'Boycott School' Until Congress Passes Gun Control

[GURPS]

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/arneduncan/status/997569320518594560[/TWITTER]

The Obama Administration's Secretary of Education has a brilliant plan to push gun control in Congress: a nationwide school boycott that keeps kids out of class until legislators commit to passing stricter gun control regulations.

He initially Tweeted the idea Friday, perhaps to test the waters among progressive activists.


Obama Education Secretary Tells Students To 'Boycott School' Until Congress Passes Gun Control




why not car control, drug control .......... because those kill more than guns

 

[Hijinx]

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/arneduncan/status/997569320518594560[/TWITTER]

The Obama Administration's Secretary of Education has a brilliant plan to push gun control in Congress: a nationwide school boycott that keeps kids out of class until legislators commit to passing stricter gun control regulations.

He initially Tweeted the idea Friday, perhaps to test the waters among progressive activists.


Obama Education Secretary Tells Students To 'Boycott School' Until Congress Passes Gun Control




why not car control, drug control .......... because those kill more than guns

Guy sounds like an idiot to me.

Keeping millions of kids out of school entails a lot more than kids just staying home.
Not a very well thought out plan.

 

[h3mech]

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/arneduncan/status/997569320518594560[/TWITTER]

The Obama Administration's Secretary of Education has a brilliant plan to push gun control in Congress: a nationwide school boycott that keeps kids out of class until legislators commit to passing stricter gun control regulations.

He initially Tweeted the idea Friday, perhaps to test the waters among progressive activists.


Obama Education Secretary Tells Students To 'Boycott School' Until Congress Passes Gun Control




why not car control, drug control .......... because those kill more than guns

wow is this the most stupid thing I ever heard of

 

[Toxick]

What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe?

What do you think will happen, ass?

The next crop of kids will be even more dense, entitled and ignorant than the current crop of dumbasses that are just starting to contaminate the gene pool.

 

[SamSpade]

The Obama Administration's Secretary of Education has a brilliant plan to push gun control in Congress: a nationwide school boycott that keeps kids out of class until legislators commit to passing stricter gun control regulations.

I don't see any reason to pay teachers or anyone who'd be in school, then, would we?

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't see any reason to pay teachers or anyone who'd be in school, then, would we?

Duncan didn't think that through very well, did he?

 

[awpitt]

They can start the boycott in mid-June.

 

[Peepaw95]

They can start the boycott in mid-June.

And it can go until the first week in September!

 

[This_person]

What do you think will happen, ass?

The next crop of kids will be even more dense, entitled and ignorant than the current crop of dumbasses that are just starting to contaminate the gene pool.

You say that like that is counter to their wishes.

 

[black dog]

What do you think will happen, ass?

The next crop of kids will be even more dense, entitled and ignorant than the current crop of dumbasses that are just starting to contaminate the gene pool.

They should stay home for a few weeks, that way they can repeat 5th grade again next year.

 

[Lurk]

I don't see any reason to pay teachers or anyone who'd be in school, then, would we?

Private and Charter schools should receive the funding that would have gone to public schools who lose student numbers.

 

[Grumpy]

The Obama Administration's Secretary of Education

Guy sounds like an idiot to me.

First clue was in the post above yours.

 

[This_person]

Private and Charter schools should receive the funding that would have gone to public schools who lose student numbers.

Here's another thought - ALL of the money should go to the parents, and they can choose to send the child to public, private, or home school and use the funds accordingly.

Here's an even better though - drastically reduce property taxes and state taxes by eliminating government (taxpayer) funding for schools, leaving that to the parents in the first place.

 

[SamSpade]

Here's an even better though - drastically reduce property taxes and state taxes by eliminating government (taxpayer) funding for schools, leaving that to the parents in the first place.

This is only useful for those whose property taxes are significant enough that a refund could actually pay for private school.
This also refunds or reduces taxes for those who don't have anyone to go to school - which like it or not is the way taxes work.
It also provides no cover whatsoever for those who rent or who otherwise pay little to no property tax - people most likely to NEVER have the resources to afford private schools.

Lastly it assumes there's enough space in private schools to accommodate all of the kids - and there isn't.

I'm glad we have public schools - two of my kids have needs that private schools probably aren't prepared for at all.

 

[awpitt]

I'm glad we have public schools - two of my kids have needs that private schools probably aren't prepared for at all.

This is a good point. Public schools have to meet the needs of all kids. Private schools do not.

 

[This_person]

This is only useful for those whose property taxes are significant enough that a refund could actually pay for private school.
This also refunds or reduces taxes for those who don't have anyone to go to school - which like it or not is the way taxes work.
It also provides no cover whatsoever for those who rent or who otherwise pay little to no property tax - people most likely to NEVER have the resources to afford private schools.

Lastly it assumes there's enough space in private schools to accommodate all of the kids - and there isn't.

I'm glad we have public schools - two of my kids have needs that private schools probably aren't prepared for at all.

In many ways I am glad that we have public schools as well. They provide a product, ostensibly, that helps keep crime down and the tax-base up.

But, the older I get, the more I realize how wrong public schools are. Especially those that have federal standards. There should be absolutely zero federal involvement in local schools.

If we never went larger than county level on funding and approval of curriculum for schools, I would likely be all for them. But, the reality is that some farmer in Nebraska is paying for school kids in Baltimore, and that is entirely inappropriate. Standards set in DC have to be lived up to in Montana, and the law clerk who has three kids in Bozeman has absolutely no say in it.

Leave people their money, and let them handle it. Some people will get Walmart quality, others will get Tiffany's quality. Just like my son drives a Focus, and my neighbor drives a BMW, people can afford different things.

I am good with those reductions in taxes going to everyone, because everyone pays. If you pay rent, you are paying the mortgage and the taxes, whether you get credit for it or not. Just like if you buy a product, you are paying the corporate taxes (profit is not reduced to pay for higher taxes, product price increases).

With no public schools, the private sector will provide.

 

[SamSpade]

With no public schools, the private sector will provide.

And again - the price will STILL be too high for far too many. If you refunded to me ALL of my state and property taxes - I still couldn't afford it.

And there's lag time - it takes a long time for someone to create a school, and there are serious consequences if you sink money into a school
where a couple years and the population adjusts - and your school is now broke. Private schools can flourish in an environment where public
schools admit everyone - they merely siphon off the ones who aren't going. If they're the only game in town - lots of people STILL won't be going.

This is one of the things that gets me about lag time and arguments over things like charter schools and school vouchers -
it gets argued for years in cities like DC - but every twelve years - a whole population of students will NEVER benefit from it.
Because politicians may argue about it, but the kids don't stay kids. They have to go somewhere.
It's a lot like endless arguing over how to treat a critically ill patient - take too long, the patient dies and NO treatment will help.

The only places in the world I know of where public schools aren't the norm and you must pay to go - the poor don't get it at all.

 

[awpitt]

Private and Charter schools should receive the funding that would have gone to public schools who lose student numbers.

Charter schools? Maybe, as they already are publically funded.

Private schools? No. If they receive public funding, they're no longer private schools.

 

[Lurk]

Private schools? No. If they receive public funding, they're no longer private schools.

That can be managed by changing the rules at the DOE level. If the boycotting students go to a private school, pay for them.

 

[This_person]

And again - the price will STILL be too high for far too many. If you refunded to me ALL of my state and property taxes - I still couldn't afford it.

I get that - but, frankly, that is not the problem of the federal or state government. That is the problem of the individual. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to ensure everyone's kids get the education their parents want them to get. It's just not. States certainly have the right to take that obligation on themselves, but I would vote against it, personally.

And there's lag time - it takes a long time for someone to create a school, and there are serious consequences if you sink money into a school
where a couple years and the population adjusts - and your school is now broke. Private schools can flourish in an environment where public
schools admit everyone - they merely siphon off the ones who aren't going. If they're the only game in town - lots of people STILL won't be going.

This is one of the things that gets me about lag time and arguments over things like charter schools and school vouchers -
it gets argued for years in cities like DC - but every twelve years - a whole population of students will NEVER benefit from it.
Because politicians may argue about it, but the kids don't stay kids. They have to go somewhere.
It's a lot like endless arguing over how to treat a critically ill patient - take too long, the patient dies and NO treatment will help.

I agree and this is certainly valid. But, like the oil underground that liberals tell us will take 10 years to get, if we started 10 years ago we'd have it now. If we start now, we can fix this in a certain period of time.

The only places in the world I know of where public schools aren't the norm and you must pay to go - the poor don't get it at all.

Again, not the problem of the federal government, and not the problem of the state government (if I were to vote on it there).

Just out of curiousity, how many of those places are constitutional republics with capitalism?