OK, thanks for your opinion, i'm sure he is absolutely aligned with your political views and uber-informed opinions . . . . 🥱I’m sure if he had the power to tell them to GFY he would have.
OK, thanks for your opinion, i'm sure he is absolutely aligned with your political views and uber-informed opinions . . . . 🥱I’m sure if he had the power to tell them to GFY he would have.
I'm pretty sure @taxi1 was being a wee-bit sarcastic with his post here . . . . . .
This is a great idea. But unfortunately, we have a large percentage of the population that grew up in socially, and economically marginalized households with little to know education and an over reliance on public assistance. Just about every social problem facing society (ours at least), can be improved substantially by placing an increased importance on raising kids with a mom, and a dad, and giving them the very best possible education.Sarcasm aside, I think we should bring back things like the Works Progress Administration. I know it's expensive and it will never pass in this day of cutting federal workers.
But I think we should create jobs. There are plenty of unemployed people who have skills that could be of use to the nation. Childcare is one of them. Providing training for workers and workers for jobs that the nation needs.
Let's get tangible value back for the money we "waste" on "freeloaders" . No one turns down a good government job that comes with a pension and benefits. I think a lot of this government firing is not because people don't like the government jobs, it's because they don't have one or they can't get one. Or it's because they're the top .1% who don't want to pay out.
Taxes aren't a bad thing as long as they fund services that we benefit from.
...and giving them the very best possible education.
More funding for the department of education correlates better with more administrator positions than it does education outcome. It’s worth looking at what the tax dollars actually accomplish, rather than seeing the word education and thinking “must be good!” Not aimed directly at you, obviously.Funny how that seems to be the lowest priority for our politicians.
This is a great idea. But unfortunately, we have a large percentage of the population that grew up in socially, and economically marginalized households with little to know education and an over reliance on public assistance. Just about every social problem facing society (ours at least), can be improved substantially by placing an increased importance on raising kids with a mom, and a dad, and giving them the very best possible education.
More funding for the department of education correlates better with more administrator positions than it does education outcome. It’s worth looking at what the tax dollars actually accomplish, rather than seeing the word education and thinking “must be good!” Not aimed directly at you, obviously.
Agreed (mostly). I guess my point though, is that when people talk about cutting or eliminating the department of education, it isn’t that they want to lower the quality of education in the country. It’s that the bureaucracy, 1 billion in DEI initiatives, etc doesn’t really contribute to increased education outcomes. The money would be better spent on smaller classrooms and more teachers.That's because the DoED is largely administrative. They ensure schools comply with federal regulations and ensure that those marginalized students are afforded an opportunity to learn.
Schools are mostly funded by property taxes and loans. Grants, the lottery, etc... are minor players.
No one is “cutting” education, we‘re just giving it to the states and communities who will spend the money without Randi Weingarten trying to suppress teachers salaries while bloating school district administrations.Agreed (mostly). I guess my point though, is that when people talk about cutting or eliminating the department of education, it isn’t that they want to lower the quality of education in the country. It’s that the bureaucracy, 1 billion in DEI initiatives, etc doesn’t really contribute to increased education outcomes. The money would be better spent on smaller classrooms and more teachers.
Or, as many have alluded to, we ain’t exactly overflowing in the coffers… maybe we can get some gold to replenish Fort Knox before the audit!
Right. That’s kind of what I said… just said differently. Other than my joke at the end there…No one is “cutting” education, we‘re just giving it to the states and communities who will spend the money without Randi Weingarten trying to suppress teachers salaries while bloating school district administrations.
DEI for education means my austistic nephew is afforded a fair education and that he is both given the services that he needs and he is also in a classroom with neurotypical children. Those children he is in a classroom with are exposed to other types of people (like my nephew) and therefore won't ostracize him, or anyone like him, because he's different.Agreed (mostly). I guess my point though, is that when people talk about cutting or eliminating the department of education, it isn’t that they want to lower the quality of education in the country. It’s that the bureaucracy, 1 billion in DEI initiatives, etc doesn’t really contribute to increased education outcomes. The money would be better spent on smaller classrooms and more teachers.
Or, as many have alluded to, we ain’t exactly overflowing in the coffers… maybe we can get some gold to replenish Fort Knox before the audit!
No, your nephew should be afforded the very best quality of education and care based on the providers knowledge, skill, education, and experience. Not some bullshit quota system that rewards and promotes teachers based on their feelings and emotion-based sense of entitlement. Come on dude, you're better than this . . . .DEI for education means my austistic nephew is afforded a fair education and that he is both given the services that he needs and he is also in a classroom with neurotypical children. Those children he is in a classroom with are exposed to other types of people (like my nephew) and therefore won't ostracize him, or anyone like him, because he's different.
The DOeD money the public school he attends receives ensures he, and other students in the school, will have the resources and teachers needed.
Those initiaves have enabled my nephew to learn with his peers, make friends, join clubs, and play sports.
Fuck anyone who thinks this should go away.
We got a ton of sample bullets to tailor and "make your own". Actually grateful for that.● Airwarriors
● Baseops
● golf
● flying
● alcohol
Am I doing this right for the what did you do requirements?
DEI gets him into the classroom, into the clubs. It ensures he's not "separate but equal".No, your nephew should be afforded the very best quality of education and care based on the providers knowledge, skill, education, and experience. Not some bullshit quota system that rewards and promotes teachers based on their feelings and emotion-based sense of entitlement. Come on dude, you're better than this . . . .
Camping or living in a vehicle is against the law in Hawaii.I'm thinking about buying a van and live on the beach at PMRF