Thomas Sowell-BLM and Black Americans

[DannyZuco]

4 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

Because that tax money is for Billy's education. So we all agree to pay for Billys education through tax dollars but only if him and his family attend the school we decide he should?

Heck no, that's the reason they're successful is because they don't follow the same ignorant rules. 

Show me the constitutional document that states "separation of church and state" 

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.^[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791 as ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was one of the earliest political expressions of religious freedom^{[citation needed]}. Others were the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, also authored by Jefferson and adopted by Virginia in 1786; and the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789.

The metaphor "a wall of separation between Church and State" used by Jefferson in the above quoted letter became a part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was first used by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Reynolds v. United States (1878). American historian George Bancroft was consulted by Waite in the Reynolds case regarding the views on establishment by the framers of the U.S. constitution. Bancroft advised Waite to consult Jefferson. Waite then discovered the above quoted letter in a library after skimming through the index to Jefferson’s collected works according to historian Don Drakeman.^[21]

[trashyhound]

1 minute ago, DannyZuco said:

In English, the exact term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state", as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.^[20]

Jefferson was describing to the Baptists that the United States Bill of Rights prevents the establishment of a national church, and in so doing they did not have to fear government interference in their right to expressions of religious conscience. The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791 as ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was one of the earliest political expressions of religious freedom^{[citation needed]}. Others were the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, also authored by Jefferson and adopted by Virginia in 1786; and the French Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789.

The metaphor "a wall of separation between Church and State" used by Jefferson in the above quoted letter became a part of the First Amendment jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was first used by Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Reynolds v. United States (1878). American historian George Bancroft was consulted by Waite in the Reynolds case regarding the views on establishment by the framers of the U.S. constitution. Bancroft advised Waite to consult Jefferson. Waite then discovered the above quoted letter in a library after skimming through the index to Jefferson’s collected works according to historian Don Drakeman.^[21]

Correct, so not one government document says "separation of church and state" 

Why is he saying that in a letter to a baptist church? Clearly so the baptist would know that their kids couldn't and wouldn't hear about God in schools? C'mon man, you're smarter than that. 

[DannyZuco]

2 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

 

The root of the issue is this... Should education tax dollars belong to the students who live in that district or to the public school district itself? I say the students. 

You've yet to tell me which way is better for the students themselves. 

I have said they have choices, I have argued against the taking of local tax dollars--I don't know what is better for all students, because each one is different than the other. Just mine-and the ones that I have taught in the past. I know when they leave my classroom they have been taught things that will help them in life, not how to do the same math problem 8 different ways--because in the real world, managers want the job done fast and CORRECT the first time. 

NO education tax dollars DO NOT belong to the students--they belong to the local school district that set up the property taxes boundaries--and provides an education for local students, if you don't like the school district, then you should try to end disband them. . If you CHOOSE not to accept those rules--then you need to relocate to somewhere, where you can have the privilege of spending your tax dollars where ever you please. But what you are asking for is NOT how the real world works. 

[Youngcoach123]

Just now, DannyZuco said:

 

NO education tax dollars DO NOT belong to the students--they belong to the local school district that set up the property taxes boundaries--and provides an education for local students, if you don't like the school district, then you should try to end disband it

Currently the money belongs to the local school district but it shouldn’t and that’s what school choice is. 
have you ever disbanded an ISD? Doesn’t sound easy lol.

”you have a choice, private or move” but you yourself said you can’t move and I bet a lot of others can’t either. But you call it a choice? Doesn’t sound like a choice to me. If you home school, are you exempt from ISS taxes? You should be. There money should go with them as well. 

[DannyZuco]

7 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

Correct, so not one government document says "separation of church and state" 

Why is he saying that in a letter to a baptist church? Clearly so the baptist would know that their kids couldn't and wouldn't hear about God in schools? C'mon man, you're smarter than that. 

Because Jefferson did not want a State run religion like they had in England at the time. The Church of England. 

So you would rather our leaders tell you which "religion" you have to follow? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

But it was used to decide the 1st religious case in the United States, where Reynolds was married to 2 women at the same time. And that Religious rights, ARE NOT superior to Constitutional Laws. 

[DannyZuco]

3 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Currently the money belongs to the local school district but it shouldn’t and that’s what school choice is. 
have you ever disbanded an ISD? Doesn’t sound easy lol.

”you have a choice, private or move” but you yourself said you can’t move and I bet a lot of others can’t either. But you call it a choice? Doesn’t sound like a choice to me. If you home school, are you exempt from ISS taxes? You should be. There money should go with them as well. 

There is one school district I would like to try and disband--but since I moved from there--what ever happens there stays there. LOL. 

You don't have to move to go to another district, you just don't have the right to take your LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES WITH YOU. I did it for 4 years while my eldest daughter went to a different school district than where we lived. 

I doubt ANYONE is exempt from paying property taxes--even if they home school. 

And I can move--I will move if that is what it takes, the example was just that, an example. Because people would rather stay in one place they hate, than move and start over. 

[Youngcoach123]

2 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

, you just don't have the right to take your LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES WITH YOU. . . 

I doubt ANYONE is exempt from paying property taxes--even if they home school. 

You conflate local taxes with ISD taxes. No one is trying to take the local city tax. (Police fire street maintenance) But putting the ISD taxes where your kids receive accommodations is every bit the right of Taxpayer. The current system would have you move isds (again which I did) but not everyone can do that. If it was a choice like you claim, everyone could make that choice. And as you have proven, not everyone can.
 

it’s an outdated system that is proving to not work for our students. Change to the system is needed. School choice will accomplish the solutions to the problems that our students have. 

[trashyhound]

10 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

There is one school district I would like to try and disband--but since I moved from there--what ever happens there stays there. LOL. 

You don't have to move to go to another district, you just don't have the right to take your LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES WITH YOU. I did it for 4 years while my eldest daughter went to a different school district than where we lived. 

I doubt ANYONE is exempt from paying property taxes--even if they home school. 

And I can move--I will move if that is what it takes, the example was just that, an example. Because people would rather stay in one place they hate, than move and start over. 

I know you cannot do that now.

With a simple voucher law you would have the right for a child to take their portion of education tax dollars. And that would benefit childrens education. Making them stay in the current system does not

[Youngcoach123]

1 minute ago, trashyhound said:

I know you cannot do that now.

With a simple voucher law you would have the right for a child to take their portion of education tax dollars. And that would benefit childrens education. Making them stay in the current system does not

[DannyZuco]

2 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

You conflate local taxes with ISD taxes. No one is trying to take the local city tax. (Police fire street maintenance) But putting the ISD taxes where your kids receive accommodations is every bit the right of Taxpayer. The current system would have you move isds (again which I did) but not everyone can do that. If it was a choice like you claim, everyone could make that choice. And as you have proven, not everyone can.
 

it’s an outdated system that is proving to not work for our students. Change to the system is needed. School choice will accomplish the solutions to the problems that our students have. 

So I am guessing that you would fix the system from within--or are you already out of coaching and teaching? 

Again, taking city taxes is an example of what you guys are asking for. ISD's have been given areas by the state. You are not going to get to take your LOCAL PROPERTY TAX dollars and spend them somewhere else. And this doesn't even touch the surface of all the problems you would have if people were given their tax dollars. 

While I understand some people home school--most do it because they don't want to let go of their kids, or their kids can't handle social settings. I just can't imagine allowing tax payers to keep their funds and home school. I have seen most of the programs that many--not all-go through--and they don't really teach kids or help them. 

I understand there are bad teachers out there. But with all the mandates, and state and federal laws, all the paperwork for each and every 504/SPED, and to top it off--every parent these days has become a bulldozer parent. All the good teachers are leaving the field. Why should we have to put up with people like ya'll claiming we don't care, we want to unionize, we just take the money and run--all of which is total -ya'll just want to blame someone for something. 

I am going to say something I never thought I would, but ya'll are just plain socialists--wanting to redistribute wealth like that, because the rich school districts will get richer, the poor ones will stay poor, and nothing will change, because KNOW ONE wants to make the tough choices or fix their local problems. Same with SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare--it's all complaining, not action. 

[DannyZuco]

2 hours ago, trashyhound said:

I know you cannot do that now.

With a simple voucher law you would have the right for a child to take their portion of education tax dollars. And that would benefit childrens education. Making them stay in the current system does not

Okay, let's say we give you your tax dollars.--and you move to the next district over. Then all of a sudden, something happens and your kid hates that district--do you get to keep taking your tax dollars to another district? How many districts can you go through in a year? What about those school districts where coaches will be recruiting players? Are they really moving to the new school district for a better education or a better opportunity to showcase their skills? 

And before youngcoach comes on here and spouts off--if they don't do what they are suppose to kick them out. Well, what happens to the tax money then? And who is going to stop parents from suing school districts because their kid got kicked out? I mean even today--parents are suing a school district because their kid got suspended for waving a BB gun in an online class. 

People know the rules, Kids aren't suppose to have guns while at school or even attending online classes. School rules apply when they are in those settings. Just like for field trips and other school related events. Accept the punishment, your kid did something stupid, talk with your kid about respect, instead of saying he did nothing wrong and was at home. That's BS. Have some respect for the school rules, not only the rules you believe in. 

 

[trashyhound]

1 hour ago, DannyZuco said:

Okay, let's say we give you your tax dollars.--and you move to the next district over. Then all of a sudden, something happens and your kid hates that district--do you get to keep taking your tax dollars to another district? How many districts can you go through in a year? What about those school districts where coaches will be recruiting players? Are they really moving to the new school district for a better education or a better opportunity to showcase their skills? 

And before youngcoach comes on here and spouts off--if they don't do what they are suppose to kick them out. Well, what happens to the tax money then? And who is going to stop parents from suing school districts because their kid got kicked out? I mean even today--parents are suing a school district because their kid got suspended for waving a BB gun in an online class. 

People know the rules, Kids aren't suppose to have guns while at school or even attending online classes. School rules apply when they are in those settings. Just like for field trips and other school related events. Accept the punishment, your kid did something stupid, talk with your kid about respect, instead of saying he did nothing wrong and was at home. That's BS. Have some respect for the school rules, not only the rules you believe in. 

 

If a family wants to change schools every single year I say let em.  I don't think that would happen, but choices in school for kids is a good thing!

[Youngcoach123]

2 hours ago, trashyhound said:

If a family wants to change schools every single year I say let em.  I don't think that would happen, but choices in school for kids is a good thing!

He keeps saying local property tax. I don’t think he understands it’s two different taxes. Local and ISD.

[LSUTIGERS]

I think this horse is dead!!

[DannyZuco]

11 hours ago, Youngcoach123 said:

He keeps saying local property tax. I don’t think he understands it’s two different taxes. Local and ISD.

Yes, I understand there are 2 different taxes and in some counties, you have more than that, like regional hospital property taxes, local junior college property taxes. Even though you think you know it all, I am sure that you don't, because I don't either. But I do know, NOT TAXING ENTITY is going to give up there funds so you can redistribute the wealth. You can call it "choice" all you want--but it is nothing more than wealth redistribution, which I thought many of you were against, unless if falls into your "privileged choices". 

But then again, all PROPERTY TAXES ARE LOCAL--there is NO STATE PROPERTY TAX!!!!!

[DannyZuco]

13 hours ago, trashyhound said:

If a family wants to change schools every single year I say let em.  I don't think that would happen, but choices in school for kids is a good thing!

BTW--when was the last time, most kids made "good choices". And most kids could care less what school district they are in--it's their bulldozer parents that are the problem, mainly because they don't want to tell their kids "NO". 

[Youngcoach123]

6 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

Yes, I understand there are 2 different taxes and in some counties, you have more than that, like regional hospital property taxes, local junior college property taxes. Even though you think you know it all, I am sure that you don't, because I don't either. But I do know, NOT TAXING ENTITY is going to give up there funds so you can redistribute the wealth. You can call it "choice" all you want--but it is nothing more than wealth redistribution, which I thought many of you were against, unless if falls into your "privileged choices". 

But then again, all PROPERTY TAXES ARE LOCAL--there is NO STATE PROPERTY TAX!!!!!

Everyone pays taxes but not everyone is wealthy. It’s not redistribution of wealth. It’s the taxpayers money that they agree to give to the municipality and ISD. Voting to change that system is all we can do now, or choose to move our entire family into the district they want for their children. Wanting to fund the school that educates your child without moving to the district is really that bad to you? 
All property taxes are local, but not all property taxes are ISD taxes. Which is what i was talking about. None of the others apply. 

[DannyZuco]

1 minute ago, Youngcoach123 said:

Everyone pays taxes but not everyone is wealthy. It’s not redistribution of wealth. It’s the taxpayers money that they agree to give to the municipality and ISD. Voting to change that system is all we can do now, or choose to move our entire family into the district they want for their children. Wanting to fund the school that educates your child without moving to the district is really that bad to you? 
All property taxes are local, but not all property taxes are ISD taxes. Which is what i was talking about. None of the others apply. 

What is wealth redistribution then? Is that not taking money from one ISD and giving it to another ISD? 

I just said above--all property taxes are local--there is NO STATE Property tax at this time, but if some get their way in Austin, like Dan Patrick--we will have one. 

NOT once have I said that choose for education was a bad thing. I have ONLY argued that you don't get to take the LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES with you!!!!! In fact, as a teacher--I am one of the few that probably believes in school choice. But I am firmly against people getting to "choose" to take their property tax funds elsewhere. I don't believe that you should be able to live in one community and take their money to another community because--"you don't like the teachers, principals, or administration--or the rules are too strict". 

And to go even further--a lot of people think that it would help all those poor inner city students--How would it help? 

I'd really like to know, since I have taught in areas like that before. Exactly how much money are you going to give them to attend another school? Since a lot of economically disadvantaged students and their families DON'T own property--where is tax money going to come from? Are you going to take a percentage of what they pay in rent to give to them so they can go to a better school district? Are you just going to give them average of what the local ISD property taxes are? Wouldn't that qualify as "wealth redistribution" because we know they didn't pay that in property taxes? 

Again, as I state many posts again. If you wanna take the 35% of the money the state gives to school districts as a voucher program, I don't have a problem with that. But I will always defend LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES staying local. 

 

[Youngcoach123]

School taxes should go where the child of the taxpayer sends his child to school. It’s a school tax based on property value.  School tax!
The wealthy paying more for the school tax is where the real redistribution of wealth occurs. Paying more for the same services someone pays less for.

[trashyhound]

1 hour ago, DannyZuco said:

BTW--when was the last time, most kids made "good choices". And most kids could care less what school district they are in--it's their bulldozer parents that are the problem, mainly because they don't want to tell their kids "NO". 

I understand, so you and politicians should make their choices for them? And I'm the socialist for wanting freedom to choose? 

[Youngcoach123]

11 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

I understand, so you and politicians should make their choices for them? And I'm the socialist for wanting freedom to choose? 

It’s not the gov fault!! It’s the parents!! Lol

[trashyhound]

1 hour ago, DannyZuco said:

What is wealth redistribution then? Is that not taking money from one ISD and giving it to another ISD? 

I just said above--all property taxes are local--there is NO STATE Property tax at this time, but if some get their way in Austin, like Dan Patrick--we will have one. 

NOT once have I said that choose for education was a bad thing. I have ONLY argued that you don't get to take the LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES with you!!!!! In fact, as a teacher--I am one of the few that probably believes in school choice. But I am firmly against people getting to "choose" to take their property tax funds elsewhere. I don't believe that you should be able to live in one community and take their money to another community because--"you don't like the teachers, principals, or administration--or the rules are too strict". 

And to go even further--a lot of people think that it would help all those poor inner city students--How would it help? 

I'd really like to know, since I have taught in areas like that before. Exactly how much money are you going to give them to attend another school? Since a lot of economically disadvantaged students and their families DON'T own property--where is tax money going to come from? Are you going to take a percentage of what they pay in rent to give to them so they can go to a better school district? Are you just going to give them average of what the local ISD property taxes are? Wouldn't that qualify as "wealth redistribution" because we know they didn't pay that in property taxes? 

Again, as I state many posts again. If you wanna take the 35% of the money the state gives to school districts as a voucher program, I don't have a problem with that. But I will always defend LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES staying local. 

 

Take the ISD out of the equation. The money shouldn't belong to the ISD, it should belong to the student that we the public pay taxes to educate. 

The poor inner city kid 9th grader Sam has broke parents and lives in a terrible district. Let's call it "Cesspool isd". Sam hates cesspool isd because the kids are terribly behaved, steal, cheat, fight, and all read on a kindergarten level. The school is not challenging to him and the teachers are forced to babysit and teach down to the class level.

Down the street is Heaven private/ charter school. They are the top school in the country and Sam would like to attend there. It would further his education greatly and increase his academic and professional outcomes. 

Under your current system Sam is forced by you and politicians to attend cesspool. No options.

Under a voucher program Sam may take the local and state taxes that pay for his education at cesspool and move them and himself to heaven school. Or not, the choice belongs to him and his parents. 

In this scenario, Sam and his family and society all recieve tremendous benefit at 0 additional cost from him being allowed voucher to heaven school.

Under your system, Sam, his family and society all are punished with 0  taxpayer savings, just so that the ISD can retain money that they don't deserve. 

We can all see the benefits to the student in this scenario. Under your system what student benefits? 

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

7 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

Take the ISD out of the equation. The money shouldn't belong to the ISD, it should belong to the student that we the public pay taxes to educate. 

The poor inner city kid 9th grader Sam has broke parents and lives in a terrible district. Let's call it "Cesspool isd". Sam hates cesspool isd because the kids are terribly behaved, steal, cheat, fight, and all read on a kindergarten level. The school is not challenging to him and the teachers are forced to babysit and teach down to the class level.

Down the street is Heaven private/ charter school. They are the top school in the country and Sam would like to attend there. It would further his education greatly and increase his academic and professional outcomes. 

Under your current system Sam is forced by you and politicians to attend cesspool. No options.

Under a voucher program Sam may take the local and state taxes that pay for his education at cesspool and move them and himself to heaven school. Or not, the choice belongs to him and his parents. 

In this scenario, Sam and his family and society all recieve tremendous benefit at 0 additional cost from him being allowed voucher to heaven school.

Under your system, Sam, his family and society all are punished with 0  taxpayer savings, just so that the ISD can retain money that they don't deserve. 

We can all see the benefits to the student in this scenario. Under your system what student benefits? 

 

AMEN........

[Youngcoach123]

https://www.acpsk12.org/theogony/2020-2021/2020/10/07/exclusive-acps-superintendent-hutchings-sends-child-to-private-school-bishop-ireton/
 

Supt keeps his ISD closed, moves his daughter to private school for in person learning.  Glad he had that choice. 

[trashyhound]

Hutchings said in a statement, “I can confirm that our family made a decision to change my daughter’s school this school year. Decisions like these are very personal family decisions and are not taken lightly. This in no way impacts my absolute lifelong, commitment to public education, to which I remain as personally dedicated as ever.”

 

lol, this dude. Wow

"very personal family decision",....... Unless you're poor, then it's a politician/ teacher association decision