|
Post by dewryce on Feb 13, 2018 22:36:31 GMT
Okay, that's funny and a much needed laugh, thanks!
Is it me or are his tweets less "12 year old boy" in structure these days?
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,718
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Feb 13, 2018 23:15:11 GMT
I see these boxes of food as a way to award fat cat contracts with giant agribusinesses. There will be no attempt to provide nutritious food -- it's all a way to pass along more profits to the wealthy. Can you imagine how much more it will cost to collect and distribute these boxes of food. It will cost 10x as much as filling an EBT card. Stupidest idea ever.
Meanwhile, children are going hungry in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 13, 2018 23:56:53 GMT
Apparently, this is on display at the US Holocaust Museum.... Really hits hard when you see it all written there. The similarities are very, very scary. I keep seeing it on Pinterest and it is sobering every time I read it. Keep meaning to do some research into the details of the particular display for more context because the photo I always come across is a copy for sale. eta: Because honestly this looks too perfect, like it is not true but was written for social media to mirror the things the GOP and Trump are doing. They are so prevelant for both parties! So I'm trying to display a healthy dose of skepticism. But I would not be shocked in the slightest to find it exactly as stated. eta2: This was only a poster for sale and never displayed in the museum as part of an exhibit. It was written in 2003 by a man researching and writing (published articles and a book) about facism, and widely believed to be about Bush. More on snopes.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 14, 2018 2:30:32 GMT
Gene Sperling... “This shocking admission comes as: 1) Director of National Intelligence says Russia is interfering in 2018 elections & "US is under attack." 2) 3 top Russian Intel heads had a coordinated meeting in US w/no explanation 3) Trump lawlessly refuses to impose Russia sanctions.” I still not sure who thought the heads of three of Russia’s Intelligence agencies coming to the US together was a good idea. And how did one of them make it in because there are sanctions against him preventing him from entering this country. And of the three no one is saying who he met with. So the obvious question is...why here? What could possibly be gained meeting here that couldn't be gained meeting literally anywhere else in the world? R ad Seth Abramson’s Feb 8/9 (I think) Twitter feed it lays a lot out
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 14, 2018 2:43:51 GMT
Late to the convo, but what exactly is “shelf-stable” milk? Is that a fancy euphemism for powdered? It’s liquid milk in those boxes like kids drinks come in. Also soup and broth/stock, in larger sizes. The boxes that can’t be recycled because they’re made of layers of different materials. It doesn’t need refrigeration as long as it hasn’t been opened yet. It probably tastes like :gag:!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 2:52:09 GMT
Let me ask a question. Would any of you accept a box of groceries from the government over picking out groceries you and family will eat?
I’m taking a wild guess the answer is no.
So why would it be ok for people, including members of our military, to be forced to “take what is given to them” or go without?
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Feb 14, 2018 2:52:25 GMT
Late to the convo, but what exactly is “shelf-stable” milk? Is that a fancy euphemism for powdered? It’s liquid milk in those boxes like kids drinks come in. Also soup and broth/stock, in larger sizes. The boxes that can’t be recycled because they’re made of layers of different materials. It doesn’t need refrigeration as long as it hasn’t been opened yet. It probably tastes like :gag:! Ick. That sounds pretty gross.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 14, 2018 2:53:40 GMT
Late to the convo, but what exactly is “shelf-stable” milk? Is that a fancy euphemism for powdered? It’s liquid milk in those boxes like kids drinks come in. Also soup and broth/stock, in larger sizes. The boxes that can’t be recycled because they’re made of layers of different materials. It doesn’t need refrigeration as long as it hasn’t been opened yet. It probably tastes like :gag:! Off topic, but our curbside recycling takes tetrapak boxes.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 14, 2018 3:06:17 GMT
Let me ask a question. Would any of you except a box of groceries from the government over picking out groceries you and family will eat? I’m taking a wild guess the answer is no. So why would it be ok for people, including members of our military, to be forced to “take what is given to them” or go without? I'm going to go out on a limb and say your guess isn't a wild one- not to mention the whole question of allergies, food sensitivities, etc. that other people already brought up. Someone on either the Dean Obiedallah (sp?) show on the Progressive Sirius channel tonight (or Chris Hayes, I don't remember which) said 'this is one of the most communist-sounding things I've ever heard; the idea that the government would choose / give you food, rather than letting you choose your own food.' They also said that giving someone food is certainly not the way to help them get more self-reliant; rather, it would do the opposite. --What Republican EVER thought something like this was a good idea and fit with the whole 'bootstraps / self-reliance' tenets of the conservative party, anyway?!? ETA: wait, I just realized WHY they released something so ludicrous as this plan... the person interviewed also said this bill has over $200 million (? I think) in CUTS to the SNAP program-- if I heard it correctly. So the Republican plan is: toss something so ludicrous as this out there to get us to talk about IT, and then walk that back, still leaving the cuts in the bill. This way, we're all focusing on the ridiculousness of the 'box of food' plan, and NOT notice the proposed CUTS to the budget.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 4:21:21 GMT
Let me ask a question. Would any of you except a box of groceries from the government over picking out groceries you and family will eat? I’m taking a wild guess the answer is no. So why would it be ok for people, including members of our military, to be forced to “take what is given to them” or go without? I'm going to go out on a limb and say your guess isn't a wild one- not to mention the whole question of allergies, food sensitivities, etc. that other people already brought up. Someone on either the Dean Obiedallah (sp?) show on the Progressive Sirius channel tonight (or Chris Hayes, I don't remember which) said 'this is one of the most communist-sounding things I've ever heard; the idea that the government would choose / give you food, rather than letting you choose your own food.' They also said that giving someone food is certainly not the way to help them get more self-reliant; rather, it would do the opposite.--What Republican EVER thought something like this was a good idea and fit with the whole 'bootstraps / self-reliance' tenets of the conservative party, anyway?!? ETA: wait, I just realized WHY they released something so ludicrous as this plan... the person interviewed also said this bill has over $200 million (? I think) in CUTS to the SNAP program-- if I heard it correctly. So the Republican plan is: toss something so ludicrous as this out there to get us to talk about IT, and then walk that back, still leaving the cuts in the bill. This way, we're all focusing on the ridiculousness of the 'box of food' plan, and NOT notice the proposed CUTS to the budget. Honest question arose when I read this... If they're not getting a box, they go to the store and pick out food -still being given to them by the use of a card. How is that version of giving someone food any different in helping them get more self-reliant? Honest question and then I'll bow out.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 14, 2018 4:39:07 GMT
"The packages recipients would be given would not include fresh fruits or vegetables. Instead, according to NPR, the packages would consist of "shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit and vegetables." Änother list": "The so-called USDA America's Harvest Box would contain items such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, canned meat, poultry or fish, and canned fruits and vegetables.." Nice lists have all been posted within this thread from different articles.! From MSNBC and video Trump plans to cut food stamps, deliver boxes of food www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/trump-plans-to-cut-food-stamps-deliver-boxes-of-food-1161082947543President Trump is exploiting the conservative myth of the food stamp leech with a new policy that solves no problems but creates plenty. Feb 13, 2018
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Feb 14, 2018 4:43:28 GMT
I'm going to go out on a limb and say your guess isn't a wild one- not to mention the whole question of allergies, food sensitivities, etc. that other people already brought up. Someone on either the Dean Obiedallah (sp?) show on the Progressive Sirius channel tonight (or Chris Hayes, I don't remember which) said 'this is one of the most communist-sounding things I've ever heard; the idea that the government would choose / give you food, rather than letting you choose your own food.' They also said that giving someone food is certainly not the way to help them get more self-reliant; rather, it would do the opposite.--What Republican EVER thought something like this was a good idea and fit with the whole 'bootstraps / self-reliance' tenets of the conservative party, anyway?!? ETA: wait, I just realized WHY they released something so ludicrous as this plan... the person interviewed also said this bill has over $200 million (? I think) in CUTS to the SNAP program-- if I heard it correctly. So the Republican plan is: toss something so ludicrous as this out there to get us to talk about IT, and then walk that back, still leaving the cuts in the bill. This way, we're all focusing on the ridiculousness of the 'box of food' plan, and NOT notice the proposed CUTS to the budget. Honest question arose when I read this... If they're not getting a box, they go to the store and pick out food being -still being given to them by the use of a card. How is that version of giving someone food any different in helping them get more self-reliant? Honest question and then I'll bow out. You don’t have to bow out. I know “ricky” is convinced I said no conservative is allowed to post here, but that’s not what happened. I don’t actually disagree with you about boxes vs food stamps. Although there’s something that feels more innately humiliating about receiving a box of government-approved food than being given the right to choose your own. I do think that this box of food idea is designed to (1) make money for GOP-donor corporate interests and (2) make sure poor people aren’t wasting their food stamps on some unapproved fun or expensive food and (3) enable the government to cut back on food stamp spending. Which amounts to some teeny-tiny proportion of the defense budget.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 14, 2018 4:44:29 GMT
The real story of food stamps by Tami Luhby @luhby February 13, 2018: 6:31 PM ET
Who is eligible for food stamps?
Households must meet three tests to qualify for food stamps. Their gross monthly income must be below 130% of the poverty line, or about $26,600 a year for a family of three.
Their net income, or their earnings after all deductions have been taken, must be at or below the poverty line. Meanwhile, families without an elderly or disabled person can't have more than $2,250 in assets, while those with such a member may have no more than $3,500.
Republicans have long wanted to downsize food stamps, known formally as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. They argue that the program is too large and rife with fraud. ** Who receives them?
As of fiscal 2016, 44% of food stamp recipients are children, and 12% were senior citizens older than age 60. The rest were working-age adults.
Some 57% are female, while 43% are male.
Some 36% are non-Hispanic whites, while 26% are black. Another 17% are Hispanic and 3% Asian. The race of 16% of participants is not known.
About 11% of are non-elderly Americans with disabilities. ** How much fraud is there?
Roughly 1.3 cents for every dollar is lost to fraud, according to a 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Much of it happens when benefits are exchanged for cash or ineligible items, which typically occurs at smaller retailers.
More at link: money.cnn.com/2018/02/13/news/economy/food-stamps-what-to-know/index.html Lots to think about! Probably the lowest fraud any government agency has ever had.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 4:55:33 GMT
Honest question arose when I read this... If they're not getting a box, they go to the store and pick out food being -still being given to them by the use of a card. How is that version of giving someone food any different in helping them get more self-reliant? Honest question and then I'll bow out. You don’t have to bow out. I know “ricky” is convinced I said no conservative is allowed to post here, but that’s not what happened. I don’t actually disagree with you about boxes vs food stamps. Although there’s something that feels more innately humiliating about receiving a box of government-approved food than being given the right to choose your own. I do think that this box of food idea is designed to (1) make money for GOP-donor corporate interests and (2) make sure poor people aren’t wasting their food stamps on some unapproved fun or expensive food and (3) enable the government to cut back on food stamp spending. Which amounts to some teeny-tiny proportion of the defense budget. I'm guessing like the gourmet boxes, you'll probably get to state likes, extreme dislikes and food allergies. Otherwise it makes no sense if you're sending food that will just be thrown away because your family can't eat it. I also wouldn't think getting your food delivered to you when you need assistance would be anymore humiliating than getting it sent to you when you don't have time to shop or figure out meals and opt for the paid gourmet boxes. The rest... you may be right.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 14, 2018 5:28:42 GMT
Gia said what I quoted, not Lucy- I copied it from the wrong post. If they're not getting a box, they go to the store and pick out food being -still being given to them by the use of a card. How is that version of giving someone food any different in helping them get more self-reliant? Honest question and then I'll bow out. quite simply, it's the difference between 'giving someone a fish' vs. 'teaching them how to fish.' If the person is given the food (and no one in any stories said anything about choosing preferences, how they would deal with allergies, etc.), they wouldn't have to learn / decide what to purchase, how to economize, how to get the most for their money, how to make healthy choices, etc. etc. etc. (Not to mention the indignity of it.)
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 14, 2018 12:05:01 GMT
Let me ask a question. Would any of you accept a box of groceries from the government over picking out groceries you and family will eat? I’m taking a wild guess the answer is no. So why would it be ok for people, including members of our military, to be forced to “take what is given to them” or go without? Exactly. It’s demeaning and demoralizing. I was tormented relentlessly as a child because we received “government cheese and peanut butter” for a short time while my dad was on strike with his union. Elementary school kids (getting from their parents I assume) making fun of me—ELEMENTARY SCHOOL because of “different branded food”. If fraud is their concern, then crack down on that aspect—don’t hurt those not breaking the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 14, 2018 14:07:33 GMT
Obesity occurs at a much higher rate among the poor. Some folks might be trying to overcome that by choosing vegetables and lean protein with their SNAP card, but now the government is going to send them cheese and peanut butter instead? That doesn’t make sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 14:35:54 GMT
Obesity occurs at a much higher rate among the poor. Some folks might be trying to overcome that by choosing vegetables and lean protein with their SNAP card, but now the government is going to send them cheese and peanut butter instead? That doesn’t make sense to me. This is why I think that all public schools should provide, for free, healthy tasty breakfasts and lunches. And maybe for the lower grades healthy tasty snacks to eat as after school snacks. The key words here are tasty and young. If you get them young and the food is good then they should gravitate toward healthy foods as they get older and they make the choices of what they eat.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 14, 2018 15:14:05 GMT
Obesity occurs at a much higher rate among the poor. Some folks might be trying to overcome that by choosing vegetables and lean protein with their SNAP card, but now the government is going to send them cheese and peanut butter instead? That doesn’t make sense to me. This is why I think that all public schools should provide, for free, healthy tasty breakfasts and lunches. And maybe for the lower grades healthy tasty snacks to eat as after school snacks. The key words here are tasty and young. If you get them young and the food is good then they should gravitate toward healthy foods as they get older and they make the choices of what they eat. This is similar to what I was discussing with my husband last night. He mentioned a program (couldn't remember the details) at grocery stores in economically depressed areas that basically subsidized healthy food like produce to decrease the cost. The complaint was that people just kept walking right past it and the program was considered a failure. The generalization was that people wanted cheap, unhealthy foods because they taste better and are easier to fix. Well, of course they do. Chances are, they didn't grow up eating it and learning how to prepare it to their liking. We are in our 40s and are just now learning to prepare vegetables in a manner we like, and I am sure we were exposed to them more growing up than many people were. This coming from someone who was no stranger to powdered milk. Expecting something like this to be an immediate fix isn't practical. It is going to take a long term multi-layered approach.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 14, 2018 16:55:03 GMT
as I mentioned in another thread.. problems with food boxes includes.. people with no kitchens, people who don't know how to cook, no storage, no address, people who are homeless.. food that they don't like/know how to deal with .. food stolen, waste level goes up.. and someone will be making money on the whole thing and it won't be those who need the food.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 14, 2018 16:58:56 GMT
Agreeed!
I also mentioned that it is all shelf stable food. Local farmers will not get the job... It will go to huge farm operations with large packing facilities.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Feb 14, 2018 17:19:33 GMT
Obesity occurs at a much higher rate among the poor. Some folks might be trying to overcome that by choosing vegetables and lean protein with their SNAP card, but now the government is going to send them cheese and peanut butter instead? That doesn’t make sense to me. This is why I think that all public schools should provide, for free, healthy tasty breakfasts and lunches. And maybe for the lower grades healthy tasty snacks to eat as after school snacks. The key words here are tasty and young. If you get them young and the food is good then they should gravitate toward healthy foods as they get older and they make the choices of what they eat. Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the mission of WIC? If it is, why isn't it successful?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Feb 14, 2018 17:46:18 GMT
This is why I think that all public schools should provide, for free, healthy tasty breakfasts and lunches. And maybe for the lower grades healthy tasty snacks to eat as after school snacks. The key words here are tasty and young. If you get them young and the food is good then they should gravitate toward healthy foods as they get older and they make the choices of what they eat. This is similar to what I was discussing with my husband last night. He mentioned a program (couldn't remember the details) at grocery stores in economically depressed areas that basically subsidized healthy food like produce to decrease the cost. The complaint was that people just kept walking right past it and the program was considered a failure. The generalization was that people wanted cheap, unhealthy foods because they taste better and are easier to fix. Well, of course they do. Chances are, they didn't grow up eating it and learning how to prepare it to their liking. We are in our 40s and are just now learning to prepare vegetables in a manner we like, and I am sure we were exposed to them more growing up than many people were. This coming from someone who was no stranger to powdered milk. Expecting something like this to be an immediate fix isn't practical. It is going to take a long term multi-layered approach. It's deeper than that though. People with food insecurity prefer shelf stable products as their fear of spoilage is high. They often have time and transportation issues limiting their ability to shop regularly. I remember early on in volunteering at the food bank and watching clients walk past the healthier bread options to ones with less nutritional value. I had the hair brained idea that we could offer samples of the organic/whole grain bread ala Costco so people would be more comfortable. I was quickly educated that it had nothing to do with their tastebuds, but their fear the bread would spoil - and it became even more obvious on my next visit when I was tasked with resorting and started having to dump the super healthy breads as they were spoiling. They don't have the luxury of tossing half of the loaf when it goes bad, or shopping more regularly.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 14, 2018 21:24:35 GMT
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the mission of WIC? If it is, why isn't it successful? WIC is for little ones and moms. Not sure they get it when the kids start school. It is cheaper to buy Pasta, potatoes.. they are fillers when you have little to eat.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Feb 14, 2018 21:40:42 GMT
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the mission of WIC? If it is, why isn't it successful? WIC is for little ones and moms. Not sure they get it when the kids start school. It is cheaper to buy Pasta, potatoes.. they are fillers when you have little to eat. No, that's not what I meant. I had a friend who worked for our local WIC office. They get babies and toddlers and they do a lot of nutritional counseling. WIC vouchers are only good for certain healthy foods. I presume that many who get SNAP benefits most likely started out when their children were infants in the WIC program. I am saying why isn't this working? And if we really need more education on healthy eating, wouldn't it make sense to start with WIC? They could use more resources but they are already trying to accomplish just that.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 14, 2018 22:19:58 GMT
WIC is for little ones and moms. Not sure they get it when the kids start school. It is cheaper to buy Pasta, potatoes.. they are fillers when you have little to eat. No, that's not what I meant. I had a friend who worked for our local WIC office. They get babies and toddlers and they do a lot of nutritional counseling. WIC vouchers are only good for certain healthy foods. I presume that many who get SNAP benefits most likely started out when their children were infants in the WIC program. I am saying why isn't this working? And if we really need more education on healthy eating, wouldn't it make sense to start with WIC? They could use more resources but they are already trying to accomplish just that. You can often buy a 10pound bag of potatoes for $1.99 and they last for a while. You cannot buy a bag of fruit/vegetables for $1.99 that will last as long.. A pound of hot dogs will last longer then a pound of chopped meat. Some food all month is better then good food for 2-3 weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Mar 29, 2024 10:14:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 23:17:48 GMT
WIC is for little ones and moms. Not sure they get it when the kids start school. It is cheaper to buy Pasta, potatoes.. they are fillers when you have little to eat. No, that's not what I meant. I had a friend who worked for our local WIC office. They get babies and toddlers and they do a lot of nutritional counseling. WIC vouchers are only good for certain healthy foods. I presume that many who get SNAP benefits most likely started out when their children were infants in the WIC program. I am saying why isn't this working? And if we really need more education on healthy eating, wouldn't it make sense to start with WIC? They could use more resources but they are already trying to accomplish just that. The obesity problem is not just a poor problem but extends to people from all economic backgrounds. My thinking if you can get them young and give them healthy tasty food it will go a long way of solving the problems. The best place to reach the maximum number of kids are the public schools. Obviously making breakfast and lunches free will certainly help the poor but “free” will also be an incentive for all parents from all economic backgrounds to push their kids to eat at school. But I can’t stress enough the word “tasty”. Otherwise it will be a waste of time.
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on Feb 15, 2018 4:13:18 GMT
Let me ask a question. Would any of you accept a box of groceries from the government over picking out groceries you and family will eat? I’m taking a wild guess the answer is no. So why would it be ok for people, including members of our military, to be forced to “take what is given to them” or go without? It's ridiculous! I guess on the plus side, you get a box of food rather than a box of MREs. That'll be next.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 15, 2018 5:11:25 GMT
DID we know this? Not about Devos but Special Olympics? DeVos to give her salary to charities — including one Trump would slash Trump's new budget request would eliminate $12.5 million in federal funding for the Special Olympics.By CAITLIN EMMA 02/14/2018 02:26 PM EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will donate her $199,700 salary to four nonprofits — one of which would have its federal funding eliminated per the White House budget request. DeVos will write checks divided equally among the four organizations, including the Special Olympics, Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill told POLITICO. President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget request would do away with about $12.5 million in federal money for the Special Olympics, the world’s largest sports organization for children and adults with disabilities. Just this week, Special Olympics athletes and program leaders made the case on Capitol Hill for “critical funding.” In a statement, the Special Olympics said it received a “verbal commitment” from DeVos about her donation. “We do not have additional specifics at this time,” the organization said. “Special Olympics appreciates the opportunity to continue [to] work with and educate Secretary DeVos and members of Congress to create more unified and inclusive schools in our country.” The donation to the Special Olympics comes after DeVos has faced intense scrutiny over special education. More at link: www.politico.com/story/2018/02/14/betsy-devos-salary-charities-347468
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,730
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Feb 15, 2018 6:45:41 GMT
DID we know this? Not about Devos but Special Olympics? DeVos to give her salary to charities — including one Trump would slash Trump's new budget request would eliminate $12.5 million in federal funding for the Special Olympics.By CAITLIN EMMA 02/14/2018 02:26 PM EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will donate her $199,700 salary to four nonprofits — one of which would have its federal funding eliminated per the White House budget request. DeVos will write checks divided equally among the four organizations, including the Special Olympics, Education Department spokeswoman Liz Hill told POLITICO. President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget request would do away with about $12.5 million in federal money for the Special Olympics, the world’s largest sports organization for children and adults with disabilities. Just this week, Special Olympics athletes and program leaders made the case on Capitol Hill for “critical funding.” In a statement, the Special Olympics said it received a “verbal commitment” from DeVos about her donation. “We do not have additional specifics at this time,” the organization said. “Special Olympics appreciates the opportunity to continue [to] work with and educate Secretary DeVos and members of Congress to create more unified and inclusive schools in our country.” The donation to the Special Olympics comes after DeVos has faced intense scrutiny over special education. More at link: www.politico.com/story/2018/02/14/betsy-devos-salary-charities-347468great communication. A "well oiled machine", some would say. Yikes. they can't even get their awfuls straight.
|
|