Trump is assembling the richest administration
 

Many of the Trump appointees were born wealthy, attended elite schools and went on to amass even larger fortunes as adults. As a group, they have much more experience funding political candidates than they do running government agencies.

is this letting the foxes run the Hen House ??

Business and Government are not even remotely the same

https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is...0Recirculation

written in 1996


economics and business are not the same subject, and mastery of one does not ensure comprehension, let alone mastery, of the other. A successful business leader is no more likely to be an expert on economics than on military strategy.


The next time you hear business-people propounding their views about the economy, ask yourself, Have they taken the time to study this subject? Have they read what the experts write? If not, never mind how successful they have been in business. Ignore them, because they probably have no idea what they are talking about.

not thinking theses guys are it it for the Blue collar worker .. we'll see

You may be on to something - look at the Kennedys.

To me, former Military of proper Foreign Service Officers are the better tiers.

Followed by:

Business people

White Collar

Blue Collar

Scientists

Lawyers

Academics.

I don't want people who are career government employees. I'd rather have a Secretary of the Treasury that has worked successfully on Wall Street, than someone who spent his whole career in the government or in a faculty room teaching economics. You seem to be suggesting that government experience is more important than real-world experience. I could not disagree more strongly. Did Eisenhower ever run for political office before he was POTUS?

You need people who understand government, no doubt. They don't need to be in the Cabinet necessarily.

"is this letting the foxes run the Hen House "

You really believe that wealthy people have necessarily preyed upon everyone else, don't you? How many poor people are in Obama's cabinet? And what's the magical net worth number, above which you are (according to liberals) necessarily a bad person?

"Business and Government are not even remotely the same "

I agree with that statement, but not in the same spirit in which you agree with it! Career politicians are almost useless in my opinion. I'll take somebody who knows how to get things done, any day.

In business, you have to produce, and you have to do it efficiently. That's infinitely harder than government, where you can usually take as long as you want, and don't usually give a rat's azz about cost.

"A successful business leader is no more likely to be an expert on economics than on military strategy."

I could not disagree more. Business and economics are very closely related. Go tell Warren Buffet that he knows no more about macroeconomics, than he knows about infantry tactics.

Business and economics are not identical. They are very closely related. The CEO of a large company, absolutely needs to understand economics. The owner of a mom and pop pizza shop doesn't, but the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, absolutely does.

The Treasury Secretary has many assistants. He can pick one who has a PhD in economics if he wants.

Some people have a proven ability to learn what they need to know. If someone knows how to think logically, and to solve problems, that skill can translate to many different fields.

John, if you put "golden retrievers" ahead of academics, your list would match my list.

I would like scientists in charge of science based agencies, and maybe not a former governor with no nuclear experience in charge of DOE....

The wealth doesn't bother me.
It is concerning to me how many people dislike or actively wanted to remove the agencies they are now heading. I was prepared to give him a pass and wait and see, and posted something similar to Facebook a few days after the election. His picks for EPA and DOE concern me though. Tillerson, we'll see. Education is an odd choice, but I am glad DOI is NOT being led by Gov. Palin!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I like the education pick. Throw common core in the garbage, and give more poor kids a shot by giving them more choices. What in gods name is the argument against letting poor kids opt out of failing schools, and letting them choose to go to schools that work. I thought liberals were in favor of choice, pretty sure I read that somewhere. But they can't go against the teachers unions
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't have a problem with common core going away. There is a difference between an outsider and inexperience. I would have loved the women from DC he interviewed over a rich donor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hound. America is going to be great again. Just sit back and relax. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see each pick as a systematic approach to dismantle each agency one by one . There is no intent to have them be more efficient . but only to allow easier money flow to the top.. a Businesses approach

Its Like taking the teeth from a Dog then tell the public its still a good watch dog because it can still bark...

(but the thieves know the dog has no teeth)


Schools dont fail parents Fail their kids its not day care

Let talk about Trump's pick for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos
see wants to privatize education ( her children never set foot in a public school)

2010, they even opened up their own charter school

She looking at profit hidden in choice But choice does not guarantee access

She feel competition is the answer for better schools

She feels she is owed

The DeVos family is a major funder of the Republican party. In a 1997 op-ed that DeVos wrote for the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, she pointedly admitted, "my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party." She also said that she decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that they were buying influence and simply concede the point, admitting "we expect a return on our investment," to make America reflect their vision for it.

Pay to play written all over this one

"he feel competition is the answer for better schools'

Most people feel that way. WDMSO, please tell me why you are opposed to letting poor families choose to opt out of failing schools, and instead send their kids to schools that work? On what basis, exactly, are you opposed to that?

Giving those parents more choice, is giving them more freedom, it's giving their kids a better shot at realizing their dreams.

Only union fanatics, who care nothing bout anyone but themselves, , could possibly oppose school choice. Poor people in cities, LOVE school choice. They love it.

it's really both...

Parents fail their kids by not holding them accountable for their performance at school, not getting involved in or even caring about what's going on in school, and not setting boundaries on school nights and school work.

But parents aren't to blame for 30 year old text books, crumbling buildings and infrastructure, teaching to a test, and 40 kids to a class. Those kinds of problems fall on the School district and the communities that support them.

I see a couple possibilities here. I see picks that are unconventional selections for particular positions may be able to more easily get to the root of a department doing well or not doing well because the head does not drink the Koolaid. He said he was going to bring in "winners" to do certain things - maybe this is an example. Maybe the EPA needs more Egon Spengler and less Walter Peck



Agreed. These kids already have 2 strikes against them with often bad parents. Totally unfair. I used to disagree with some the over application of different subsidies being given to the kids but now I am not so sure. Though I do think the parents should need to do more in conjunction with these. Kids having kids.

But schools are failing kids as are the parents - something has to give in order for these kids to have an opportunity to excel.

The quality of the parenting is more important than the quality of the school. No question.

But all other things being equal, a good school beats a crappy school. That's why in our cities, parents that are trying to do the right thing, are almost unanimously in favor of school choice.

Still haven't heard an argument against it.

In Hartford CT, the town spends almost 20k on educating each kid. And the schools are colossal failures.

In West Hartford, there is a fantastic private school that charges $12k per kid.

So...instead of spending 20k to send a kid to a failing sh*thole of a school, the city of Hartford can send a few promising students to the private school. The town saves a ton of money, the kids gets a much better education.

In the real world, this solution would be called a "no-brainer". But not with politicians! Public teachers unions don't like school choice, because public employees like having a total monopoly, they don't like letting their customers have a "choice". So teachers unions are opposed to school choice. And teachers unions give a whole lot of money to Democrats. So democrats vote against school choice, thus continuing to waste huge amounts of money, and worse, limiting the opportunities of their poorest constituents who are trying to do the right thing.

There is no sane argument against school choice, none. I could almost lose an argument about why I oppose slavery, before I could lose an argument about why I support school choice.

And I am fairly certain I heard somewhere that liberals identify themselves as "pro choice", so I am a bit confused about their position here...

Good post.

Nor are responsible parents at fault if the teachers are forced to spend 99% of their time disciplining the wild kids, leaving no time to teach the small number of kids who are actually there to learn.

This is low hanging fruit, a problem with a laughably simple solution. This isn't splitting the atom.

I agree. Parents have forgotten how to parent
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who are the most which you speak ? charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts (look who funded the ballot question in MA for charter schools some NY hedge fund) they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be ... Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes ... all citizens should have the right to an good education but a free market based system is crazy and will start a new class system your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want ?

Guess who can start a charter school....Parents that are dissatisfied with their kids’ public education options but can’t afford the tuition of a private school can take matters into their own hands and start a charter school. or anyone !!! How is that a good Idea? how about we run the same model for police depts

Why hedge funds love charter schools
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.fa65a4ddaa84

No ..but Political parties who would rather spend billions on wars and military spending Are to blame .. they turn a blind eye towards infrastucture all over the country leaving it to the states and cities and towns to struggle with increase costs lower tax base .... because the see that spending as a form of Socialism rather than securing americas future ..

"Who are the most which you speak ?"

That would be everyone who understands what happens when an organization has a monopoly, versus an organization that has competitors

"charter schools are nothing but cash cows for investor's to milk all ready limited funds from school districts "

Investors? Many, many charter schools are public schools. There are no "investors".

As I stated, it's often CHEAPER to send a kid to a private school, than it is to send them to a public school. So school vouchers, and school choice, often saves the town money. It also puts kids in better schools. Win-win.

"they are not the magic bullet they are billed to be"

Can you get through a single post, without responding to something which nobody ever said? Nobody said they are a silver bullet. But it HELPS. Good schools are better than crappy schools. Do you disagree?

"Funny people complain about people being on welfare but then champion choice for poor families for charter schools .. but in the next breath want lower taxes"

Very, very few people deny that we need a safety net. What conservatives complain about, is waste, abuse, and fraud in welfare programs.

For the 3rd (?) time, school choice can SAVE money, which could enable towns to lower taxes. You see WDMSO, when you spend less, you don't need as much coming in.

So as far as I can tell from your response, you oppose school choice for the following reasons...

(1) You don't want investors getting rich (invalid argument in most cases, as most private schools are not for profit)

(2) You say the alternative schools aren't guaranteed to be perfect. Well, nothing is perfect. Is it a silver bullet when your state spends more on prison guards? No, it's not. But I bet you support that.

(3) you say cities cannot afford it...but as I said, it can lower costs for cities. Give people the option of sending their kids to cheaper, yet better, schools.

"a free market based system is crazy "

As opposed to giving cities a monopoly, which has been swell in the cities.


"will start a new class system"

That's not what we have now in our cities?

"your bank account will select your education quality is that what we want"

we have that today. What school choice does, is reduce the difference in education quality. I am interested in giving people at the bottom, a better chance. You would rather stick with the status quo. Shocker, since you are in a public union.

Ask a poor person who lives in a city with crappy schools, yet who is raising kids who want to learn, if they'd rather send their kids to a private school in the suburbs. Ask the mayor of the city, if he would like to see education spending decrease, while giving better education to some kids.

You have put forth weak arguments.






.

hh..so the party that wants to let families choose which school is best for them, is to blame.

First you said bad parents are to blame, now you are saying Republicans are to blame.

"they turn a blind eye towards infrastucture all over the country "

For Obama's first 2 years as POTUS, his party controlled the legislature. I guess he turned a blind eye too.

Trump is proposing to spend a trillion dollars on badly needed infrastructure improvements. Where do you get your information from?

"the see that spending as a form of Socialism rather than securing americas future "

Please support your claim that conservatives are opposed to spending on infrastructure?

One false stereotype after.

Do yourself a favor...instead of listening to Rachael Maddow tell you what conservatives believe, you might try listening to a rational, intelligent, influential conservative. Listen to what he says, not to what MSNBC claims he says. Try Charles Krauthammer, a thoughtful, articulate conservative. Read his columns, you will see how badly you are being misinformed, by whoever you get your information from.

And you have put forth no arguments on how charter schools help

Why dont you open one.. you can if they are so great and divert more money to the private sector from the public sector which you blame for everything

charter schools are public schools. really see below
In New York state, the charters went to court to fight audits by the state comptroller; they argued that they are nonprofit educational institutions, not public agencies. They said that only their authorizers had the power to audit them, not public officials. The state law was amended to give the comptroller the authority to audit their use of public monies.


n Chicago and in Philadelphia, charter schools fought efforts by their teachers to unionize on grounds that they were not public schools and thus were not subject to state labor laws. The charter school in Chicago argued in court that it was a private school, not a public school, and thus not subject to the same laws as public schools.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a charter school in Arizona was a private nonprofit corporation, not a state agency, when it was sued by an employee who had been discharged. In this case, a federal court agreed with the charter school that charters are not public schools when it comes to the rights of their employees.

Wayne...you've never actually been to a Charter school have you?

"And you have put forth no arguments on how charter schools help "

Let me get this straight. You are saying that if you take 100 kids who want to learn, there is no difference in educational outcome, regardless of whether they attend public school in Hartford, or a private school in the suburbs. You really, truly, genuinely believe that?

If that's true, all those people who choose where to live based on school quality, must be pretty stupid.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...-like-congress

From the article...

"a United States Department of Education report that found students in the nation's capital that were provided with vouchers allowing them to attend private school through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program had made statistically significant gains in reading achievement."

"Why dont you open one"

You are missing the point. The private schools are already there. We don't need to build them. Many private schools have space for more kids, and many public school students would love to go to the private schools, but can't afford it.

Charter schools aren't necessarily different from public schools. The fact that they didn't want to unionize, doesn't mean it's not a public school. Individual charter schools may function as private, but they don't have to. And private schools are not necessarily for-profit. Many are non-profit, because many are Catholic.

My niece and nephew live in a town that is backward at best. They each were accepted at a charter school which also happens to have an excellent special education program. Win for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope.. what they are like is not why I am against expansion

I am happy with the way MA does it theres a Cap on them.. not looking to ban them just not open to free for all expansion on charter schools or have the education system turn into a market driven model

glad to hear you don't want them banned , that would really make you sound crazy:chased:

Trump said he no longer wants to drain the swamp. I think that was right after his 2 kids where caught trying to sell access to him for up to $1,000,000.

Edit - I should make it clear the $ was for a charity.

In my eyes, I am witnessing the biggest con job in the history of us polotics. The war in Iraq was a serious con job but what's unfolding now is just so blatent. I just wonder how long it's going to take for the average dipchit to realize all those campaign promises were meaningless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cannot believe that Trump doesn't feel compelled to sell 100% of his business interests, as well as that of his kids. The optics are really, really bad.

"all those campaign promises were meaningless."

Tell that to the few hundred families in Indiana who can sleep at night because they have jobs that he helped secure.

The guy is 3 weeks away from inauguration, and people are commenting on his job performance.

Jim. Let's see how it's going in 2 years. So far though... may promises have been broken
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device