• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

lol at these parts:

The House elected Mitchell, Parrish and six others March 20. The next day, House Republicans announced there had been a vote tallying error and removed James Nance of Albemarle, replacing him with George A. Sywassink of Hilton Head, S.C.

Sywassink owns Standard Holding Co., which owns a Charlotte-based commercial freight company. The company contributed $25,000 to Tillis’ super PAC. State campaigns cannot accept corporate contributions, while super PACs can.

Sywassink said he has been a long-time supporter of Tillis. His appointment had nothing to do with his contribution, he said.

“I happen to think Thom Tillis would do a very good job as a senator,” Sywassink said. “That’s all I have to say.”

Cindy Marrelli-Watko of Raleigh, who gave $10,000, has supported Tillis for the past five years and is on the super PAC board. A former IBM consultant, like Tillis, she said she is open to an appointment but really aims to see more women involved in politics.

“I want to see more talented women on boards and commissions, and get more women in political offices,” she said. “I’m surprised there aren’t more women involved.”
Click to expand...

So she gives money to someone running against a woman. Brilliant.
 
This is a real debacle. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/the-decline-of-north-carolina-continued/

The NC Bar Association has been pushing for decades to eliminate judicial elections, establish public funding, and/or do anything possible to reduce the judges campaigning and asking people for money, knowing that those people are going to appear in their courts. We made a tiny bit of progress in establishing a bi-partisan committee for judicial appointments in the last year of Perdue. McCrory tossed that out. And now the GOP wants to go full-bore in the other direction with 0 public funding and fully partisan judicial elections.

I just really don't see how anyone can defend this.

ETA: here's the N&O editorial for those who have an allergic reaction to the NY Times. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2797069/save-public-funding-for-judicial.html
 
Last edited:
All part of the Republican gameplan to shift public money to private businesses and religious organizations.
 
Deacon923 said:
This is a real debacle. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/the-decline-of-north-carolina-continued/

The NC Bar Association has been pushing for decades to eliminate judicial elections, establish public funding, and/or do anything possible to reduce the judges campaigning and asking people for money, knowing that those people are going to appear in their courts. We made a tiny bit of progress in establishing a bi-partisan committee for judicial appointments in the last year of Perdue. McCrory tossed that out. And now the GOP wants to go full-bore in the other direction with 0 public funding and fully partisan judicial elections.

I just really don't see how anyone can defend this.

ETA: here's the N&O editorial for those who have an allergic reaction to the NY Times. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2797069/save-public-funding-for-judicial.html
Click to expand...

IMO both are dead wrong.
 
Deacon923 said:
This is a real debacle. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/the-decline-of-north-carolina-continued/

The NC Bar Association has been pushing for decades to eliminate judicial elections, establish public funding, and/or do anything possible to reduce the judges campaigning and asking people for money, knowing that those people are going to appear in their courts. We made a tiny bit of progress in establishing a bi-partisan committee for judicial appointments in the last year of Perdue. McCrory tossed that out. And now the GOP wants to go full-bore in the other direction with 0 public funding and fully partisan judicial elections.

I just really don't see how anyone can defend this.

ETA: here's the N&O editorial for those who have an allergic reaction to the NY Times. http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/02/2797069/save-public-funding-for-judicial.html
Click to expand...

NY Times and N&O both wrong. I'm surprised.
 
vouchers are a joke...if it costs 5k to go to my private school and you issue a voucher worth 5k, now it's gonna cost 10k to go to my school. no net difference, except to my piggy bank and the gov't coffers. how do people get around this stupidly simple logic to reach the conclusion it's a good idea?
 
To understand how this will play out you have to understand how the system currently works.

Private schools already admit a certain number of poor kids on scholarships to boost their diversity numbers. They are selective in who they admit, however; most will not admit children with learning disabilities, and those who have behavior problems will not be admitted or will eventually be asked to leave. Furthermore, the poor children who end up in private school have parents who are involved and who care enough about their kid's education to jump through the hoops of applying for admission and financial aid. So to some extent, the privates are getting the cream of the crop of the poor-performing schools already.

Right now they are doing this for free or at highly reduced rates. This budget will perhaps enable the privates to take more of the top-performing poor school students with the most involved parents. Even if they only take the same number (which I think is more likely), they'll actually get money for doing it. This money will be used to hire more teachers, build more nice buildings, etc. etc. Who will benefit from that? At most schools, I estimate that maybe 10-15% of students are getting financial aid, so 85-90% of the students who are benefiting from this government expenditure will be kids whose parents can afford to pay full price.

Who will be left in the poor schools? Disproportionate numbers of those with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and shitty parents. Even if funding levels stay the same for these schools, this will result in even lower test scores and even less teachers who want to work there. Not exactly a recipe for improvement.

So what you have here is a program that disproportionately benefits those who, perversely, need it the least.
 
Which is what Republican policy squarely aims to do. Just like tax cuts won't help the unemployed, vouchers won't help poor kids who need better schooling.
 
the sum total of all of it is wealth concentration. that's the disgusting bottom line. and when it gets bad enough then historically you'll start hearing shouts of land reform and naked wealth redistribution and communal ownership of the means of production. that's usually followed by gun violence. at least we'll have no shortage of those should it come to that.
 
Last edited:
dmcheatw said:
vouchers are a joke...if it costs 5k to go to my private school and you issue a voucher worth 5k, now it's gonna cost 10k to go to my school. no net difference, except to my piggy bank and the gov't coffers. how do people get around this stupidly simple logic to reach the conclusion it's a good idea?
Click to expand...

You won't find many decent private schools in cities that only cost $5000. Hell you might be hard pressed to find one at $15,000. You are correct about private schools simply raising their tuition prices.

It's also a myth that vouchers would allow poor kids to go to better public schools. Why would Beverly Hills High take a voucher from a poor kid if he/she can't play a sport or something special? Where are these magical seats at the schools going to come from?
 
RJKarl said:
You won't find many decent private schools in cities that only cost $5000. Hell you might be hard pressed to find one at $15,000. You are correct about private schools simply raising their tuition prices.

It's also a myth that vouchers would allow poor kids to go to better public schools. Why would Beverly Hills High take a voucher from a poor kid if he/she can't play a sport or something special? Where are these magical seats at the schools going to come from?
Click to expand...

Greensboro Day is $20,000. http://www.greensboroday.org/page.cfm?p=474 Canterbury is $15,000. http://www.canterburygso.org/tuition--affordability. The religious schools are a little cheaper but you're going to shell out $10,000 pretty much as a minimum. Greensboro is a very affordable city, I imagine those numbers are significantly higher in Raleigh and Charlotte.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top