Ryan Walters - OK Schools and National Embarrassment

[TulsaRulzOSUdrools]

What are the options to remove this man? Who believes he is doing a good job? Can the governor do it, does the legislature have to do it? Does it have to be done through a recall election?

This is what happens when we have a two-party system, and people just blindly vote without a thought in the world about whether it is good for society or just their party. It is a sad state of affairs. He constantly makes national news for not the right reasons. It is an embarrassment.

I post this here because this is a local issue. So many of these issues matter much more than Lauren Boebert's marriage or AOC's dating life. Nationalizing our politics has made local issues overlooked, and it is bad for our society.

 

[lawpoke87]

Probably be a difficult task without him breaking the law. Stupid comments on the Tulsa Race Riot probably not enough although it might be a start. Agree about nationalizing local politics. Unfortunately it’s done everywhere. I’m old enough to remember Tip O’Neil famous mine “keep local politics local”. No one does this anymore

 

[drboobay]

He is a moron. But he is not unique among politicians in that quality. Our governor is only about 10% better on that front IMO.

Our new AG on the other hand would wholeheartedly have my vote were he ever to run for governor.

 

[rusty-c]

We're stuck with that idiot unless he does something nefarious...

Does Oklahoma law allow "recall" elections?

Generally, no. Oklahoma law does not provide a method to "recall" state officers (such as the governor or state legislators), county officers (such as county commissioners or sheriffs), school board members, or other elected officers.

 

[old.guy]

Drummond, (the AG), and Waters are clearly running for governor, as Stitt is term-limited. Hopefully Waters will get beat in the Repub primary and that will be the last we hear of his sorry self.

 

[TU_BLA]

What are the options to remove this man? Who believes he is doing a good job? Can the governor do it, does the legislature have to do it? Does it have to be done through a recall election?

This is what happens when we have a two-party system, and people just blindly vote without a thought in the world about whether it is good for society or just their party. It is a sad state of affairs. He constantly makes national news for not the right reasons. It is an embarrassment.

I post this here because this is a local issue. So many of these issues matter much more than Lauren Boebert's marriage or AOC's dating life. Nationalizing our politics has made local issues overlooked, and it is bad for our society.

So there is no recourse such as a recall election in the state of OK. The only way to remove him from office is to be impeached. The question will be whether or not his clear misuse and misappropriation of GEER funding would qualify as an action to impeach him from the elected office of State Superintendent when the crime in question took place when he was the appointed State Sec. of Education. However, his office is in constant violation of providing records under FoIA and he has been called out several times by OKC media. So there's that as well. And is gross incompetence something someone can be impeached for?

 

[chito_and_leon]

I mean, don't you also have to discuss the elephant in the room, which is that maybe a majority of Oklahomans, or at least Republican Oklahomans, support what he's doing?

 

[lawpoke87]

I mean, don't you also have to discuss the elephant in the room, which is that maybe a majority of Oklahomans, or at least Republican Oklahomans, support what he's doing?

I do believe most Pubs support the school choice law which was recently passed. They also likely support his ongoing battle with the teachers union. There’s very little support for the union amongst state Pubs imo.

 

[TU_BLA]

I mean, don't you also have to discuss the elephant in the room, which is that maybe a majority of Oklahomans, or at least Republican Oklahomans, support what he's doing?

I don't think they do. Most polls leading into the election had Jena (?) ahead by anywhere from 5-12%. Granted, most of those polls were probably conducted in either the OKC or Tulsa metro areas where the thinking leans blue and definitely did for State Superintendent. The equalizer for republicans in OK are rural areas that rarely get polled and where a high number of voters simply check the straight party voting box. I would love to run an experiment where the party affiliation AND the option to vote straight party are removed from ballots to see how results would trend. I would bet season tickets to TU basketball that some results would flip and at best the margins would be within 5% instead of the 15-20% we've seen in most recent OK elections. And yes, I don't think the rural voters are as educated or up to date on candidates, their stances, or the issues at hand. Most voted for Walters and Stitt who flat out told them they were pushing policies that would destroy rural school districts and drastically gut funding to them.

 

[TU_BLA]

I do believe most Pubs support the school choice law which was recently passed. They also likely support his ongoing battle with the teachers union. There’s very little support for the union amongst state Pubs imo.

They support the school choice law b/c it's being pushed as choice for all, but for rural districts there is no choice. Rural voters voting for this simply aren't smart enough to understand that "school choice" is just a thinly veiled attempt to resegregate schools and push public money to their private donors. School choice is another white supremacist attempt to undo school desegregation from the 50s and 60s. And hell, Walters doesn't even disguise his racism and the fact that he's nothing more than an American neo-Nazi.

 

[lawpoke87]

I don't think they do. Most polls leading into the election had Jena (?) ahead by anywhere from 5-12%. Granted, most of those polls were probably conducted in either the OKC or Tulsa metro areas where the thinking leans blue and definitely did for State Superintendent. The equalizer for republicans in OK are rural areas that rarely get polled and where a high number of voters simply check the straight party voting box. I would love to run an experiment where the party affiliation AND the option to vote straight party are removed from ballots to see how results would trend. I would bet season tickets to TU basketball that some results would flip and at best the margins would be within 5% instead of the 15-20% we've seen in most recent OK elections. And yes, I don't think the rural voters are as educated or up to date on candidates, their stances, or the issues at hand. Most voted for Walters and Stitt who flat out told them they were pushing policies that would destroy rural school districts and drastically gut funding to them.

Walters won Tulsa county by 3 points. The local polling companies who poll Oklahoma races are awful and their polls are reflective of their incompetence or bias. Not sure which.

Not surprised the left would cry racism here. African Americans have generally supported school choice as it gives them an option to exit poor performing schools. The racism card is the normal play to get that group back in the company fold.

 

[TU_BLA]

Walters won Tulsa county by 3 points. The local polling companies who poll Oklahoma races are awful and their polls are reflective of their incompetence or bias. Not sure which.

Not surprised the left would cry racism here. African Americans have generally supported school choice as it gives them an option to exit poor performing schools. The racism card is the normal play to get that group back in the company fold.

Racism has driven the school choice/voucher argument since the 60s. You can't deny it. While it sounds great because they use the word choice, the only people who really have a choice are the people with $$$ already. I might not be able to do a $15k private school, but if you're giving me a voucher of $5000 for school choice and then a tax credit on top, I probably can swing it because we make a decent living. But for the single parent in north Tulsa making $40k a year and trying to find that amount of money for 1 kid let alone multiples, the choice thing still doesn't work economically unless you're giving up rent and transportation and some food. It's all well played to make people think they have a choice but at the end of the day, there only real choice is to remain in their neighborhood public school which now has less funding because the legislature is funneling it to the middle class white folks. While they may not have gone to that school, the district has to reallocate funds and spread less out amongst the same number of schools. The education outcomes will remain the same and the legislature, governor, and state superintendent will have failed miserably at their state constitutionally mandated duty of funding and supporting public schools.

To think this is not racially motivated is simply naive and ignorant or just willfully ignorant.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Walters won Tulsa county by 3 points. The local polling companies who poll Oklahoma races are awful and their polls are reflective of their incompetence or bias. Not sure which.

Not surprised the left would cry racism here. African Americans have generally supported school choice as it gives them an option to exit poor performing schools. The racism card is the normal play to get that group back in the company fold.

Private schools have far higher %s of white students than public schools and far higher % than the population as a whole, so subsidizing those schools will benefit white students more than other kids. That's just math.

In theory, school choice could better balance the racial differences in private schools. I personally think that won't happen because of availability. Choice is no choice if there aren't schools reasonably near you to go to. You might as well subsidize my school choice on the moon. I suspect if anything the imbalance will get worse.

My concern is that those of us who have good public schools will see them get undermined and this will become a push to move everyone to private, largely religious schools. Been there, done that, no thank you.

 

[lawpoke87]

Racism has driven the school choice/voucher argument since the 60s. You can't deny it. While it sounds great because they use the word choice, the only people who really have a choice are the people with $$$ already. I might not be able to do a $15k private school, but if you're giving me a voucher of $5000 for school choice and then a tax credit on top, I probably can swing it because we make a decent living. But for the single parent in north Tulsa making $40k a year and trying to find that amount of money for 1 kid let alone multiples, the choice thing still doesn't work economically unless you're giving up rent and transportation and some food. It's all well played to make people think they have a choice but at the end of the day, there only real choice is to remain in their neighborhood public school which now has less funding because the legislature is funneling it to the middle class white folks. While they may not have gone to that school, the district has to reallocate funds and spread less out amongst the same number of schools. The education outcomes will remain the same and the legislature, governor, and state superintendent will have failed miserably at their state constitutionally mandated duty of funding and supporting public schools.

To think this is not racially motivated is simply naive and ignorant or just willfully ignorant.

Those neighborhood public schools have been failing for years and nothing we’ve done has corrected the problem. School choice had nothing to do with that performance. Look…I don’t know what the answer is when it comes to giving minority and poor students opportunities to switch of higher performing schools. I do know those who want a quality education deserve the same. I assume it’s that “opportunity” which fuels the support for school choice in the minority communities and as long as we continue to fail those kids by forcing them into low performing schools I anticipate that support to continue. Regardless of the racism claims from the left.

For the record, I would support vouchers if it was income based and from underperforming school districts.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Those neighborhood public schools have been failing for years and nothing we’ve done has corrected the problem. School choice had nothing to do with that performance. Look…I don’t know what the answer is when it comes to giving minority and poor students opportunities to switch of higher performing schools. I do know those who want a quality education deserve the same. I assume it’s that “opportunity” which fuels the support for school choice in the minority communities and as long as we continue to fail those kids by forcing them into low performing schools I anticipate that support to continue. Regardless of the racism claims from the left.

For the record, I would support vouchers if it was income based and from underperforming school districts.

There's no inherent reason to think private schools will be better than public. My anecdotal experience was that our very, very expensive private school (more expensive than TU!) had worse education than our suburban public school.

Private schools now have lots of advantages over public schools - they have a lot more $$ per student, they draw from disproportionately wealthy and advantaged families with greater resources (tutors, parental time, etc.), and they only have to educate 10% as many students as public schools. If a ton of kids move to private schools based on vouchers, those advantages will be reduced and I suspect you will see that the advantage of private schools will go away. I don't think choice will be the panacea that supporters claim. The hard problems will still be there and they'll still be hard problems. No magic bullet.

The main "real" benefit of private schools for most ardent supporters of choice is that private schools can promote social agendas that public schools can't.

 

[lawpoke87]

There's no inherent reason to think private schools will be better than public. My anecdotal experience was that our very, very expensive private school (more expensive than TU!) had worse education than our suburban public school.

Private schools now have lots of advantages over public schools - they have a lot more $$ per student, they draw from disproportionately wealthy and advantaged families with greater resources (tutors, parental time, etc.), and they only have to educate 10% as many students as public schools. If a ton of kids move to private schools based on vouchers, those advantages will be reduced and I suspect you will see that the advantage of private schools will go away. I don't think choice will be the panacea that supporters claim. The hard problems will still be there and they'll still be hard problems. No magic bullet.

The main "real" benefit of private schools for most ardent supporters of choice is that private schools can promote social agendas that public schools can't.

Private schools will always out perform the lowest performing public schools. If they don’t they won’t survive as a private school. If there were options for poor people wanting a better education for their child who is stuck in a poor performing school to receive a better education then I would be receptive to other options. Until those options are available, I will continue to support school choice for poor and minority children wanting a better education.

 

[TU_BLA]

Private schools will always out perform the lowest performing public schools. If they don’t they won’t survive as a private school. If there were options for poor people wanting a better education for their child who is stuck in a poor performing school to receive a better education then I would be receptive to other options. Until those options are available, I will continue to support school choice for poor and minority children wanting a better education.

But that is not what "school choice" means...how do you not understand that? Private schools still cost money to attend even after vouchers and tax credits. The whole school choice/voucher system is designed to keep black and brown people out as politicians are banking on percentages of the middle class they're trying to help being white. This system was never designed to help poorer communities and neighborhoods nor rural areas. The system is designed to help those neighborhoods that may fall or border on a poorer neighborhood where income classes may overlap in a neighborhood school.

If the legislature really wanted to help make schools perform better they'd increase teacher pay by 20%, they'd increase the # of teachers and reduce the student:teacher ratios, especially in elementary schools, and every time they funnel money from one sin tax like the gaming money from the tribes and the lottery and MMJ into schools, not taking it away from the regular state appropriations. They'd stop using standardized test scores as the end all be all of their measurements of success and go to a truer measure of learning. School choice will simply exacerbate the problem and funneling money away from underperforming schools will not make those schools better. Taking students away from those schools will not make those schools better.

 

[lawpoke87]

But that is not what "school choice" means...how do you not understand that? Private schools still cost money to attend even after vouchers and tax credits. The whole school choice/voucher system is designed to keep black and brown people out as politicians are banking on percentages of the middle class they're trying to help being white. This system was never designed to help poorer communities and neighborhoods nor rural areas. The system is designed to help those neighborhoods that may fall or border on a poorer neighborhood where income classes may overlap in a neighborhood school.

If the legislature really wanted to help make schools perform better they'd increase teacher pay by 20%, they'd increase the # of teachers and reduce the student:teacher ratios, especially in elementary schools, and every time they funnel money from one sin tax like the gaming money from the tribes and the lottery and MMJ into schools, not taking it away from the regular state appropriations. They'd stop using standardized test scores as the end all be all of their measurements of success and go to a truer measure of learning. School choice will simply exacerbate the problem and funneling money away from underperforming schools will not make those schools better. Taking students away from those schools will not make those schools better.

We already pay teachers more to teach in our underperforming schools. The result….the schools remain underperforming. We’ve tried throwing more money at this problem for years across the country with very little results to show for those added expenditures. Can we stop with the same solutions which have failed these communities for years? If the failing schools continue to fail then give the school’s poor students the opportunity to receive a quality education elsewhere. At least those who want the opportunity.

I’m fine with placing just about any restriction on the voucher as long as the poorer kids from these historically underperforming schools have the opportunity to receive a better education. Bottom line

 

[chito_and_leon]

Private schools will always out perform the lowest performing public schools. If they don’t they won’t survive as a private school. If there were options for poor people wanting a better education for their child who is stuck in a poor performing school to receive a better education then I would be receptive to other options. Until those options are available, I will continue to support school choice for poor and minority children wanting a better education.

You're vastly more sanguine about the market weeding out bad private schools, for the same reason the market did a terrible job of weeding out bad for profit universities - your marketing department is more important than your teachers. Especially if the product is difficult to evaluate objectively like education. How do you tell a better school from a worse? If you've moved to a place you don't know, you've experienced how difficult this is. Standardized scores? Private schools aren't required to administer the same tests so you can't get apples to apples data. And schools that take less qualified kids will look worse even if they're better. This problem is worse if the "customers" (parents) don't have a lot of experience with education and so are not well prepared to evaluate even the limited and poor data they have. There will be plenty of bad schools that thrive b/c they have a good snake oil salesman, or are unethical or dishonest in their marketing. Just like Univ. of Phoenix or whatever.

The problem with school choice in those settings is that you create the impression of the ability to choose a better alternative when that does not in fact exist. So you create a false solution. "You had $hit and you said you wanted choice so we also gave you crap, now you have the ability to choose, so why are you not thriving?"

 

[rusty-c]

The outcome of private schools will always be more favorable than public schools for the simple fact that school choice means more than just choice for the where the parents wish to send their student. School choice also means school choice for the school itself. How many private schools maintain special education programs and student remediation programs? If the school itself can limit enrollment of students that have needs for special services, then due to their charter (choice) they absolutely will always outperform their public school counterparts. I support poor and minority students having options, but I don't support gutting public schools that must serve all who enter the doors to reduce the expense of those who can afford to pay their way for a private school education.

 

[chito_and_leon]

We already pay teachers more to teach in our underperforming schools. The result….the schools remain underperforming. We’ve tried throwing more money at this problem for years across the country with very little results to show for those added expenditures. Can we stop with the same solutions which have failed these communities for years? If the failing schools continue to fail then give the school’s poor students the opportunity to receive a quality education elsewhere. At least those who want the opportunity.

I’m fine with placing just about any restriction on the voucher as long as the poorer kids from these historically underperforming schools have the opportunity to receive a better education. Bottom line

I think the issue that you're running up against is that the schools aren't really the problem. You have kids who don't have beds to sleep in, don't have job opportunities from education, are hungry, etc. The schools that are the "best" will be the ones that are most effective at creating a support system for their students.

But also the "choice" itself will be an illusion. There just aren't private school seats available to most economically disadvantaged kids. You have a family that doesn't have a car and the nearest school is 90 minutes by public transportation for kids that are 6 and 8, and both parents work. Is that really a choice? They can get a voucher but where will they spend it. It's a no choice choice.

 

[rusty-c]

I think the issue that you're running up against is that the schools aren't really the problem. You have kids who don't have beds to sleep in, don't have job opportunities from education, are hungry, etc. The schools that are the "best" will be the ones that are most effective at creating a support system for their students.

This, plus create buy in and support of whatever family structure may be available to those students.

I was a teacher for 25 years and can tell you with absolute certainty that the issues that you stated affect many more students than most of us would like to believe. I can also tell you first hand that if a teacher/school can be creative in their approach and address these issues positive outcomes can be achieved to the benefit of the student and society as a whole.

 

[lawpoke87]

I think the issue that you're running up against is that the schools aren't really the problem. You have kids who don't have beds to sleep in, don't have job opportunities from education, are hungry, etc. The schools that are the "best" will be the ones that are most effective at creating a support system for their students.

You’re 100% correct. You have single parents who don’t know where they will be living next week or if they can afford dinner tomorrow night. Making sure little Johnny gets his school work done is far down their list. Unfortunately, that attitude works its way down to the kids. They often don’t value education and give minimal effort in school. Scholastic success is ridiculed not valued by their piers. Makes for a very difficult environment for the teachers and those students who are striving to receive a quality education.

I reject your premise of swapping crap for crap. You will find very few private schools in Tulsa which perform anywhere near the historically low performing schools in the city. The reasons for the differences are obvious and have been stated. Again….until solutions are found to improve our low performing schools I will continue to support assistance to those poor students and parents who desire a better outcome.

 

[chito_and_leon]

You’re 100% correct. You have single parents who don’t know where they will be living next week or if they can afford dinner tomorrow night. Making sure little Johnny gets his school work done is far down their list. Unfortunately, that attitude works its way down to the kids. They often don’t value education and give minimal effort in school. Scholastic success is ridiculed not valued by their piers. Makes for a very difficult environment for the teachers and those students who are striving to receive a quality education.

I reject your premise of swapping crap for crap. You will find very few private schools in Tulsa which perform anywhere near the historically low performing schools in the city. The reasons for the differences are obvious and have been stated. Again….until solutions are found to improve our low performing schools I will continue to support assistance to those poor students and parents who desire a better outcome.

I hope the law provides substantial financial support for developing private schools in disadvantaged areas, if so, it might be useful, especially if it provides support for new and innovative approaches and social support systems. Otherwise, the "choices" might as well be on the moon.

Saying Holland Hall and Cascia Hall are good so private schools for kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods will be good is kinda the height of magical thinking. I hope you're right just like I hope the guys predicting 20+ wins in BB are right...

 

[drboobay]

Unfortunately people are not infinitely malleable. Even children are not infinitely malleable. The students you have in your school matters as much if not more than the staff when it comes to outcomes. And I am pretty much convinced most of the impact you can have evening the playing field comes during the pre-natal period to year three.

Still hoping I get $5,000 each in tax credits to send my twins to BK next year. Won't refrain from claiming it.

 

[lawpoke87]

I hope the law provides substantial financial support for developing private schools in disadvantaged areas, if so, it might be useful, especially if it provides support for new and innovative approaches and social support systems. Otherwise, the "choices" might as well be on the moon.

Saying Holland Hall and Cascia Hall are good so private schools for kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods will be good is kinda the height of magical thinking. I hope you're right just like I hope the guys predicting 20+ wins in BB are right...

I was thinking more in the lines of TU’s University school. Located near the areas in need. Costs around $15k but they give scholarships based on income level. Add a voucher and it becomes doable for some lower-middle class families.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I was thinking more in the lines of TU’s University school. Located near the areas in need. Costs around $15k but they give scholarships based on income level. Add a voucher and it becomes doable for some lower-middle class families.

Too bad TU's school is a unicorn.

 

[TU_BLA]

I think the issue that you're running up against is that the schools aren't really the problem. You have kids who don't have beds to sleep in, don't have job opportunities from education, are hungry, etc. The schools that are the "best" will be the ones that are most effective at creating a support system for their students.

But also the "choice" itself will be an illusion. There just aren't private school seats available to most economically disadvantaged kids. You have a family that doesn't have a car and the nearest school is 90 minutes by public transportation for kids that are 6 and 8, and both parents work. Is that really a choice? They can get a voucher but where will they spend it. It's a no choice choice.

BINGO. And this is exactly what the white legislators are banking on.

 

[lawpoke87]

Would love to hear some solutions. We’ve been trying the same failed policies for years with little to no results. We’ve failed these kids for years. If children want a better education being poor shouldn’t be a barrier. Keeping people dependent on the government shouldn’t be a policy. Yet for many that is exactly the situation. Again….open to solutions.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Would love to hear some solutions. We’ve been trying the same failed policies for years with little to no results. We’ve failed these kids for years. If children want a better education being poor shouldn’t be a barrier. Keeping people dependent on the government shouldn’t be a policy. Yet for many that is exactly the situation. Again….open to solutions.

Again, the problem isn't mainly about education, it's about opportunity. We need to provide economic opportunity to disadvantaged communities. But a lot of people there don't have cars so we need to invest in public transportation, which gvt doesn't want b/c it doesn't support Exxon. And we need to help parents be able to work, but then they need childcare but that's more expensive than what they get paid and the government doesn't want to help cover the cost. So how are they supposed to work? But if they don't, they can't buy food or provide housing, how are kids supposed to learn then? Education doesn't exist in a vacuum, you need to support families, or give schools the chance to (what happened to free meals for all kids?). But that doesn't happen because school choice has nothing to do with helping disadvantaged kids, and there aren't good schools available for those kids to choose anyway, it's a fake solution. It's at best performative policymaking with a real goal of helping completely different people. Or worse, the Sean Hannities of the world will blame the families, "we gave them the chance to choose better schools and they didn't, those people just don't care about education", that then supports negative stereotypes that lead to policies that make the problems even worse.

Oh and btw, what do we do when everyone who wants to work has a chance to do it? The Fed increases interest rates with the explicit goal of driving up unemployment and decreasing wages. Our entire system is premised on forcing a large number of people who want to work to be unemployed or underpaid as a way to keep wage costs down and reduce inflation. Your cheap sirloin or tv or whatever is provided on the back of willing workers forced into unemployment.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Too bad TU's school is a unicorn.

Yeah, does the school choice bill include a huge bunch of funding for new schools in disadvantaged areas? That would be awesome.

 

[lawpoke87]

Again, the problem isn't mainly about education, it's about opportunity. We need to provide economic opportunity to disadvantaged communities. But a lot of people there don't have cars so we need to invest in public transportation, which gvt doesn't want b/c it doesn't support Exxon. And we need to help parents be able to work, but then they need childcare but that's more expensive than what they get paid and the government doesn't want to help cover the cost. So how are they supposed to work? But if they don't, they can't buy food or provide housing, how are kids supposed to learn then? Education doesn't exist in a vacuum, you need to support families, or give schools the chance to (what happened to free meals for all kids?). But that doesn't happen because school choice has nothing to do with helping disadvantaged kids, and there aren't good schools available for those kids to choose anyway, it's a fake solution. It's at best performative policymaking with a real goal of helping completely different people. Or worse, the Sean Hannities of the world will blame the families, "we gave them the chance to choose better schools and they didn't, those people just don't care about education", that then supports negative stereotypes that lead to policies that make the problems even worse.

Oh and btw, what do we do when everyone who wants to work has a chance to do it? The Fed increases interest rates with the explicit goal of driving up unemployment and decreasing wages. Our entire system is premised on forcing a large number of people who want to work to be unemployed or underpaid as a way to keep wage costs down and reduce inflation. Your cheap sirloin or tv or whatever is provided on the back of willing workers forced into unemployment.

That is not the premise of our economic system. The premise is to keep inflation running around 2% and unemployment around 4%. Conditions which should at least keep real wages stable. The problem occurs when you add trillions of dollars into an economy which is already experiencing material and labor shortages. The results aren’t just predictable they are certain.

We have vast public transportation systems in many areas of the country. Have they helped alleviate poverty in those areas…..no. Same old solutions which don’t work. We’ve thrown vast amounts of money into disadvantaged communities and have very little positive results. Same ole solutions again. I realize there are societal issues working against these communities. Educational is not generally valued. Single parent homes are the norm. Far too little effort is placed into changing these values. Instead we give these people enough money to barely sustain themselves and watch the cycle repeat as we keep them dependent on the politicians for assistance.

Changing societal values and providing educational opportunities are the only way out for those who seek the same imo. Again…not sure what the solution is to provide those who want a different outcome a good education but I do know we have failed for decades. Something needs to change. Education is where it starts.

 

[chito_and_leon]

That is not the premise of our economic system. The premise is to keep inflation running around 2% and unemployment around 4%. Conditions which should at least keep real wages stable. The problem occurs when you add trillions of dollars into an economy which is already experiencing material and labor shortages. The results aren’t just predictable they are certain.

No, it's about the jobs. You're the only one who thinks that it isn't.

The Fed wants higher unemployment because it would bring down inflation

Insider's Phil Rosen breaks down what to know ahead of the new jobs data and what it means for monetary policy.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[chito_and_leon]

Educational is not generally valued.

I don't know why you say this. It's just victim blaming. What people value is opportunity, and if education is disconnected from opportunity, then why would people value it. I think most disadvantaged parents would value education if they thought it would help their kids. Do you think poor parents don't want their kids to have a better life? Have you ever met any poor people? They're just people like you or me, who love and fear and aspire. Just people.

I feel like you're setting up for the Hannity argument - we offered choice and they didn't take it because they're "that kind of people" who just want to be lazy or whatever. Choice is great if there is real choice, but the law should actually build the schools to make that choice real. Which it won't. And then we'll blame the people for not pulling themselves up by the bootstraps that they never had, and you'll pat yourself on the back for trying to help them but you know, what can you do with "people like that".

 

[lawpoke87]

No, it's about the jobs. You're the only one who thinks that it isn't.

The Fed wants higher unemployment because it would bring down inflation

Insider's Phil Rosen breaks down what to know ahead of the new jobs data and what it means for monetary policy.

www.businessinsider.com

False. At least not in ordinary times. You’re extrapolating an extra ordinary event (bringing down high inflation) to normal economic policy. They are very different. Normal policy is 2% inflation and 4% unemployment and has been for years.

 

[chito_and_leon]

False. At least not in ordinary times. You’re extrapolating an extra ordinary event (bringing down high inflation) to normal economic policy. They are very different. Normal policy is 2% inflation and 4% unemployment and has been for years.

I guess you don't want the side of guilt with that cheap sirloin? The fed is intentionally trying to drive down wages and drive up unemployment. A lot of people will lose their jobs to keep prices down for the rest of us. Even Jay Powell says so. You should tell him that he's not trying to do what he admits he's trying to do. Maye he'd feel better, too.

I don't know where you get some of this stuff. Is this what Fox or somebody like that is saying?

 

[lawpoke87]

I don't know why you say this. It's just victim blaming. What people value is opportunity, and if education is disconnected from opportunity, then why would people value it. I think most disadvantaged parents would value education if they thought it would help their kids.

You ask why would I make such a statement then explain why poor people tend not to value education

I would also add that poor single parents who are struggling with keeping a roof over then heads of their kids as well as feeding them and keeping them safe often have a different set of priorities than the suburban two parent household. These parents often aren’t engaged in the education of their children and the children often reflect that attitude. Hard to change those dynamics. Especially with the effort we put into the same.

 

[lawpoke87]

I guess you don't want the side of guilt with that cheap sirloin? The fed is intentionally trying to drive down wages and drive up unemployment. A lot of people will lose their jobs to keep prices down for the rest of us. Even Jay Powell says so. You should tell him that he's not trying to do what he admits he's trying to do. Maye he'd feel better, too.

I don't know where you get some of this stuff. Is this what Fox or somebody like that is saying?

Ugg….again, this is temporary and not typical economic policy. You act like this is the status quo. Most of us knew this was coming when we rapidly increased the money supply into a system facing labor and material shortages.

You don’t want to fed to reduce inflation ? Who does 10% inflation hurt most? The poor. Go take a look at countries who have suffered through prolonged bouts of high inflation and tell me what group suffers the most.

Look…I’m not a fan of the Fed. The fact Yellen still has a job is criminal. She sat back and watched this mess happen as did the Fed. However, we are where we are now. We’ve seen decreasing real wages now for 2 straight years. Who is suffering….the poor. May I ask what is your economic background as I’m not following your argument in growing real wages? You sound like some of my left wing friends who scream about wages without have the slightest concept of real wages adjusted for inflation. Which of course is the only number which actually matters when it comes to wages. Like I tell them…go back and look at economies with inflation rates over 5% and tell me how many of those saw prolonged growth of real wages.

 

[astonmartin708]

Walters won Tulsa county by 3 points. The local polling companies who poll Oklahoma races are awful and their polls are reflective of their incompetence or bias. Not sure which.

Not surprised the left would cry racism here. African Americans have generally supported school choice as it gives them an option to exit poor performing schools. The racism card is the normal play to get that group back in the company fold.

I don’t cry racism. I think it has changed from racism to indoctrination of stupidity. The curriculum and philosophy being espoused by “choice” schools tends to be closely aligned with Republican politics and just so happens to be idiotic.

 

[TU_BLA]

Oh and btw, what do we do when everyone who wants to work has a chance to do it? The Fed increases interest rates with the explicit goal of driving up unemployment and decreasing wages. Our entire system is premised on forcing a large number of people who want to work to be unemployed or underpaid as a way to keep wage costs down and reduce inflation. Your cheap sirloin or tv or whatever is provided on the back of willing workers forced into unemployment.

Yeah, I don't think this is true. A lot of this is still driven by what happened when the economy was recovering from the COVID shutdown. People who lost jobs during the shutdown held out for new jobs that paid more, especially in the service sector. When the economy reopened and a bunch of people all of a sudden were making more money, well those service industries raised their prices. And of course combined with a supply chain that was put under extreme pressure because going from no product demand to extreme product demand without a means to increase production (because the manufacturing sector was also hit by the pandemic and people not returning to those jibs without an increase in wages and you've got price hikes). And I'll admit, I have no idea how raising interest rates is supposed to curtail inflation. All it does it makes sure that people can't buy houses in this market, won't buy cars unless absolutely necessary, or take out any other loans with rates this high. How does that stop people from buying consumer products and make prices come down?

And a lot of this inflation didn't start due to supply and demand issues, they started with corporate greed and opportunism. Gas prices (and I'm fairly certain our entire economy is predicated on the price of oil) were low during the pandemic b/c demand was super low. No one was going anywhere. Coming out, prices rose at a rate higher than normal because there was an opportunity to do so with no one really questioning if it was necessary. Supply wasn't down and when supply is down, it's not because there's less oil available, it's because the companies decide to pump less oil to drive the prices higher. When gas prices went higher, every consumer good saw price increases to cover the fuel costs incurred by the producers. Inflation in this country is almost solely a byproduct of the price of oil and gas which is manipulated by the companies, not natural market forces.