OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

Bernie, it's right there in plain English. I even highlighted the most relevant parts to show where your talking points were refuted. You then spewed the same talking points, almost verbatim.

Small businesses are helped because the small business owners are now taxed at a much lower rate. Getting to keep more of their income is a huge benefit to small business owners.

Taxpayers of ALL BRACKETS get to deduct more income from being taxed.

Tax loopholes more used by the rich are eliminated.

What parts do you not understand????

[ИATAS]

Before I offer up a response to your last reply, I do ask for a few source citations.

As you can see, I'm not nit-picking. I'm only asking the specific assertions central to my case be proved.

Again, thanks for the discussion and kind words. I'll be civil as long as I'm not insulted, disrespected, etc. Thx again.

Sure. I did provide some links in my previous post and some statements I made were similar or expanding on previous posts that did include sources or at least I thought did. Other statements that I didn't think were controversial and easily found online I left out and lastly it was getting late by the time I finished up. I think you could have still responded to my post though, and respond to the main points rather than just asking for sources and moving on. But regardless I have no problem going back and adding sources where I can, I just think the conversation could have continued rather than halted.

Sources, please.

Source is NAEP. And that's what we have to go by since Public schools are required by law to administer the test chosen by the state government and to publish their test scores, while private schools are free to pick their own standardized tests and, because they don’t rely on public funds, do not have to release their scores, though interested parents can ask to see them. source

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcar...es/2006461.asp

Mathematics
In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 12.3 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .38. After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was nearly zero and not significant. In the second set, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to all public schools. While the results for Catholic schools, both with and without adjustments, were very similar to the corresponding results for all private schools, the results for the other two types differed.

The initial difference between Lutheran schools and all public schools was substantially larger (19.5 points) than was the case for all private schools. The average difference in adjusted mean mathematics scores between the two types of schools was 4.9 points and significantly different from zero. On the other hand, the initial difference between Conservative Christian schools and all public schools was substantially smaller (5.1 points) and not significant. The average difference in adjusted school means between Conservative Christian schools and all public schools was -7.6 points (i.e., a higher average school mean for public schools) and was significantly different from zero.

For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathematics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.

Source citations showing they have said this is their plan, please.

Haven't my entire posts explained and sourced exactly this?

DaVos "wants, publicly funded Christian schools (and private & charter schools as well)", are you asking for a source for this? Because I've done that already, in great detail. The next part of my post you quoted, "What they want is parents to buy the education they can afford, leaving the well off families able to buy the best products and the working class and poor left behind" is exactly what I've been explaining to you in regards to "school choice", again in great detail. That is what this is all about and what "school choice" is.

Just a side note - there is tons of research available online regarding the huge gap in education between rich and poor communities. I would think this is common knowledge but if you're curious just Google. It's no secret that rich parents who live in rich communities have access to better schools than a poor family in a poor community. What School Choice is aimed at doing is removing money for public schools and putting it into private schools. That doesn't help poor families. I don't need to source this but I'll provide you with some great data:

The main way well-off families choose schools is by choosing where to live. Increasingly, they’re settling in districts where most children look like theirs. “Rich districts are being created, and leaving middle-to-poor districts behind,” said Ann Owens, a sociologist at the University of Southern California, citing
(https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown...s-and-schools/) research (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...02831216652722) she conducted with Sean Reardon of Stanford University and Christopher Jencks of Harvard. Students in some of the richest districts score four grade levels above their peers in the poorest districts, Reardon found. Even within diverse districts, rich and poor students—which often also means white and nonwhite students—are frequently sorted into separate schools. In their analysis of large districts, Owens, Reardon, and Jencks found that segregation between poor and non-poor students in public schools grew more than 40 percent from 1991 to 2012. Rising residential segregation by income has fueled that growth, as most children attend their local public school.

Please source anytime(s) in the lat 40 or so years that we've seen education spending cut on the Federal level. All my life I've seen it grow and grow and grow....

I said your statement was misleading, not that spending hasn't gone up, because of where the money is going (not public schools). I explained how the shift to private and charter schools, School Choice, has been occurring under Obama and Bush. Obama’s signature education policy, Race To The Top (RTTT), continued but vastly intensified the pro-charter and education business agenda of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind act. That is public information and can be found anywhere online. Charter schools, largely run by for-profit management companies and routinely channeling huge sums, I mentioned in an earlier post on how over $3.7 billion has essentially disappeared into the hands of charter schools with almost no accountability, which I sourced by naming the research called "Charter School Black Hole" which you can find here: http://www.prwatch.org/charter-school-black-hole (the actual research PDF file is linked in the first paragraph).

Most States Have Cut School Funding
"Most states provide less support per student for elementary and secondary schools — in some cases, much less — than before the Great Recession"
http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-b...ntinue-cutting

Who cares about her, if she's rich, Christian, etc. As long as she's not a criminal, I don't care.

What are you talking about? Did I say there is an issue with her being Christian? This is what I'm talking about - you're ignoring facts. And spinning things. The issue is not that she's Christian, the issue is her extreme right wing Christian MOTIVES and wanting tax dollars funding Christian schools. Separation of church and state? For the third time, is that not important suddenly? I've provided sources on outrageous religious statements she's made and that she wants to destroy the department of education. And all you can say is who cares if she's Christian? Be honest with yourself and be honest with me, please.

She's had a lifetime of success. And success outside of being a lifer politician.

Success in what? Being born rich and marrying into an even richer family? (DeVos family is listed by Forbes as one of the richest families in America, with an estimated net worth of $5.4 billion) source

Funnelling millions of dollars into anti Gay and anti-LGBT causes? DeVos, from 2001 to 2013, was vice president of the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, a "nonprofit group" founded by her mother that has been a generous donor to controversial and hate groups like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council.

A Portrait of Christian Hate: Prop 8's Elsa Prince of Michigan
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/1/667005/-
It's Executive Committee has included Oliver North, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Richard DeVos, Tim LaHaye, and Richard Shoff, a former Ku Klux Klan leader in Indiana.

Follow the money:
https://mediamousearchive.wordpress....ce-foundation/

Refreshing though isn't it? Not a career politician just a plain old rich person which is so much better! Plus she's been involved in politics for years. She was chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party throughout the 90s onto the 2000s and prior to that, "Since 1982, DeVos has participated in the Michigan Republican Party. She served as a local precinct delegate for the Michigan Republican Party, having been elected for 16 consecutive two-year terms since 1986.[38] She was a Republican National Committeewoman for Michigan between 1992 and 1997,[39] and served as chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000.[40][41]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos

She's not a politician though.

Why are you so opposed to putting people with records of success in positions where we need solutions and where lifer politicians have repeatedly failed?

Talk about spin, stop it man. Do you know what I'm opposed to? Having someone head the very department they have repeatedly stated they literally want destroyed. Do you not see the problem with just that alone? How can anyone justify that? Putting that aside, Separation of Church and State is important and clearly, placing someone who openly states they have extreme Christian motives for the policies they want to implement, such as having tax payers pay for Christian schools, is a big issue. And so and so forth (I've detailed an incredible amount of details regarding DeVos so please don't try to act like I'm simply opposing a "successful" person).

Putting aside ALL of that, what is DeVos even successful at? What has she done that's impressive? Do you even know? I'm curious as to what you think she's so successful.

As I stated, she's filthy rich, not because of anything she's actually done but because her family was rich and she married into an even richer family. The only thing she's been "successful" in doing is funding conservative christian groups with other people's money.

Her business career consists of being chairwoman of the Windquest Group. Well hold on, that sounds impressive right? Until you learn her husband founded the company. That's it. That is her "success" in business. Oh, her husband and Betsy also produced a play on Broadway. Amazing!

Or put another way; at what point do you admit lifer politicians and more Gov't spending aren't the answer and we must try a new approach? (Remember, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over an expecting a different result)

Did you read my last post in it's entirety or nah? If you did, you would know that I said in order to fix and improve Education in this country, we need to put actual money into the schools that need it (not cutting Education spending and placing that money into private schools instead). I've provided a lot of information and details regarding the widening gap between the top students and the bottom, the rich schools and the poor schools. If the Adminstration wanted to do this they could and could make a massive difference. You would also know I was very critical of Obama and Bush, since Trump is simply accelerating their plans & agendas. What I want isn't happening and we will continue to see the education get worse and worse. Spending means fück all of the money isn't going where it should be going.

Which kinda proves my point that a bloated Federal bureaucracy might be the problem, doesn't it?

Well no because that's by design. That's the problem.

Education is one of the most important matters to Americans, along with healthcare, but neither are priorities for the ruling elite. Why should it matter to them, when healthcare and education is not a problem for the rich?

That, and the plans you assert have been touted by DeVos and Trump. I've not heard the plans you cited, so I'm curious what you'll present in that regard.

Again, I don't understand this. DeVos has been very open with what she wants and her motivation, there is absolutely no secret here and I've provided a great deal of information. There is a reason there has been such an uproar since her nomination.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Didn't read as per the norm your talk'n out of your slit.

And not the one between your eyes.

How you interpret this help'n small business is beyond me ?

And how in the fug does it help the work'n class as well as middle class ???

This plan is more trickle down bs.

Small business owners wiz nut.

Not the fug'n conglomerates.

This only benefit the wealthy as well as Corporations.

No need to worry though Pinnochio's work rate is slower than a snails and congress won't be as enamored as apparently you are....

Bullshyt... you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to small business..

I own small businesses.. if you knew anything about them, you would know that passive income thru LLCs that gets taxed at personal income levels is highway robbery and locks up capital, which otherwise would have been spent in the economy.. tax small business owner's passive income at a flat 15% and you will see a huge surge in economic activity.

I will give you an example:
Passive income is basically the money left over after all operations and cost of doing business is accounted for. Doesn't matter if the leftover gets distributed to owners or not, it gets taxed at their personal income tax levels usually always higher than 25%.. corporations can set aside portions or all of this money in such things as r&d, cash reserves, etc and not get taxed on it, only the profit that is leftover from that..
This negatively affects small business because they don't have the luxury of setting aside money, as everything is considered pass-thru income to owners, who then get taxed at an extremely high personal rate..
Taxing small businesses the same as corporations would unlock huge amounts of capital that otherwise would have been wasted away in personal taxes. which then can be used to expand operations and spur local economies..

This doesn't benefit corporations at all, it doesn't hurt them either, really has no effect on them, it just allows small business to play by the same rules in terms of taxation

[1bad65]

Mathematics
In the first set of analyses, all private schools were again compared to all public schools. The average private school mean mathematics score was 12.3 points higher than the average public school mean mathematics score, corresponding to an effect size of .38. After adjusting for...

Ok, so you've confirmed the fact that private schools test scores are higher.

Every data set that has been "adjusted" must be thrown out, so we ignore everything about scores you wrote after the "adjusting".

We move on now knowing this....

DaVos "wants, publicly funded Christian schools (and private & charter schools as well)", are you asking for a source for this?

Yes, I am asking you for sources.

Twice now. Can you please source this claim?

I've not heard anyone call for 'public funding of private/Christian schools'. If DeVos (or Trump) has, then show me. Cite a source, and then quote the relevant part(s).

You're slowing up the discussion by first entering "adjusted" data and now simply repeating claims instead of proving them when asked.

Please, let's not bog the discussion down. This is not a contest, so please, just produce sources when asked so the discussion moves along. We need to establish basic facts then make our arguments that cite said established facts.

Because I've done that already, in great detail. The next part of my post you quoted, "What they want is parents to buy the education they can afford, leaving the well off families able to buy the best products and the working class and poor left behind" is exactly what I've been explaining to you in regards to "school choice", again in great detail. That is what this is all about and what "school choice" is.

Um, this is what we have now. The rich parents get choice, the poor ones do not.

This is what DeVos and the voucher proponents are trying to change.

Which brings me to the next point.....

You've now twice pointed out that poor public schools are worse off than rich public schools. I get that. I agree with that. Please, don't tell us that a 3rd time. It's actually a key point of mine in terms of supporting vouchers.

See, the kids who will benefit the most under a voucher plan are those stuck in the worst schools, ie the poor ones. Specifically, the poor minority kids. Yet the party who claims to represent the poor and the non-white is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep poor minority children in the worst public schools.

Tell me why you oppose this choice for the ones who most need it.



The rest of it is you again pointing out DeVos is rich, a private sector person, etc.

Great, we get it.

Now tell me why someone of a different background than the status quo is a bad choice when the status quo is failing. You're ignoring that point and just bashing DeVos.

[1bad65]

Bullshyt... you have no idea what you are talking about...

That's never stopped him before.

Why do you think his posts are all just .gifs and childish insults?

[Theodore]

"Dey jus kneed mo moneyz fo dem programz," is always the liberal response to fix problems whenever it comes to anything, especially schools.

Well here's an experiment that was conducted by a liberal activist federal judge that went through 3 presidencies. This experiment was conducted from 1985 (Reagan era) to 1997 (Clinton era). Money and resources didn't fix anything.

A summary of the study:

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, “You can’t solve educational problems by throwing money at them.” The education establishment and its supporters have replied, “No one’s ever tried.” In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil—more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers’ salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

Here's the link to the full policy analysis: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...pdf/pa-298.pdf


Be careful liberals, it's a sobering read. It might redpill you.

[AllBoxingAD]

"Dey jus kneed mo moneyz fo dem programz," is always the liberal response to fix problems whenever it comes to anything, especially schools.

Well here's an experiment that was conducted by a liberal activist federal judge that went through 3 presidencies. This experiment was conducted from 1985 (Reagan era) to 1997 (Clinton era). Money and resources didn't fix anything.

A summary of the study:



Here's the link to the full policy analysis: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...pdf/pa-298.pdf


Be careful liberals, it's a sobering read. It might redpill you.

I havent seen anyone in this thread argue that throwing more money at public schools is the answer. But since you like to insult people, why dont you enlighten us all and tell us how to fix the public school system?

Lets hear it.

[AllBoxingAD]

I've not heard anyone call for 'public funding of private/Christian schools'. If DeVos (or Trump) has, then show me. Cite a source, and then quote the relevant part(s).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...-religion.html

She has advocated for a controversial school voucher program in the past, which allocates federal taxpayer dollars to provide children the opportunity to attend private and religious institutions.

[1bad65]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...-religion.html

Not what he asserted.

Under this voucher plan, the private schools are only funded if parents choose them. If parents don't want them and thus don't send their kids to them, they are not getting funds. If parents do prefer them, and thus send their kids to them, then they get funded.

Your source says as such:

“Let the education dollars follow each child, instead of forcing the child to follow the dollars. This is pretty straightforward. And it’s how you go from a closed system to an open system that encourages innovation. People deserve choices and options,” DeVos said during a speech in March of 2015.

Again I ask, what's so bad about school choice for ALL parents as opposed to just those with the financial means to buy their kids other choices?

[Left Hook Tua]

Them bastards ain't go'n nowhere.

Them townhall meetings have got congress on full alert....

You old ****s vote too.

They're up at 5am election day.

Vote then go to Dennys or IHOP

We're never getting rid of social security