they went 70% Democrat:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2014/exit-polls
:dunno:
Well this is awkward.
-
That link's really interesting because you can break it down by state election.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2014/exit-polls?year=2014&type=governor&filter=KS
White evangelical or white born-again Christians went 70% for Brownback, everyone else went 58% for Davis. Yikes.
-
Is it weird for you to cite Fox News?
-
Is it weird for you to cite Fox News?
No, this actually matches an NBC poll, but I figured fox news would be less likely to be questioned here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/US/house/exitpoll
-
:lol: cRusty
I mean L O L
-
Ha, that's why I picked the BBC page. :)
The one thing I don't see in any of this stuff is breakdown by median income. Like what are the percentages D/R below median income, and percentages above? That'd be more interesting to me than race or education.
-
Ha, that's why I picked the BBC page. :)
The one thing I don't see in any of this stuff is breakdown by median income. Like what are the percentages D/R below median income, and percentages above? That'd be more interesting to me than race or education.
ctrl+f income? I mean it's not median but it's there.
-
Ha, that's why I picked the BBC page. :)
The one thing I don't see in any of this stuff is breakdown by median income. Like what are the percentages D/R below median income, and percentages above? That'd be more interesting to me than race or education.
ctrl+f income? I mean it's not median but it's there.
What's there isn't interesting to me, hence my post.
-
Ha, that's why I picked the BBC page. :)
The one thing I don't see in any of this stuff is breakdown by median income. Like what are the percentages D/R below median income, and percentages above? That'd be more interesting to me than race or education.
ctrl+f income? I mean it's not median but it's there.
What's there isn't interesting to me, hence my post.
Median household income in Kansas is about $51,000. Davis got 47% of the vote from both people above and below median income.
-
Ha, that's why I picked the BBC page. :)
The one thing I don't see in any of this stuff is breakdown by median income. Like what are the percentages D/R below median income, and percentages above? That'd be more interesting to me than race or education.
ctrl+f income? I mean it's not median but it's there.
What's there isn't interesting to me, hence my post.
Median household income in Kansas is about $51,000.
yeah, the poll only asked if you made more or less than 50k, therefore not interesting to emo.
-
A single dude making $60k is different to me than a couple making $60k.
-
A single dude making $60k is different to me than a couple making $60k.
I would imagine single dudes in Kansas influenced the vote just about as much as anyone who isn't white did.
-
I'm not interested in just KS. Also not very good at getting my point across apparently.
-
the US median income is also $51k
-
The thing that stands out to me is that Brownback carried uber-moderate Johnson County. I can only think of one - possibly two - reasons. First, a lot of people in JoCo have really benefited from the income tax cuts, especially the "small business" tax cuts, enough so that they opted to keep more money in their pockets rather than vote for a more ideologically-aligned social liberal.
Second, and this one's more of a reach, I think a lot of JoCo'rs resent all the bullshit talk about school funding, since JoCo taxpayers are essentially subsidizing schools in western Kanss that are completely inefficient and need to be consolidated.
-
Second, and this one's more of a reach, I think a lot of JoCo'rs resent all the bullshit talk about school funding, since JoCo taxpayers are essentially subsidizing schools in western Kanss that are completely inefficient and need to be consolidated.
I think it's a huge reach and not very true.
-
uber-moderate
-
To answer the OP nothing will change. It doesn't matter. Nothing ever changes. Nothing will ever change. Let that sink in all you stupid idiots in this thread.
-
now what?
Now, Mr. k-s-u, everything changes. Your man is in. Get ready for the mother rough ridin' change.
-
To answer the OP nothing will change. It doesn't matter. Nothing ever changes. Nothing will ever change. Let that sink in all you stupid idiots in this thread.
Well, we already know that a few things are going to change. The Senate Majority Leader is going to change and, with it, the rules by which the Senate operates. McConnell has already confirmed that the Senate will now return to a 40-hour work week (the Senate did not work on Fridays under Reid - hey what a cool boss!), and floor debate and the amendment process will be restored - things that Reid stifled in an effort to squelch dissent and protect the President and fellow Dems from making difficult votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/politics/victory-assured-gop-to-act-fast-in-promoting-agenda-in-congress.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/politics/victory-assured-gop-to-act-fast-in-promoting-agenda-in-congress.html?_r=0)
The GOP's agenda seems promising, except for one major shortfall. According to the NYT, it appears that they are going to take a wait and see approach to immigration, which I think is a serious mistake as explained above.
-
JoCo taxpayers are essentially subsidizing schools in western Kanss that are completely inefficient and need to be consolidated.
Another rough ridin' lie :nono:
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
-
JoCo taxpayers are essentially subsidizing schools in western Kanss that are completely inefficient and need to be consolidated.
Another rough ridin' lie :nono:
MIR, you keep calling me a liar, and then when I explain that it is in fact you who are incorrect, you just run back into the shadows, waiting to toss another grenade. How 'bout you get back to me on that whole "lie" about how the polls in many races were skewed heavily Democrat this year?
-
To answer the OP nothing will change. It doesn't matter. Nothing ever changes. Nothing will ever change. Let that sink in all you stupid idiots in this thread.
Well, we already know that a few things are going to change. The Senate Majority Leader is going to change and, with it, the rules by which the Senate operates. McConnell has already confirmed that the Senate will now return to a 40-hour work week (the Senate did not work on Fridays under Reid - hey what a cool boss!), and floor debate and the amendment process will be restored - things that Reid stifled in an effort to squelch dissent and protect the President and fellow Dems from making difficult votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/politics/victory-assured-gop-to-act-fast-in-promoting-agenda-in-congress.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/us/politics/victory-assured-gop-to-act-fast-in-promoting-agenda-in-congress.html?_r=0)
The GOP's agenda seems promising, except for one major shortfall. According to the NYT, it appears that they are going to take a wait and see approach to immigration, which I think is a serious mistake as explained above.
Why do you do this to yourself?
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated. But yes, I'm not aware of any Republican that dares to actually touch that third rail. In fact, Brownback accused Davis of supporting consolidation - which would be a good thing - but Davis denied it.
I wasn't arguing that JoCo voted for Brownback because he or other republicans were pushing for consolidation - I just think it's possible that the "he slashed eduction spending" bullshit may have pissed some JoCo'rs off who are tired of subsidizing schools in western Kansas.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
-
If the schools play anything less than 11man football, consolidate.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated. But yes, I'm not aware of any Republican that dares to actually touch that third rail. In fact, Brownback accused Davis of supporting consolidation - which would be a good thing - but Davis denied it.
I wasn't arguing that JoCo voted for Brownback because he or other republicans were pushing for consolidation - I just think it's possible that the "he slashed eduction spending" bullshit may have pissed some JoCo'rs off who are tired of subsidizing schools in western Kansas.
Do you have any numbers to back up this talk about Johnson County subsidizing western Kansas schools? I would assume that state dollars are distributed on a per pupil basis, which would make you completely full of crap, but you have me curious as to whether that assumption is wrong now.
-
The republicans goal should be to be productive. If they do that, they will be in good shape. They won the election by going to the center on social issues but staying fiscally conservative. I think they can win most elections, including the presidency, if they stay that way. The problem will be keeping the religious right from pushing their social issues too far right in the presidential primary.
-
Who cares about who wins a rough ridin' election? Policy/structure needs to change drastically before anyone should care.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated.
That isn't what the lie was but I'm sure you know that.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated. But yes, I'm not aware of any Republican that dares to actually touch that third rail. In fact, Brownback accused Davis of supporting consolidation - which would be a good thing - but Davis denied it.
I wasn't arguing that JoCo voted for Brownback because he or other republicans were pushing for consolidation - I just think it's possible that the "he slashed eduction spending" bullshit may have pissed some JoCo'rs off who are tired of subsidizing schools in western Kansas.
Do you have any numbers to back up this talk about Johnson County subsidizing western Kansas schools? I would assume that state dollars are distributed on a per pupil basis, which would make you completely full of crap, but you have me curious as to whether that assumption is wrong now.
He knows this, he isn't full of crap, he lies because he thinks we are all morons.
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
It is the absolute worst things about politics, idiots cheer for this stuff like they are sports.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
Yep. Exactly what is ruining everything.
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
It is the absolute worst things about politics, idiots cheer for this stuff like they are sports.
It's like a defense mechanism so their simpleton brain doesn't have to wrap itself around any ambiguity.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
I think you are conflating small schools with schools that need consolidation. If schools are independently doing well they should be left alone. IMO the only two of those parings that are legit candidates for consolidation are Caldwell/South Haven and potentially Pratt and Skyline but I'm not intimately familiar with the performance and economics of those districts to be sure.
Garden City swallowed up some schools to the west many years ago, I have friends that had a 30+ minute rural commute to school, that should be avoided.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
While I fully agree that schools should consolidate; small towns would shrivel up even more. My high school in NYS is facing consolidation, it is problematic across the country. There are things that could probably be done to consolidate that would not involve closing schools though. Allow some distance learning for Sr/AP level courses so rural students aren't so limited in their choices. This would allow for less staff for some schools (ex. students from western KS distance learn from Dodge or Garden schools). Consolidate management and district officials. Consolidate sports teams, more kids = (typically) more competitive teams. -Less overall overhead and probably more options. Yes, some towns would lose their Friday night lights, but k-6 kids wouldn't be on buses for 2+ hours/day.
This is pretty common in NYS- kids from my school could play hockey at a school 30 or so minutes away, kids from a school 15 minutes away could swim on our swim team or play on our football team.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated. But yes, I'm not aware of any Republican that dares to actually touch that third rail. In fact, Brownback accused Davis of supporting consolidation - which would be a good thing - but Davis denied it.
I wasn't arguing that JoCo voted for Brownback because he or other republicans were pushing for consolidation - I just think it's possible that the "he slashed eduction spending" bullshit may have pissed some JoCo'rs off who are tired of subsidizing schools in western Kansas.
Do you have any numbers to back up this talk about Johnson County subsidizing western Kansas schools? I would assume that state dollars are distributed on a per pupil basis, which would make you completely full of crap, but you have me curious as to whether that assumption is wrong now.
No, you are thinking of just the "state base aid per pupil" - but that is only part of the overall school funding formula. Western Kansas schools end up receiving more money per pupil because they are smaller, less efficient, and therefore pay more money for facilities, administration, and other bloat per pupil than bigger schools.
This brief explanation of the recent Gannon ruling on equitable funding provides a simplified explanation...
The equity part references the ability for every public school district in Kansas to receive the median level of funding for capital outlay and local option budget, basically buildings, maintenance, and staff. Each District is allowed to raise money locally (through property taxes) to fund these areas, but the school finance formula acknowledges that some Districts have wealthier populations than others, and some districts cannot cover certain costs. One example cited is the greater transportation requirements of Districts in Western Kansas. The State covered the difference between "rich" Districts and "poor" Districts, until 2010, when they stopped paying.
The Court's decision requires the State to cover the equalization, and to restart payments. They have given the State until July 1, 2014 to comply, or the Court will take other measures to see the matter settled.
As you can imagine, some Districts will receive a lot of money from this settling of debts, while others will receive little. One estimated breakdown for Johnson County suggested that the wealthiest Districts, Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley, would get almost no money ($64,000 in supplemental aid for BV, $0 for SM), while the most in need, KCK and Olathe, could get $8-10 million each.
http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained (http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained)
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
I think you are conflating small schools with schools that need consolidation. If schools are independently doing well they should be left alone. IMO the only two of those parings that are legit candidates for consolidation are Caldwell/South Haven and potentially Pratt and Skyline but I'm not intimately familiar with the performance and economics of those districts to be sure.
Garden City swallowed up some schools to the west many years ago, I have friends that had a 30+ minute rural commute to school, that should be avoided.
Kids in the Kingman, Chaparral, and Pratt districts already have 30 minute commutes to school.
That said, all those towns I mentioned have their own DISTRICTS. Even if you don't consolidate the actual high schools, it is absolutely absurd for places like Attica and Argonia to have their own administration all the way up to superintendent when it could be run much more efficently under one umbrella.
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
While I fully agree that schools should consolidate; small towns would shrivel up even more. My high school in NYS is facing consolidation, it is problematic across the country. There are things that could probably be done to consolidate that would not involve closing schools though. Allow some distance learning for Sr/AP level courses so rural students aren't so limited in their choices. This would allow for less staff for some schools (ex. students from western KS distance learn from Dodge or Garden schools). Consolidate management and district officials. Consolidate sports teams, more kids = (typically) more competitive teams. -Less overall overhead and probably more options. Yes, some towns would lose their Friday night lights, but k-6 kids wouldn't be on buses for 2+ hours/day.
This is pretty common in NYS- kids from my school could play hockey at a school 30 or so minutes away, kids from a school 15 minutes away could swim on our swim team or play on our football team.
If the only thing keeping a shitty small town from shriveling is a high school it should probably go ahead and shrivel up (as long as the education of the kids improves.)
-
Troy Kansas' town motto is "one school, one town" because they don't want to consolidate and they are racist.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
First, MIR would call you "a rough ridin' liar" for saying that schools need to be consoldiated. But yes, I'm not aware of any Republican that dares to actually touch that third rail. In fact, Brownback accused Davis of supporting consolidation - which would be a good thing - but Davis denied it.
I wasn't arguing that JoCo voted for Brownback because he or other republicans were pushing for consolidation - I just think it's possible that the "he slashed eduction spending" bullshit may have pissed some JoCo'rs off who are tired of subsidizing schools in western Kansas.
Do you have any numbers to back up this talk about Johnson County subsidizing western Kansas schools? I would assume that state dollars are distributed on a per pupil basis, which would make you completely full of crap, but you have me curious as to whether that assumption is wrong now.
No, you are thinking of just the "state base aid per pupil" - but that is only part of the overall school funding formula. Western Kansas schools end up receiving more money per pupil because they are smaller, less efficient, and therefore pay more money for facilities, administration, and other bloat per pupil than bigger schools.
This brief explanation of the recent Gannon ruling on equitable funding provides a simplified explanation...
The equity part references the ability for every public school district in Kansas to receive the median level of funding for capital outlay and local option budget, basically buildings, maintenance, and staff. Each District is allowed to raise money locally (through property taxes) to fund these areas, but the school finance formula acknowledges that some Districts have wealthier populations than others, and some districts cannot cover certain costs. One example cited is the greater transportation requirements of Districts in Western Kansas. The State covered the difference between "rich" Districts and "poor" Districts, until 2010, when they stopped paying.
The Court's decision requires the State to cover the equalization, and to restart payments. They have given the State until July 1, 2014 to comply, or the Court will take other measures to see the matter settled.
As you can imagine, some Districts will receive a lot of money from this settling of debts, while others will receive little. One estimated breakdown for Johnson County suggested that the wealthiest Districts, Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley, would get almost no money ($64,000 in supplemental aid for BV, $0 for SM), while the most in need, KCK and Olathe, could get $8-10 million each.
http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained (http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained)
Maybe you aren't lying in this case and is just dumb. This isn't an issue of JOCO communities funding Western Kansas schools. It's an issue of bigger Kansas communities not getting the funding they think they deserve because the money is going to smaller schools all over the state including NE KS. I'm pretty sure, could be wrong though, that the first lawsuit involving cities suing the state about this were the communities of Garden City, Dodge City, Hutchinson, and Derby suing the state about this very issue. I know the Garden City and Wichita districts have sued the state several times. This isn't a JOCO versus all of Western Kansas issue.
-
The equity part references the ability for every public school district in Kansas to receive the median level of funding for capital outlay and local option budget, basically buildings, maintenance, and staff. Each District is allowed to raise money locally (through property taxes) to fund these areas, but the school finance formula acknowledges that some Districts have wealthier populations than others, and some districts cannot cover certain costs. One example cited is the greater transportation requirements of Districts in Western Kansas. The State covered the difference between "rich" Districts and "poor" Districts, until 2010, when they stopped paying.
The Court's decision requires the State to cover the equalization, and to restart payments. They have given the State until July 1, 2014 to comply, or the Court will take other measures to see the matter settled.
As you can imagine, some Districts will receive a lot of money from this settling of debts, while others will receive little. One estimated breakdown for Johnson County suggested that the wealthiest Districts, Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley, would get almost no money ($64,000 in supplemental aid for BV, $0 for SM), while the most in need, KCK and Olathe, could get $8-10 million each.
http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained (http://www.mainstreamcoalition.org/gannon_explained)
See, the problem is that you need a map. KCK and Olathe are in northeast Kansas, not very far from Johnson County.
:D
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
I think you are conflating small schools with schools that need consolidation. If schools are independently doing well they should be left alone. IMO the only two of those parings that are legit candidates for consolidation are Caldwell/South Haven and potentially Pratt and Skyline but I'm not intimately familiar with the performance and economics of those districts to be sure.
Garden City swallowed up some schools to the west many years ago, I have friends that had a 30+ minute rural commute to school, that should be avoided.
Kids in the Kingman, Chaparral, and Pratt districts already have 30 minute commutes to school.
That said, all those towns I mentioned have their own DISTRICTS. Even if you don't consolidate the actual high schools, it is absolutely absurd for places like Attica and Argonia to have their own administration all the way up to superintendent when it could be run much more efficently under one umbrella.
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
While I fully agree that schools should consolidate; small towns would shrivel up even more. My high school in NYS is facing consolidation, it is problematic across the country. There are things that could probably be done to consolidate that would not involve closing schools though. Allow some distance learning for Sr/AP level courses so rural students aren't so limited in their choices. This would allow for less staff for some schools (ex. students from western KS distance learn from Dodge or Garden schools). Consolidate management and district officials. Consolidate sports teams, more kids = (typically) more competitive teams. -Less overall overhead and probably more options. Yes, some towns would lose their Friday night lights, but k-6 kids wouldn't be on buses for 2+ hours/day.
This is pretty common in NYS- kids from my school could play hockey at a school 30 or so minutes away, kids from a school 15 minutes away could swim on our swim team or play on our football team.
If the only thing keeping a shitty small town from shriveling is a high school it should probably go ahead and shrivel up (as long as the education of the kids improves.)
I don't disagree with your first point, the only place I will depart is that the administrators losing their jobs isn't the big deal with consolidation, they have pretty good benefits packages and in most cases likely close to retirement anyway. The big deal is all of the teachers, and support staff who would lose their jobs. Your second point I vehemently disagree with. I think you are being cavalier with too many peoples way of life. What the hell are some of those people going to do with their lives and to earn a living? I don't think we should let urban neighborhoods and schools die and the same should apply to struggling rural communities and schools.
-
Kids in the Kingman, Chaparral, and Pratt districts already have 30 minute commutes to school.
That said, all those towns I mentioned have their own DISTRICTS. Even if you don't consolidate the actual high schools, it is absolutely absurd for places like Attica and Argonia to have their own administration all the way up to superintendent when it could be run much more efficently under one umbrella.
The problem with having one district without consolidated high schools is that the community with the most voters tends to have no problems passing bonds, while the community with less voters tends to never get bonds passed.
-
See, the problem is that you need a map. KCK and Olathe are in northeast Kansas, not very far from Johnson County.
:D
I live in JoCo, so I'm pretty well aware of its geography, thanks. :gocho: Olathe isn't just close to JoCo - it's in JoCo. But funding is allocated by district, not county, and JoCo has better district than others. Olathe is, I think, the shittiest in JoCo (could be wrong about that, but I think I'm right).
-
Well, frankly, I'm fed up with my tax dollars going to those Johnson County schools.
-
Maybe you aren't lying in this case and is just dumb. This isn't an issue of JOCO communities funding Western Kansas schools. It's an issue of bigger Kansas communities not getting the funding they think they deserve because the money is going to smaller schools all over the state including NE KS. I'm pretty sure, could be wrong though, that the first lawsuit involving cities suing the state about this were the communities of Garden City, Dodge City, Hutchinson, and Derby suing the state about this very issue. I know the Garden City and Wichita districts have sued the state several times. This isn't a JOCO versus all of Western Kansas issue.
:lol: Ok... so turns out I'm not lying. As long as we've got that straight, and as long as you acknowledge that tax dollars are being redistributed from wealthier taxpayers in JoCo to support poorer schools in western Kansas - you agree with this, correct? - then you can go off on whatever socialist rant you want.
BTW, I looked up the numbers, and for fiscal year 2014, all JoCo districts received an average of $12,183.17 per pupil. Just taking the average spending of one shitty western county as an example - let's go with Gove County - the three district there received $17,223.33 per pupil. Why the hell does Gove County even have 3 school districts?!
-
Maybe you aren't lying in this case and is just dumb. This isn't an issue of JOCO communities funding Western Kansas schools. It's an issue of bigger Kansas communities not getting the funding they think they deserve because the money is going to smaller schools all over the state including NE KS. I'm pretty sure, could be wrong though, that the first lawsuit involving cities suing the state about this were the communities of Garden City, Dodge City, Hutchinson, and Derby suing the state about this very issue. I know the Garden City and Wichita districts have sued the state several times. This isn't a JOCO versus all of Western Kansas issue.
:lol: Ok... so turns out I'm not lying. As long as we've got that straight, and as long as you acknowledge that tax dollars are being redistributed from wealthier taxpayers in JoCo to support poorer schools in western Kansas - you agree with this, correct? - then you can go off on whatever socialist rant you want.
BTW, I looked up the numbers, and for fiscal year 2014, all JoCo districts received an average of $12,183.17 per pupil. Just taking the average spending of one shitty western county as an example - loet's go with Gove County - the three district there received $17,223.33 per pupil. Why the hell does Gove County even have 3 school districts?!
And it's all paid for by Johnson County. No wonder they are fed up. Why don't those other counties start paying taxes, too?
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
While I fully agree that schools should consolidate; small towns would shrivel up even more. My high school in NYS is facing consolidation, it is problematic across the country. There are things that could probably be done to consolidate that would not involve closing schools though. Allow some distance learning for Sr/AP level courses so rural students aren't so limited in their choices. This would allow for less staff for some schools (ex. students from western KS distance learn from Dodge or Garden schools). Consolidate management and district officials. Consolidate sports teams, more kids = (typically) more competitive teams. -Less overall overhead and probably more options. Yes, some towns would lose their Friday night lights, but k-6 kids wouldn't be on buses for 2+ hours/day.
This is pretty common in NYS- kids from my school could play hockey at a school 30 or so minutes away, kids from a school 15 minutes away could swim on our swim team or play on our football team.
If the only thing keeping a shitty small town from shriveling is a high school it should probably go ahead and shrivel up (as long as the education of the kids improves.)
[/quote]
^^Don't disagree at all, but no one, R or D is going to make that a reality. Even if a town of less than 1k becomes a ghost town, all of rural ks freaks, because "who's next"?
-
Maybe you aren't lying in this case and is just dumb. This isn't an issue of JOCO communities funding Western Kansas schools. It's an issue of bigger Kansas communities not getting the funding they think they deserve because the money is going to smaller schools all over the state including NE KS. I'm pretty sure, could be wrong though, that the first lawsuit involving cities suing the state about this were the communities of Garden City, Dodge City, Hutchinson, and Derby suing the state about this very issue. I know the Garden City and Wichita districts have sued the state several times. This isn't a JOCO versus all of Western Kansas issue.
:lol: Ok... so turns out I'm not lying. As long as we've got that straight, and as long as you acknowledge that tax dollars are being redistributed from wealthier taxpayers in JoCo to support poorer schools in western Kansas - you agree with this, correct? - then you can go off on whatever socialist rant you want.
BTW, I looked up the numbers, and for fiscal year 2014, all JoCo districts received an average of $12,183.17 per pupil. Just taking the average spending of one shitty western county as an example - let's go with Gove County - the three district there received $17,223.33 per pupil. Why the hell does Gove County even have 3 school districts?!
Can you read?
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
I think you are conflating small schools with schools that need consolidation. If schools are independently doing well they should be left alone. IMO the only two of those parings that are legit candidates for consolidation are Caldwell/South Haven and potentially Pratt and Skyline but I'm not intimately familiar with the performance and economics of those districts to be sure.
Garden City swallowed up some schools to the west many years ago, I have friends that had a 30+ minute rural commute to school, that should be avoided.
Kids in the Kingman, Chaparral, and Pratt districts already have 30 minute commutes to school.
That said, all those towns I mentioned have their own DISTRICTS. Even if you don't consolidate the actual high schools, it is absolutely absurd for places like Attica and Argonia to have their own administration all the way up to superintendent when it could be run much more efficently under one umbrella.
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
While I fully agree that schools should consolidate; small towns would shrivel up even more. My high school in NYS is facing consolidation, it is problematic across the country. There are things that could probably be done to consolidate that would not involve closing schools though. Allow some distance learning for Sr/AP level courses so rural students aren't so limited in their choices. This would allow for less staff for some schools (ex. students from western KS distance learn from Dodge or Garden schools). Consolidate management and district officials. Consolidate sports teams, more kids = (typically) more competitive teams. -Less overall overhead and probably more options. Yes, some towns would lose their Friday night lights, but k-6 kids wouldn't be on buses for 2+ hours/day.
This is pretty common in NYS- kids from my school could play hockey at a school 30 or so minutes away, kids from a school 15 minutes away could swim on our swim team or play on our football team.
If the only thing keeping a shitty small town from shriveling is a high school it should probably go ahead and shrivel up (as long as the education of the kids improves.)
I don't disagree with your first point, the only place I will depart is that the administrators losing their jobs isn't the big deal with consolidation, they have pretty good benefits packages and in most cases likely close to retirement anyway. The big deal is all of the teachers, and support staff who would lose their jobs. Your second point I vehemently disagree with. I think you are being cavalier with too many peoples way of life. What the hell are some of those people going to do with their lives and to earn a living? I don't think we should let urban neighborhoods and schools die and the same should apply to struggling rural communities and schools.
It isn't just administrators near retirement, it's a consolidation of all services, such as school lunches, maintenance, insurance, etc. (I don't know everything that goes into it.)
Regarding my second point, I guess you have to ask what's more important - the jobs of a few teachers (assuming they would be completely let go), or the education of many more children? I honestly think consolidation is what's best for the kids in the communities I mentioned, even if it may come at the expense of town pride.
-
my bus ride was around 60 minutes both ways in grade school, that's not unacceptable
-
my bus ride was around 60 minutes both ways in grade school, that's not unacceptable
Weird that it would be 60minutes both ways, was it the same route?, were the speed limits like exactly the same?, I s there no slope to the terrain in either direction? I just don't get this
-
my bus ride was around 60 minutes both ways in grade school, that's not unacceptable
Weird that it would be 60minutes both ways, was it the same route?, were the speed limits like exactly the same?, I s there no slope to the terrain in either direction? I just don't get this
Sometimes traffic is different depending on time of day.
-
Idiot.
-
Not when you live an hour from your elementary school, clown
-
Lets just face it, story sounds made up, whatever effloadoflibs
-
First on, last off. The route is reversed in the afternoon. I only lived 3 miles from the school
-
g27 really stepped on his dick :frown:
-
First on, last off. The route is reversed in the afternoon. I only lived 3 miles from the school
I used to walk five miles up hill both ways in the snow to get to school, but it was worth it.
Why didn't your parents just drive you the 3 miles? Seems shitty
-
I would have rode a bike to school.
-
Welp, never mind. Guess Republicans are going to be dumbfucks and get killed yet again on immigration and silly budget battles.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/07/heres-conservatives-aim-stop-obamas-action-illegal-immigrants/ (http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/07/heres-conservatives-aim-stop-obamas-action-illegal-immigrants/)
Instead of passing enforcement first immigration reform that the American people would overwhelmingly support, they're just going to (1) threaten the President, (2) bitch and moan when he signs his executive amnesty, and (3) start another budget war by trying to withhold spending for whatever it is Obama wants to implement. In short - exactly what Obama wants the pubtards to do. :goodbyecruelworld:
-
The good news is that they will be all the louder in their bitching since their numbers have risen.
-
The good news is that they will be all the louder in their bitching since their numbers have risen.
Yes, it's already begun. Yesterday, Boehner actually said Obama is "playing with matches" if he intends to ram through amnesty. JFC. :facepalm: They're just so amazingly tone deaf and incompetent.
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
It is the absolute worst things about politics, idiots cheer for this stuff like they are sports.
The reason is (problem is) we as constituents only have one rough ridin' lever to pull, and that's vote left, or vote right (or in some cases vote 3rd party which is even more useless). We don't get to vote on the issues. And for example I'm forced to pick one dude because I might like one of his views which I think is important and all of a sudden I'm lumped in with some whacko Christian conservatives or something.
Bottom line, we need more levers. We need to be able to vote on the issues.
-
First on, last off. The route is reversed in the afternoon. I only lived 3 miles from the school
You know if you were not such a lazy piece of crap you could have walked to school in less than an hour, but nooooo, send that big ozone burning yella earth killer over to my house every morning at 6:30 am cuz i'm too effing lazy to walk, and too stupid to just ride my bike.
-
I mean if you'd let your grade school kids walk 3 miles on a high traffic road with no sidewalks, then I guess go ahead, but my parents actually love me.
-
I mean if you'd let your grade school kids walk 3 miles on a high traffic road with no sidewalks, then I guess go ahead, but my parents actually love me.
Just not enough to drive you a few miles so they could see you an extra 2 hours per day
-
I mean if you'd let your grade school kids walk 3 miles on a high traffic road with no sidewalks, then I guess go ahead, but my parents actually love me.
Just not enough to drive you a few miles so they could see you an extra 2 hours per day
Well, I mean they locked him in the basement and slid him chicken nuggets under the door.
-
I mean if you'd let your grade school kids walk 3 miles on a high traffic road with no sidewalks, then I guess go ahead, but my parents actually love me.
Just not enough to drive you a few miles so they could see you an extra 2 hours per day
Well, I mean they locked him in the basement and slid him chicken nuggets under the door.
A mother's love
-
A lot of butthurt from the resident neocons here just from saying an hour on a bus isn't a big deal. Very strange
-
Go 'pubs! Go 'libs! It's like you're rooting for the jayhawks or the wild wildcats. Go team!
It is the absolute worst things about politics, idiots cheer for this stuff like they are sports.
The reason is (problem is) we as constituents only have one rough ridin' lever to pull, and that's vote left, or vote right (or in some cases vote 3rd party which is even more useless). We don't get to vote on the issues. And for example I'm forced to pick one dude because I might like one of his views which I think is important and all of a sudden I'm lumped in with some whacko Christian conservatives or something.
Bottom line, we need more levers. We need to be able to vote on the issues.
Most people on this board are probably of above average intelligence. The problem with voting on issues is the majority of people are way, way too stupid to ever do that. We have it right in that we elect supposedly smarter people to do it for us. Unfortunately partisan bickering means nothing gets done, and since nothing gets done nobody wants to do the job, and the candidates get lower quality every election.
-
A lot of butthurt from the resident neocons here just from saying an hour on a bus isn't a big deal. Very strange
To be fair, I've completely tuned this exchange out and have no idea what you're talking about.
-
A lot of butthurt from the resident neocons here just from saying an hour on a bus isn't a big deal. Very strange
it was indeed strange
-
A lot of butthurt from the resident neocons here just from saying an hour on a bus isn't a big deal. Very strange
it was indeed strange
I kno rite?
-
No matter what it seems, remember, your mother loves you (probably maybe)
-
My mother loves me a bunch, she's a great lady
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/22/358105415/episode-577-sam-brownback-s-kansas-experiment?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=podcast
nominally about the brownback tax cuts, but there is also some interesting stuff about the impact on a town of closing a school.
lib7's parents were using the bus as subsidized daycare.
-
Who cares, both parties are the same people. I would run this country right, but I can't be bothered to run.
-
hemmy from the undercooked pizza lovers party... dunno if I trust that judgement
-
lib7's parents were using the bus as subsidized daycare.
Brought to you by Johnson County.
-
My mother loves me a bunch, she's a great lady
somebody's got to, rite?
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/22/358105415/episode-577-sam-brownback-s-kansas-experiment?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=podcast
nominally about the brownback tax cuts, but there is also some interesting stuff about the impact on a town of closing a school.
lib7's parents were using the bus as subsidized daycare.
I tried sys, I really tried, but when the podcast started off by claiming that over 100 republicans were endorsing Davis for economic reasons - when the truth is that it was a political vendetta for Brownback running some of those moderates out of office - I gave up. Can't waste 20 mins on a piece with such bad information. NPR. :shakingmyhead:
-
Anyone who calls lowering the marginal income tax rate 1-2% an "experiment" is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
Anyone who calls lowering the marginal income tax rate 1-2% an "experiment" is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
He lowered income taxes by 25-33%, though.
-
Anyone who calls lowering the marginal income tax rate 1-2% an "experiment" is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
He lowered income taxes by 25-33%, though.
You are a rough ridin' dolt.
-
Anyone who calls lowering the marginal income tax rate 1-2% an "experiment" is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
He lowered income taxes by 25-33%, though.
You are a rough ridin' dolt.
Take 6-4. That gives you 2. Now take 2/6. That gives you .33. Now multiply by 100. That gives you 33%. If you can remember how to do that, maybe you will be able to talk stats in the future without looking like such an enormous dumbass.
-
Anyone who calls lowering the marginal income tax rate 1-2% an "experiment" is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
He lowered income taxes by 25-33%, though.
You are a rough ridin' dolt.
Take 6-4. That gives you 2. Now take 2/6. That gives you .33. Now multiply by 100. That gives you 33%. If you can remember how to do that, maybe you will be able to talk stats in the future without looking like such an enormous dumbass.
Confirmed dolt
-
The amount of crap Obama spews out could plug a manure spreader. I trust him about as far as I can throw a bull elephant. Republicans need govern, and not go on a ballistic killing spree to destroy anything to do with Wonder Butt. Energy independence, fostering small business growth, and derail enviromental regs that kill commerce. Negotiating with Obama will back fire. He has proven he is a childish, ignorant, and vengeful leader. The adults, the Republicans, should concentrate on governing instead of constantly campaigning. If we don't it will be. Buchtoothed Hillary hell.
-
The amount of crap Obama spews out could plug a manure spreader. I trust him about as far as I can throw a bull elephant. Republicans need govern, and not go on a ballistic killing spree to destroy anything to do with Wonder Butt. Energy independence, fostering small business growth, and derail enviromental regs that kill commerce. Negotiating with Obama will back fire. He has proven he is a childish, ignorant, and vengeful leader. The adults, the Republicans, should concentrate on governing instead of constantly campaigning. If we don't it will be. Buchtoothed Hillary hell.
I mean, this is precisely spot on.
-
The amount of crap Obama spews out could plug a manure spreader. I trust him about as far as I can throw a bull elephant. Republicans need govern, and not go on a ballistic killing spree to destroy anything to do with Wonder Butt. Energy independence, fostering small business growth, and derail enviromental regs that kill commerce. Negotiating with Obama will back fire. He has proven he is a childish, ignorant, and vengeful leader. The adults, the Republicans, should concentrate on governing instead of constantly campaigning. If we don't it will be. Buchtoothed Hillary hell.
My goodness I hope you are a sock.
-
The Disunited States of America
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top)
-
The Disunited States of America
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top)
The Slate is a dimlib rag, the republican party has no demographic issue. Did you see the guy who wrote that, he is obviously a big city Obama sympathizer
-
The Disunited States of America
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top)
The Slate is a dimlib rag, the republican party has no demographic issue. Did you see the guy who wrote that, he is obviously a big city Obama sympathizer
LOL k, MIR.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
So I just learned that Attica and Argonia had to join forces to play 8-man football last year. Good grief.
http://www.sumnernewscow.com/sunday-feature-argonia-merges-with-attica-on-the-gridiron-to-form-the-titans/
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
So I just learned that Attica and Argonia had to join forces to play 8-man football last year. Good grief.
http://www.sumnernewscow.com/sunday-feature-argonia-merges-with-attica-on-the-gridiron-to-form-the-titans/
Sounds like consolidation to me.
-
there are shitloads of western kansas districts that should be consolidated but I don't think any republicans are proposing that, are they?
Can you name a few? I can think of Ingalls/Cimarron, but most of those small towns are far enough from each other that it is probably more efficient to just have separate schools. I'm not very familiar with most of western Kansas, though.
Within less than 50 miles from where I grew up, I'd say Caldwell/South Haven, Conway Springs/Argonia, Attica/Chaparral, Pratt/Pratt Skyline, and Cunningham/Kingman. All involve 1A schools less than 20 miles from another high school the same size or larger, and I'm sure you'll find similar situations all over the state.
So I just learned that Attica and Argonia had to join forces to play 8-man football last year. Good grief.
http://www.sumnernewscow.com/sunday-feature-argonia-merges-with-attica-on-the-gridiron-to-form-the-titans/
Sounds like consolidation to me.
Still have separate school districts(!)
-
Funny how the issue of rural subsidies - school consolidation, ag subsidies, etc. - really seems to cross party lines. Regardless of political ideology, most politicians and rural Kansans support them, and most other people oppose them (or would, if they stopped to think about it).
Also, I agree that the fairest test for school consolidation should be whether you can support an 11-man football team. That pretty much sums it up.
-
Funny how the issue of rural subsidies - school consolidation, ag subsidies, etc. - really seems to cross party lines. Regardless of political ideology, most politicians and rural Kansans support them, and most other people oppose them (or would, if they stopped to think about it).
Also, I agree that the fairest test for school consolidation should be whether you can support an 11-man football team. That pretty much sums it up.
The problem is that somebody has to live in these rural areas. At least in Kansas, they do. When your state's biggest industry is agriculture, your state should try to make its rural areas livable.
-
In MT I saw a full sized school bus dropping off 3 kids for school. Why can't we offer this service in KS?
-
Funny how the issue of rural subsidies - school consolidation, ag subsidies, etc. - really seems to cross party lines. Regardless of political ideology, most politicians and rural Kansans support them, and most other people oppose them (or would, if they stopped to think about it).
Also, I agree that the fairest test for school consolidation should be whether you can support an 11-man football team. That pretty much sums it up.
The problem is that somebody has to live in these rural areas. At least in Kansas, they do. When your state's biggest industry is agriculture, your state should try to make its rural areas livable.
Yes, I think the distance a student has to travel to get to school should be a factor. Consolidation doesn't necessarily mean closing schools, but it does offer more opportunities and more efficiencies. There is absolutely no reason for a town that cannot support an 8-man football team should have an entire school district.
-
People need food, so people will pay for food. Because people will pay for food, other people will grow the food. Believe it or not, this would still happen without rural subsidies.
As rusty points out, consolidating districts could eliminate unnecessary administration without actually closing schools. Regardless, the worst case scenario is that a few underpopulated schools close, and the kids have to travel further to other schools or parents choose to homeschool. This would not be the first inconvenience of rural living. The truth is, rural living sucks in a great many ways. It also has some advantages. Again, there's money to be made there in ag and energy, so if that's what you want to do then good for you. But stop expecting the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle.
(How's that for a winning message? I should run for governor.)
-
Do you guys have any facts, data, etc that shows the savings that could be achieved by consolidating schools and ending farm subsidies? I just don't believe the savings from consolidation would be all that big without closing schools, and the loss in property values and economic viability of local businesses would probably offset the savings from closing a school. Ending farm subsidies would slow the adoption of farm technologies and really change the way some people decide what to plant. I can see some positives, but harvest totals would inevitably fall, so you'd just end up paying more for food. I think I'm probably better off just paying the subsidy with tax dollars.
-
Keeping schools local probably means more in rural areas where people actually participate in the community aspects of having a school, than it does in other places where, relatively speaking, nobody gives a eff. If proximity is the sole determining factor, we should be consolidating districts in the urban core where there are multiple school districts within 10 miles of each other, not in agronoattica kansas.
-
Do you guys have any facts, data, etc that shows the savings that could be achieved by consolidating schools and ending farm subsidies? I just don't believe the savings from consolidation would be all that big without closing schools, and the loss in property values and economic viability of local businesses would probably offset the savings from closing a school. Ending farm subsidies would slow the adoption of farm technologies and really change the way some people decide what to plant. I can see some positives, but harvest totals would inevitably fall, so you'd just end up paying more for food. I think I'm probably better off just paying the subsidy with tax dollars.
I don't, although I think the priority should be what's best for the kids, not the communities or state budgets. If consolidating district does nothing to improve actual education, I don't think it's a good idea.
-
"In my fantasy, teachers aren't low skilled labor that teach counting and alphabet, they are true 'murica academics who indoctrinate children as libtards"
-michicat
-
Seems like the republican party is really getting it, they are really good at learning lessons
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6186080
-
Seems like the republican party is really getting it, they are really good at learning lessons
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6186080
If the American people really wanted a policy of promoting people to higher positions of power based on having a vagina as opposed to a penis, they would have voted for Democrats. They didn't. What a stupid article - but it was the product of libtards, after all.
-
We're three weeks into the new Republican Congress. How are they doing?
1. Immigration. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/26/house-gop-leaders-cancel-vote-on-controversial-border-security-bill-amid/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/26/house-gop-leaders-cancel-vote-on-controversial-border-security-bill-amid/) Republicans offer a limited "border security bill" that provides no actual border security, and it quickly implodes.
2. Abortion. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/01/house_decision_to_scrap_aborti.html (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2015/01/house_decision_to_scrap_aborti.html) The same bill banning abortion after 20 weeks that passed last year implodes.
3. Keystone. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/26/democrats-filibuster-keystone-force-republicans-to/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/26/democrats-filibuster-keystone-force-republicans-to/) They can't even muster 6 Dem votes to avoid a filibuster.
Great job guys! Off to a great start! I guess with all that hard work out of the way, it's time for some serious tax reform, or maybe repealing and replacing Obamacare!
-
Nobody in Congress is good at their job, and the government will never act to do anything the way you want them to do it. It's really best to just accept that and move on. It's certainly not a cause worth donating money toward.
-
No one should be a 'pub or a 'crat.
I dislike them all.
-
Nobody in Congress is good at their job, and the government will never act to do anything the way you want them to do it. It's really best to just accept that and move on. It's certainly not a cause worth donating money toward.
I would say buying influence/votes can be worth quite a bit.
-
Nobody in Congress is good at their job, and the government will never act to do anything the way you want them to do it. It's really best to just accept that and move on. It's certainly not a cause worth donating money toward.
That's true. I'm getting closer to the mindset of the conservatives I always ridiculed for not voting Republican. I'm torn because I know it's worse to have the Dems in charge, but I'm just tired of rewarding these clowns with my vote only to be repeatedly let down. This is common sense stuff, but common sense doesn't rule in Washington and never will.
-
Nobody in Congress is good at their job, and the government will never act to do anything the way you want them to do it. It's really best to just accept that and move on. It's certainly not a cause worth donating money toward.
That's true. I'm getting closer to the mindset of the conservatives I always ridiculed for not voting Republican. I'm torn because I know it's worse to have the Dems in charge, but I'm just tired of rewarding these clowns with my vote only to be repeatedly let down. This is common sense stuff, but common sense doesn't rule in Washington and never will.
I just look at what the incumbent has done in office and if I like what I see (almost never happens) I vote for him. Otherwise, I vote for somebody else. There seems to be a direct correlation between time served and shittiness.
-
Give me an old rumpled clothed, ugly, mean bastard conservative republican slob any day. I do not think these prissy pretty boy leaders we have in Congress or running for Prez really care about the U.S. They seem to only care about their vanity. Ol' Boner, House Leader, cares more about his tan than fighting crazed progressives like Obama. I bet the inside of his butt crack is tanned.
-
Chairman Ann nails it once again. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-01-28.html#read_more (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-01-28.html#read_more)
HOW MUCH IS THAT PSYCHOLOGY DEGREE WORTH?
The Republican leadership in Congress still hasn't held hearings on why college is so expensive, although I proposed the idea two weeks ago. Of course, it's been a month since the GOP took control of Congress, and they also haven't voided Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty, passed e-Verify, a fence bill or the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act.
Democrats are on offense all the time, even when they've just had their legs cut off. They announce absurd agenda items and then indignantly demand to know why Republicans are refusing to deal with the free unicorn-rides proposal. Obama is a lame-duck president and, three months ago, his party was slaughtered in midterm elections. And yet, I gather that his State of the Union address consisted of a litany of insanely expensive, utterly pointless ideas.
And Republicans fall for it every time. They consider it a major victory to come back with a free-market approach to surrender.
In response to Obama's "free" community college idea, Republicans should say: We're not giving you anything, and, in fact, we're demanding answers from the entire "higher ed" establishment. You'll be surprised how liberating and fun it is to go on offense, Republicans.
The GOP needs to hold tobacco company-style hearings, hauling in the presidents of various universities and asking them to justify their multimillion-dollar salaries.
We want professors explaining, under penalty of perjury, exactly how much they make per hour for their rigorous schedules of two classes a week, summers off, and full-year "sabbaticals" every few terms.
Also, we'd like to know how driving the getaway car for a cop-killer constitutes a qualification to teach college.
College professors relentlessly hound the rest of society for its crimes -- racism, sexism, "white privilege" -- look what you're doing to the environment! Why are we paying them, again? There's no visible reason most of these people should be teaching at all. How about they explain their value to the taxpayers who subsidize their cushy lives?
Other than engineers, economists and quarterbacks, no one acquires any marketable knowledge at college. The sole purpose of a degree is to function as a substitute IQ test. If employers were allowed to give applicants 15-minute intelligence tests, they'd have the exact same information as knowing what college a person attended.
But they can't do that, so families have to spend a quarter of a million dollars to give their kids the parchment equivalent of an IQ score. High school kids who get into good schools should present employers with their college acceptance letters and skip the going-to-college part.
Republicans need to force colleges to issue reports, just like drug companies, attesting to the average cost, and the average salary, for every degree. It will cost you $160,000 to receive a degree in Spanish literature and will take you 88 years to pay that back.
Trust Ann -- liberals will go wild. That's how you'll know you've struck gold.
They will scream bloody murder, accuse Republicans of "McCarthyism," say it's too burdensome to collect this information and how can you put a dollar value on a college education?
They better be able to put a dollar value on a college degree! That's how it's being sold. Obama doesn't say it's important to go to college to learn to think analytically, read critically or be exposed to different ideas -- none of which occurs at most colleges, anyway.
No, that's not the pitch. The pitch is: You're going to fail in this economy without a college degree!
If colleges really believe their product is worth anything, why don't they guarantee their own student loans? Why should taxpayers be on the hook for everyone's tuition?
According to the colleges, their graduates are going to earn all sorts of money! At least that's what they say when they're conning teenagers into taking out colossal student loans.
"It's burdensome" is not an excuse accepted by the government in any other context. It doesn't work for businesses being forced to come up with reams of information for the IRS, the EPA or OSHA. And the taxpayer isn't on the hook for the deceptive promises of any other industry -- except hucksters for home mortgages and student loans.
I would like to hear college presidents explain that what they do is totally different from any other company.
Democrats need to be exposed as hustlers for the most fraudulent, overpriced scam in the country. There's no other industry that has politicians flacking for it, much less conniving to prevent consumers from getting truthful information about the merchandise.
Going after Big Education is all upside for the GOP. College professors and administrators already vote 98 percent for the Democrats. In fact, it's a triple-play for Republicans: They would punish a liberal constituency, strike a blow against the principal vehicle of liberal indoctrination in America, and the middle class will love it.
-
Ann is a sensationalist Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!):
Other than engineers, economists and quarterbacks, no one acquires any marketable knowledge at college.
-
Ann is a sensationalist Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!):
Other than engineers, economists and quarterbacks, no one acquires any marketable knowledge at college.
She engages in hyperbole for satire. Her overall point is a good one. I would agree that for the majority of college grads, the degree is little more than an extremely expensive IQ test (and not a terribly reliable one at that). Republicans should take the initiative in helping to burst the higher ed tuition bubble.
-
I am all for fine tuning degrees. I feel that about a quarter of the required classes I took don't help me in my career. However, they round a student so that they have tools outside their specialized degree incase their career interests turn.
-
We want professors explaining, under penalty of perjury, exactly how much they make per hour for their rigorous schedules of two classes a week, summers off, and full-year "sabbaticals" every few terms.
This was my favorite line.
-
Seems like a good time to update this.
The American people gave the GOP another chance last night, in a historic drubbing that will likely net 9 senate seats and 10+ house seats. There can be no question that this wave election was driven in no small part by dissatisfaction with Obama's policies and the perceived state of the economy.
Now the GOP has a choice: This can either be a springboard to a conservative resurgence and retaking the White House in 2016, or it can be just a brief gasp of air before being sucked back down into the GOP's recent whirlpool of mediocrity. It will all come down to how they govern.
Step 1: Immigration. This has to be first, because Obama seems sure to make good on his promise to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegals by year's end, before the GOP Senate is sworn in. It is a bitterly cynical ploy, designed to both shore up Hispanic support and fracture the GOP between tea party and pro-big business elements.
It is no longer enough to criticize the President and threaten unrelated punitive actions, like another budget battle. That is exactly what Obama wants. Instead, the GOP must present an alternative. A unified congress must pass tough but fair comprehensive immigration reform that confers temporary legal status, for a price, but shuts down chain migration and effectively terminates illegal immigration with a combination of enhanced border security, accelerated deportation procedures, and employer verification requirements. The American people will support this , and by lawfully passing such legislation and placing it on the president's desk, any unilateral executive action by Obama will blow up in his face.
[UPDATE: Nope, didn't do crap. Fortunately, the courts bailed out the GOP by halting Obama's unconstitutional amnesty. Unfortunately, because the GOP betrayed their consituents, Donald Trump is now leading in the polls.]
Step 2: Pick up "easy wins" along the way. The Republicans need to focus on advancing smaller pieces of legislation that have broad popular support - stuff that will again backfire on Obama if he dares to veto it. Energy policy, such as easing drilling permit restrictions and "greenlighting" the Keystone pipeline, is fertile ground.
[UPDATE: Well, at least they made Obama veto Keystone. That took about a year. Nothing else I can think of.]
Step 3: Put Obamacare back on Obama's desk. It is finally time for a unified GOP to make good on their promise to put "repeal and replace" on Obama's desk. There are already good bills percolating in the House to do just that. Of course, Obama will never sign any such legislation, but it is essential for 2016 that such legislation be presented and that he be forced to veto it.
[UPDATE: Over a year later, this is finally going to happen this evening, forcing Obama to veto it.]
Step 4: Dismantle Obamacare. Once Obama has vetoed the above, it is time for smaller bills dismantling Obamacare one stinky brick at a time. Start with low hanging fruit like the medical device tax and go from there.
[UPDATE: :lol:]
Step 5: Pass a budget that dramatically cuts spending across every agency. This one goes without saying. It is exciting to think that, at long last, a unified GOP congress is finally in a position to move towards a balanced budget.
[UPDATE: :lol: :lol: :lol:]
Follow these 5 steps and you can say hello to President Walker/Cruz in 2016. Fail and it's hello Hillary.
[Ouch, sure missed on Walker. Cruz still a decent bet. Also, I didn't foresee how awful Hillary would be, giving the GOP a decent shot despite their abysmal failures in the past year.]
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/can-this-marriage-be-saved-relationship-between-trump-senate-gop-hits-new-skids/ar-AApgTZh
It appears that the Senate is telling The Donald to shove it up his Trumphole. I think it may be good to have some obstinate bastards yanking down his shorts once in a while. One sided railroaded legislation is often crap. Trump needs to quit belittling and threatening Senators. If this relationship is not mended, then Demo-nuts will resist more.