Jump to content

Hmm. Haven't seen this mentioned


westend1

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, westend1 said:

This is the hidden content, please

You havent seen it mentioned because it did not take place for the last seven years but finally showed up on this report.  Those are good numbers and I contend it could/should have happened a lot sooner if less of this  country's economic resources had been directed toward government efforts.  A couple of quick thoughts-  The poverty rate came down but it came down from an all time high that occurred during the current administration.  Median income had a sizeable jump but was way overdue for that and it is still below the median income when Mr. Bush was in office.  The other "spike the football after a touchdown" point was the lowering of people uninsured.  We have yet to see what the ultimate cost of that will be but my guess is that if one does a cost/benefit analysis, it will seem overtly expensive and perhaps unsustainable.  Nearly all of the economic problems we face could be resolved with more vigorous economic growth.  But when the government becomes too large of a part of the economy, it isnt going to happen as evidenced by a GDP of less than 2% during a long recovery which is about half of what GDP has been for recession recoveries in modern times.  Additionally, since Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty", look at the rate when he was in office versus where it is now.  You will see very little difference despite the gazillions of dollars that have been poured into that effort.  From my viewpoint, this article is a little bit like an article that says " LeBron James quadruples his scoring in game 6".  Only problem is, he had 7 points in game 5.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Sure,  So you are just like a Dem.  No difference.  Just as I have always said.

Far different from a Dem.  Don't believe in murdering babies or letting a queer use the bathroom they associate there gender with.  I would hate to know I associate myself with those type of people.  Guess it doesn't bother you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 When Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency, we were at the very bottom of a substantial recession.  So the numbers couldnt have looked any worse than they did when he took office.  The cyclicality of the economy is responsible for a goodly portion of the improvement since then.  This is evident by the FACT that there has NEVER been a recession/economic slowdown from which we did not recover, regardless of who was in office.  Therefore, to state that "I/we created x number of jobs is garbage.  The majority of those jobs would have come about if Al Gore or John McCain or Michael Dukakis had been in office at that time.  So its a bit disengenuous to claim that certain policies or approaches is/are what caused the jobs picture to improve.  I will continue to believe that the free enterprise system is at its best and most productive when it has as little government intrusion as possible and that we should make a concentrated effort to allow a hard working individual to keep as much of what he earns as possible-  this will ultimately be more beneficial to the overall economic health of the nation.  Furthermore, I believe very strongly that you cannot legislate away poverty and there will always be some who have more than others.  Isn't it odd that people from all over the world want to come here for a better life but we seem bound and determined to adopt policies that will make us more like the countries they have left to come to the United States.  I still think we should seek equal opportunities rather than equal outcomes, orchestrated by an inefficient and unaccountable government.  Finally, as I have said many times, Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, and Detroit are classic examples of why socialism or quasi socialism do not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, westend1 said:

No it doesn't.   But we were talking about something else.  Try to focus.  Even if it is just for a few minutes.   "There" gender has nothing to do with this discussion.

My bad,"their".  You said I was just like a Dem.  Just letting you know I am very than a Dem. Since it doesn't bother you that Dems are ok with murdering babies, says a lot about your values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, westend1 said:

One gets the blame, one doesn't.  I get it.

You are spot on BS Wildcats.  I love to hear someone lamenting the fact that Mr. Obama could be criticized or discredited for his handling of the economy.  Those same "lamenters" were all over Mr. Bush for the sub prime mortgage debacle and attendant economic decline, giving him  full credit for it when he had very little to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of this article for me.  I saw it on the news about two hours after I read an article talking about the growth of tent cities, within big cities, for the homeless, many of whom were recently middle class.  And the expectations of more growth (of tent cities) as this economy is a disaster to the lower, to middle class.  Oddly enough, CBS didn't mention that.

The slow introduction of America into Socialism is already showing signs of third world living conditions.  But how would the Dems respond?  Move along here.  Nothing to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined


  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...