The Wake County Republican Party is invoking "Wacky Wednesdays," school on Memorial Day and "forced busing" to mobilize their supporters in this fall's school board elections.
In this week's issue of the Elephant Express, Wake GOP Chairwoman Susan Bryant argues that the "high ground" for a better education system rests with the Republican majority on the school board. In contrast, Bryant claims that the Democrats "just want to go back to the way things were!"
"Back to Forced Busing, Wacky Wednesdays, Children forced to attend school on Memorial Day," Bryant writes of what she says Democrats would do. "Back to NOT listening to parents!!!"
Bryant repeatedly uses the Rev. William Barber, president of the state NAACP, and President Barack Obama as targets of derision.
"Frustrated with years of 'same ole, same ole' and 'politics as usual,' the good people of Wake County in 2009 lost patience, rose up, went to the ballot box, and elected some Republicans to begin the changes that most everyone agrees are needed - most everyone except Reverend Barber, Reverend Petty and their minions in the Democrat Obama Party," Bryant writes. "Obstructing efforts to improve sound fiscal management of the school system and to improve student performance have become a way of life for some."
"Reverend Barber and Democratic school board members have obstructed quality education efforts at every turn and what did it get us?" Bryant later asks.
Bryant writes that the last Democratic school board majority brought teacher layoffs while the GOP board majority has "worked effectively to save every teacher and teacher assistant position."
As for Obama, Bryant writes that "President Obama and the Democrats are rallying their resources." She also notes that "President Obama’s former campaign staffers are leading the charge" to raise money for the Democratic school board candidates.
"The Democrats believe that with enough money, advertising, and phone calls, they can make you give up and surrender the power to control your children’s future," Bryant writes. " Are you really willing to do that? Tell them NO!"
UPDATE
Here's a response from Nation Hahn, a spokesman for the Wake County Democratic Party:
"For one thing, it is a clear sign of a party that is desperate when they are tossing around as many insults and negative attacks this early as the Wake GOP did this week. Voters are absolutely sick of hearing the attacks and insults tossed around in the latest "Elephants Express". Many of the attacks that they mentioned are issues for 2009, not 2011. Voters and leaders who are supporting us are doing so because they are ready to focus on student achievement and progress as opposed to two year old debates regarding student assignment.
For two years the Majority have discussed where our students will end up going to school, what we haven't heard a lot of are what kind of schools they will end up attending when they get there.
We hope that the other side will be prepared to discuss how we can move Wake County forward but my guess is that they will fall back on talking points again and again because they are trying to move Wake Schools towards a conservative "model" of education that has no track record of success - and I am fairly confident that they do not want to run on their record because that is paper thin."
Comments
duplicate
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:07 — shearertwduplicate
The GOP is very good...
Fri, 08/05/2011 - 14:20 — bpuli9999at coming up with soundbites. Never any real solutions. But I guess that is what their membership wants anyway.
Bryant has her head in the sand it seems...
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 17:29 — paulastamI think I recall that General Tata's pal, Pete Gorman (another Eli Broad graduate/mentee who now works for NewsCorp/Fox) while running Charlotte's schools, had students attend school on MLK Day - now that is insensitive. Bryant talks about "Whacky" moves made by previous board members. Well her current GOP board majority has made, or overseen, a few themselves - to list just a few: Ronnie's idea to have WCPSS' board be the ONLY one in the state to not belong to the NC School Board Association; The recent GOP majority decision to drop Blue Diamond; Hiring a General wih limited educational experience from a very poor performing school district and not allowing public or employee feedback; extremely partisan GOP decision making on a frequent basis; A GOP board member degrading another GOP board member publicly; Mandating teacher recruiting requirements that to some seemed like affirmative action; Shifting poor and colored students out of affluent schools (think Davis Drive, etc). These are just some of the current whacky actions and initiatives that we've had to endure under a GOP led school board.
Paula, "Independent, Fair & Speaking Up for MY Kids."
?
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:14 — Bob_SconceDid you just say "colored students"? Are you deliberately trying to make people think you're a bozo?
As to Blue Diamond, you've made a lot of it, but you've ignored its high cost ($200K/yr), the availability of far better alternatives (some of which I posted here in the past couple of weeks), and the fact that the staff basically sprung the Blue Diamond renewal on the board as part of the consent agenda with the justificiation "well, school's about to start and we need it," but without any sort of analysis of alternatives. That sort of slip-shod "hey, let's see what we can get by the board" is EXACTLY the sort of shenanigans that the board should not tolerate. And, frankly, I'm a little shocked that Tata allowed it to even get to the board without having a lot more information behind it. [Unfortunately, it's also the same sort of shenanigans that staff tried to pull at the ED task force meeting.]
As to NCSBA, please state one way that the school district was harmed by not being a member of NCSBA for a year. Did that harm result in more than $47K in damage to the district?
You bring up a good point Bob
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 14:18 — Voice_of_Reason_The Blue Diamond is expensive and a private testing service. One would think the highly praised federal Department of Education that costs the taxpayers $80 Billion/yr would have come up with a free alternative. Somebody remind me again what they do and what benefit we receive from them.
Oh...
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 15:14 — Bob_SconceThey um, er.... Well, they do run the Civil Rights Office.
As to Blue Diamond, from what I can tell, WCPSS uses it as a system that produces and scores tests based on questions (and answer choices) provided by the district. The scoring shows, at a rough level, how each student is doing, and how the class is doing as a whole. In addition, the scoring can show how individual students did with different tested concepts, again based on classifications of questions provided by the district. Ther's evidently more functionality than that (e.g. students can take tests on-line at home), but it appears that this functionality is not used by WCPSS.
It's not rocket science -- evidently, the test prep companies (SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc...) have been doing the same thing for years.
The Blue Diamond folks have a website up with samples (buildatest.com). The first thing you'll notice is that it is very dated -- it looks like something you expect to see running in NetScape Navigator (version 2.0). Plus, the data presentation is not well-done; Edmund Tufte would be apoplectic. Not surprisingly, their client list is very small (it appears that there were only 4 other districts using it).
Meanwhile, there are far better alternatives, some of which I linked to in my post a few weeks ago.
Democracy isn't always
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 09:20 — CaryCurmudgeonDemocracy isn't always pretty, and a certain level of dysfunction is to be expected among any ruling body. Some of our beloved forefathers used to settle their differences with dueling pistols, and the insults they hurled against each other were far worse than "prom queen."
Scheduling classes on MLK day is wrong. Scheduling them on Memorial Day is equally wrong. Seems a lot of boards make these kinds of mistakes.
As to NCSBA, I'm frankly not sure why we chose to re-join the association. Exactly what do you think WCPSS missed out on when we dropped our membership?
Hiring a General with limited educational experience? You clearly have a problem with the military, because you harp more on the fact that he's a "war general" than on his lack of experience. We could have kep the old board in place, which would mean Del Burns would still be in charge. You remember Del, the guy who oversaw years of decline in school performance?
As to teacher recruiting, we should be glad that they effort is being made to identify more minority recruits, so long as they are not hired over equally-qualified white recruits -- and we have no evidence that that's happened.
Shifting poor and "colored" students? Any other racial epithets you'd like to throw in there?
The board has stumbled at times, but you and your Dem party leadership are still out of touch with what folks in Wake County want.
Joe, "Tired of all the people lacking the courage to stand behind their words."
And the Democrats ?
Fri, 08/05/2011 - 21:07 — Voice_of_Reason_Are used to putting up every roadblock including public disorder to stop any real solution. When the Democrats put up a workable plan (within our Constitution) to get us out of the financial mess this country is in, I'll switch parties. If you want to say tax the rich, let's look at facts for just the federal taxes:
So what is the Democrat's plan? Add more regulations? More social programs? Build up unions to run the remaining companies we have to go bankrupt or move overseas? Kill the Golden Goose? Remember the Republicans have never had a super majority, they never had a chance to do any real cutting of government. What compasion is there when our children and grandchildren are doomed to the debtload we are putting on them?
All I ever hear is how evil Republicans are to try to stop spending money we don't have or not taking money from hard working Americans to pay down a small fraction of our grotesque big government spending addiction.
...Are used to putting up
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 04:41 — jeffrey1...Are used to putting up every roadblock including public disorder to stop any real solution. When the Democrats put up a workable plan...
Please. The roadblock in the latest episode was created by the Tea Party. They even had Boehner up in arms. Most of them wanted to let the country default! Obama and Boehner agreed to 3 dollars in cuts for every 1 dollar in increased revenue, and Boehner couldn't sell it to the Tea Partiers.
The R's in the House then proceeded to put up a couple of plans all right -- but both were dead on arrival in the Senate, and neither had a chance of being signed into law. All they did was waste time.
If you want to say tax the rich, let's look at facts for just the federal taxes:
No matter how many times you regurgitate Rush/Hannity speaking points, they mean nothing. The fact that there's not enough income among the rich to pay off the deficit does not take away from the fact that they are still rich -- richer than they have ever been. The rich control the wealth, and that means they must be part of the solution.
Income disparity and wealth disparity in this country have never been greater. More income and wealth in this country is concentrated in less and less people. The trend has continued for the last 30 years, and shows no sign of stopping.
In order to reduce the debt, it's going to take both spending cuts and increased revenues.
Remember the Republicans have never had a super majority, they never had a chance to do any real cutting of government.
Oh please, the Republicans love to spend money just as much as the Democrats. Bush and the R's increased the debt by more than $4 trillion, and that doesn't even include the war spending which was funded through emergency appropriations.
And where exactly are you going to make cuts? Republicans don't want to touch defense. Democrats don't want to touch Social Security and Medicare. Throw in the interest payments on the debt, and there's hardly anything left to cut!
If you want any real progress on reducing the debt, EVERYONE is going to have to make sacrifices. Defense spending needs to be cut. Health care costs are going to have to stop their upward spiral. The income cap on social security contributions is going to have to be raised or eliminated. Full retirement age has to go up. Means testing for social security has to be implemented. And yes, tax loopholes need to be eliminated and we need to restore the tax rates to those under Clinton.
No progress will ever be made as long as partisans insist that only the other side needs to reform. During WWII, Americans came together and made real sacrifices to defeat Japan and Germany. It will take a similar effort going forward to defeat this new enemy.
So...
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 14:16 — Bob_SconceIf you recall, when this first started out, Obama wanted just a straight bill to increase the debt ceiling, without any deficit reduction whatsoever. Further, I'll point out that the S&P said that the downgrade was because the deal struck between the two sides didn't cut the deficit enough. Had we followed Obama's original plan, the deficit might not have been cut *at all*.
You make some good points about ways forward. I'm conservative, but I agree that defense spending, for example, will have to be cut: the United States simply cannot afford to have military actions on going in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen while simultaneously projecting force in half a dozen other places around the globe. For a long time, the financial cost of taking those sorts of actions simply never entered into the calculus of whether to do them (at least not in any substantial way); with a $1.6T deficit, that has to change. I disagree with you on some of the others, though....
Who pays
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 19:21 — Solon77So how to pay for the $1.6T of war spending ?
?
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:01 — Bob_SconceThe $1.6T number is this year's budget deficit, not the budget for the wars. As to "how do we pay for it," are you looking for a description of how we pay for it now (a mix of debt and taxes), or what I think souls be done in the future?
If the second, I think military spending needs to be reduced anpaid for out of current tax revenues. If you're asking if I think taxes should be raised, the I have two answers: (1) rates should stay where they are -- this year's revenue is over $2T, and I think that ought to be enough for th feds to do everything they need to do. (2) there are, however, many special interest provisions in the tax code that previous Congresses corruptl added when lobbyists asked for them. All those should disappear. (Ex: a tax credit for fuelling forklifts with propane!)
That $1.6T
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 00:49 — Voice_of_Reason_Was authorized by both parties, let us make that clear. Second, that amount does not keep growing unless President Obama want it to. Third, that amount is a small part of our national debt. It is not a permanent obligation that will keep growing for years and years. This is really a side-issue. Again what is the long term plan to pay for the 10's of Trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations in the future when we can't afford what we have today.
Give me a Break - No Solutions there
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 13:09 — Voice_of_Reason_1. The latest debt-ceiling deal - The solution did nothing, the US lost their top credit rating. The Dems offered ZERO solution. The best they offered was a kick the can short term down the road "solution". There solution did NOTHING to tackle the national debt, only to slightly slow the growth in THEORY (provided they live up to their word - unlikely). BTW- The waste of time you talk about in the Senate is the type of roadblock I talk about. Not even willing to debate the problem. Raising taxes during this recession would be stupid, even Obama has said that in the past.
2. Facts are facts and I didn't get them from talking points. While the Dems love to lump small business owners with the super rich, the truth is that most of the super rich are Democrats. The super rich would and can just take their money to another country if they wish. How does that help anyone. The money system is not a closed system, the rich don't acquire their wealth at the expense of the poor. The producers generate wealth. Of course we have a lot of uber-rich that inherited their money or made money in non-productive ways (Kennedy's and Soros come to mind). The tax system needs a complete overhaul, that's what the flat tax is a conservative initiative.
3. The increase in debt under the Republicans (the war is bi-partisan) is mainly due to increases in entitlement spending put in place by liberal policies, the result of liberal policies (i.e. entitlement mentality), of course you also have to factor in base line budgeting. You know the system where the government grows automatically and the Dems demagogue any reduction in those calling the cuts and trying to say the Repubs are staving kids and telling granny to die quickly. Yes Bush added to that and pushed some in his party to join Dems in adding the prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Of course Obamacare with make that pale in comparison (ever wonder why we are glad to give Obama credit on that one).
4.As far as cuts, I agree Defense should be on the table. But it needs to funded at a level that supports ongoing operations, long term personnel costs (includes pension and medical costs), research, and maintaining long-lead time supplies and equipment.
5. On your last points I agree that tax reform needs to happen. But everyone needs to share the burden. The old rates are not the answer. But I would agree with a plan like the Dems reneged on with Reagan $3 in cuts for every dollar of tax increase. It would have to be immediate and concurrent, not cuts of projected grow rates.
I am sorry, in this case, mainly one side does need to reform or nobody wins. Your side's policies are drunken fantasy and only will survive until other countries quit lending us money...THEN WHAT ????
I want you and everyone to remember that President Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling raise. This amounts to NO progress, not even a slowdown. The deal that was made is only a small nick in the problem, it was the best the Republicans could make without throwing the nation in default (That threat was made by the Dems, not the Republicans). Look at how the Dems on one hand screaming doom and gloom for the old/poor/sick; then on the other hand saying they won the battle (look at Obama's campaign web site). It's really is sick you know.
Update: The Fed just announced QE3, they will buy our debt by printing more money. That means the dollar is worth less, everybody losses, especially the poor. And look what the Chinese say : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-06/u-s-will-roll-out-qe3-after-s-p-rating-cut-li-daokui-says-1-.html.
So
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 20:17 — jeffrey11. Rather than propose something that was doomed (ala the Republicans) Obama tried to negotiate a solution. He did - $3 in cuts for every $1 in increased revenue. The increased revenue would have come from eliminating tax loop holes. Boehner agreed, but could reign in his own party, and the Tea Partiers nixed it. You can't change facts!
The downgrade in credit rating is because S&P wanted to see more. Obama offered more. It was the R's that kicked the can down the road.
2. You most certainly did get them from talking points. I've heard the exact same facts spewed on Rush, Hannity, Fox News, and every other conserative blog, talk show, etc.
3. The war is only bipartisan in the sense that Bush and Powell manufactured evidence to create fear in the American People. Who can forget Cheney or Condi Rice associating the 9/11 attacks with Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a mistake, and would not have happened under any other president.
The increase in debt under Bush had nothing to do with entitlements. $1.469 trillion on the wars, $1.812 trillion on the Bush tax cuts, $773 billion on the 2008 stimulus, $608 billion on discretionary spending, and $224 billion on TARP. Only $180 billion was due to the Medicare drug benefit. Furthermore the CBO has estimated that Obama will add just $152 billion to the deficit due to health care reform. Obama did add $711 billion to the debt due to stimulus spending, and $452 billion because of stimulus tax cuts. Facts are facts despite your attempt to rewrite history.
4. Spoken like a true R. We need defense cuts, but don't cut this, and don't cut that, and don't cut whatever. How about suggesting some cuts!!!
5. The Dems did not renege on the Deal, Boehner couldn't sell it to the Tea Partiers. You say the old rates are not the answer, but like a true R, you don't say why. Saying it does not make it true. Under Clinton, those old rates managed to eliminate the deficit, create a surplus, while still allowing for a soaring economy. I'd say you have very little ground to stand on by claiming that the old rates are not the answer.
Yes, Obama did want a clean debt ceiling raise -- just like was done 18 times under Reagan, and 7 times under Bush. But why let the past get in the way? Once the R's made it clear that wasn't going to happen, Obama moved to the center, proposing $3 in tax cuts for every $1 in increased revenue. Obama pissed off his base, the AARP, and every other liberal group by placing entitlement spending on the table. How much did the R's move??? Zero. Wouldn't even agree to eliminate some tax loopholes. The R's clearly won this battle.
Finally lessons from the Great Depression show that changes in fiscal and monetary policies is needed in times like these. If anything, the government under Roosevelt pulled the plug to early on using them. Economists agree that the Great Depression might have ended in 1937 had Roosevelt continued the policies of the early 1930's. Instead it lasted all the way to WWII. I"ll stick with the economists on this one.
OK back at you
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 09:17 — Voice_of_Reason_1. You are right, they should of just raised the debt and not propose anything . It is insane that any other idea should of been floated when the Dems weren't willing to propose any cuts. [sarcasm off] After all if the Republicans got their way the Democratic party would be doomed since they could no longer buy votes. It really takes two sides with the same goal to negotiate a deal that makes sense. I guess a good deal is when Democrats get all they want and make it appear the other side got something.
2. At least you admit they are facts rather than spin. Talking points are distributed by an organized group, they may or not be factual. I repeated facts, never mind others used them.
3.Well Iraq was not the only war and even if it don't agree with it, we flushed Al Queda out of the mountains, it made fighting them much easier. BTW- I wasn't that much on board with the way the State Dept (heavily liberal bureaucrats) handled the immediate aftermath and job of nation building. On tax cuts you are not taking in account the increase in federal revenues that occurred. And you completely ignored the establishment of the DHS and all entitlements that were passed before his term. The TARP bill will get a lot of that money back with interest. You are also not giving credit to Dem's part of that discretionary spending. I could go on and on but I do give you both parties are at fault and so are the budgeting systems in place. Only one party seems to be willing to do something about it.
4.Cuts?, the Tea Party faction has proposed all sorts of them. How about a freeze on the budget to start or even a roll back to 5 years ago. Then how about cutting or eliminating agencies in the government (the Dept of Ed comes to mind). There is lots of waste there. A balanced budget amendment would force us to do cost/benefit analysis of our spending. Also reducing the huge burden of some unnecessary environmental and labor regulations that add costs to both the government and the private sector. What has the Democrat party proposed?
5. The deal I was talking about was under the Reagan administration and the Democratic congress. You also give Clinton a lot of credit for the Republican congress actions that created a boom in the economy, a lot of which started under Reagan.
Then the lessons of the Great Depression you cite are not in stone. Many economists believe that actions taken then might of made it worse and last longer. We are now in uncharted territory, most economic predictions and solutions made so far have been wrong. There is not a consensus in the economist world. Also, the stimulus program that Obama did was weak on infrastructure spending and heavy on more on pay-backs to liberal special interest groups. Obamacare is a disaster of epic proportions in the making.
VOR .. I have enjoyed
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:15 — user12345VOR .. I have enjoyed reading the posts above since trying to sort out this mess is confusing.
My opinion is until conservatives separate from the Republican party there won't be any fiscal control. Fiscal conservatives can be Democrats and social liberals who believe one needs to live within ones means. I would rather have the fight on how much to allocate to education vs. the military - whether is in better to have smart citizens or smart bombs. It seems to me that Republicans love war (war of drugs, war on terror, war on Democrats) but really don't like paying for them. I think they are in bed with the defense contractors who bloat our military budget and invent threats. Our military does not keep us free but has become a tool of our foreign policy because we suck at diplomacy forcing other nations to do our will or at least stay out of our way. The Chinese are happy to sit on the sidelines building their people, industry, and infrastructure while American taxpayer pay to keep the trade routes open and oil flowing. We are getting duped. "American" businesses are happy to keep shell HQ here to enjoy the security that the US military will protect their overseas assets yet they feel no obligation to US kids dying to make that happen or US taxpayer funding that insurance policy by paying taxes, expanding business in the US or employing US citizens. When I look at graphs it appears the problem really started with 1) engaging in too many wars and 2) cutting taxes to pay for the wars. In history, it appears that wars that drag on because they benefit some business interest ultimately come to an end when the country runs out of resources (e.g. money, kids, interest). What I see happening is that we will exit all these wars and start to rebuild our infrastructure ( roads, businesses, people, water, etc.) unless the Republicans can postpone / defer the problem by moving money to from domestic programs to keep military funding alive a few more years.
User there is some reality to what you say
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 16:23 — Voice_of_Reason_POLITICS: I am more a conservative than a Republican, the Republicans are the only vehicle the conservative agenda can advance. It is like how the far left has hijacked the Democratic party, only they are further along in the process. I wish we could eliminate the party system entirely. I also think fund raising has corrupted our government due to the high cost of running for office. I think term limits and a return to state legislatures electing senators would help on that front.
OUR MILITARY: As far as the military is concerned, I wish we could abolish it and I wish nobody would take advantage of the vacuum created from that; but there is a pesky little thing called reality. At least, I wish other freedom loving nations would do more to provide for their own defense. We, as a country, have huge leverage in the world affairs largely due to our military might. Many free nations rely heavily on our military for their defense. Some countries can't afford a big military, others can a won't. I think the theory is we would rather the clout than forcing them to cough up more dough. IMHO Allot of country owe us and we have never asked for payment [Kuwait and most of Europe come to mind]. Even our former enemies like Japan and Germany owe us. Did you know the US pays a large portion of NATO's operating expenses? I would never put China in the same category.
ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL MONEY: We shouldn't have to make decisions on how to allocate military vs. social spending. One of the federal government primary mission is to provide for the common defense. Most of what they do today should be done a state level, or at least managed at state level; Education is a prime example.
The Chinese may or may not be using us, time will tell. Maybe we are using them. Despite what you think, they have a lot of problems even feeding their own people. The other thing is it is not utopia. Ever see the sweat shops that make our stuff? If it were so great, why do you think so many Chinese come to this country and work in some of the jobs they do. I don't see a mass migration back. China needs the US to buy stuff and we need China to fund our debt. We do need to throttle that back by more insistence on China raising the value of their currency.
Clean debt ceiling raise
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 19:29 — Solon77Just like the 30 some odd before him, with the majority of the 30 being Reagan and Bush. One cannot cut out of this there needs to be a balanced approach. As a start - a sur-tax to pay for the wars.
BTW - the debt ceiling is not to address the budget deficit - it is not like Christmas when you buy to much, realize it when the cc bill comes and then return it all. Eight years of drunken sailor spending by the Republicans and it finally dawns on them that oh we have to pay for it - well we can't raise taxes on those that can afford it - we are going to raise taxes on those that can't. In my mind paying the same tax but with reduced benefits is a tax increase. The Republicans have been obstructionists from the start. The Republicans didn't have a plan. Boehner cobbled something together at the last minute. The S&P downgrade was directed at Congress (Republicans) for holding the ceiling hostage and the number of Tea Party members running around say it wouldn't matter if it didn't get raised - this is what causes uncertainty and fear.
Look at the "credit card" bill
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 20:24 — Voice_of_Reason_Entitlements is the problem, that is why the debt keeps growing. They are unsubstainable. To top that off the interest on the national debt adds to that. The dirty truth is you cannot do anything about the debt without entitlement reform, even if you tax everyone to poverty.
And again I ask a simple question. What plan do the Dems have to keep our country financially sound? I saw NOTHING to deal with the problem. Salon you just keep throughing out tired old Dem talking points, I just wonder if you have ever thought about your children's future. The money is running out on the gravy train and unless the Private sector grows, it will be sooner rather than later. Workers rights and high pay are a pipe dream without private sector jobs. You know those jobs that are provided by the companies your side demonizes. The oil companies for example--- why don't you ask someone from Louisiana how evil they are. There are a lot of rich middle class that make their living off of providing services to " evil " oil.
Long Term, Our Debt Problem
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 08:10 — chaboard.....is ALL about health care costs. Which makes the solution (and one hopes eventual Democratic plan) pretty obvious - as others have noted this weekend:
No plan to address the real drivers of the debt.
Health Care
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 20:02 — Voice_of_Reason_Why is that the federal government's job? In the past it was handled at local level and with charity; that was before the massive regulations, expensive treatments, and high dollar law suits. I am not sure there is an easy solution on controlling costs. I do know the Obamacare is going to raise the costs not lower them that is admitted by the CBO now.
1. If the FDA approves a drug or medical device, I would severely limit liability lawsuits to willfull negligence only. In return I would reduce the amount of these items can be patented,
2. I would enforce immigration laws.
3. I would raise Medicare taxes and raise them with health care cost inflation.
4. Eliminate public subsidy of Viagra and other non medically necessary drugs.
5. Forgive student loans of doctors that participate in various activities that are needed such as GP's in rural areas, public health care center service, etc. for a ten year period.
6. Limit liability of doctors to gross negligence when extra diagnostic tests are not indicated. And cap medical malpractice claims in all but gross negligence cases.
7. I would scrap Obamacare and start from scratch with a goal of just reducing costs and making insurance more affordable.
Would you also...
Mon, 08/08/2011 - 08:58 — bpuli9999support the scrapping of:
1. Farm subsidies? They should compete in an open market after all.
2. Oil subsidies? Why do large oil companies need government support for?
3. Tax loopholes that allow US companies to skip paying tax by setting up sham fronts in other countries?
YES I WOULD
Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:14 — Voice_of_Reason_1. Farm subsidies especially in a lot of cases are payback to lobbyists. There are some farm subsidies that are necessary because of weather abnormalities or foreign trade practices. What really gripes me are the "Farmers" that are paid not to grow crops. It is a scam that a lot of wealthy non-farmers use to get tax breaks.
2. Oil subsidies for smaller domestic oil exploration companies are important, I would not change those. Larger oil company subsidies should be eliminated or tied to their profits.
3. Absolutely 100%. But I would also add we need tax incentives for them to stay here too.
I would also add that we need to get on our federal government about leasing federal lands to foriegn companies for mining at ridiculously low rates.
Another pet peave of mine is the way China uses the US Post Office on E-Bay. We allow them to send cheap items without duty to the US via US Registered Mail at ridiculously low rates. Look on E-Bay and see all the free shipping items from China. Do you know how much it costs to send registered mail in the US? The mail must be keep in a safe except when it is delivered and signed for. No wonder the US post office is loosing money. I would love to see the statistics on that.
So, the answer is socialism?
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 08:23 — woodstockSo, the answer is socialism? Good luck selling that.
Why is it so hard for you to admit
Sat, 08/06/2011 - 23:44 — Solon77Why is it so hard for you to admit that it is the Republicans that have run this country into the ground - excessive spending without paying for it. From 1980 to 2009 the Republicans were in control for all but 8 years from 93-01 - notice anything about the red line during this period - like it is flat to down. Reagan doubled the debt as a % of GDP to 41% in his 8 years. Bush left a disaster - commitment to trillions of deficit $ in terms of unfunded wars, medicare part D, 50% expansion of govt spending under his watch and a gdp that was on a decline - these kinds of structural problems will take years to fix and cannot be solved by cutting benefits that people have already paid for. If the entitlement programs need to be changed going forward - fine change it and pay for it. In the short term payroll taxes collected are still more than the benefits being paid out - so again the real issue is the general fund has not been funded.
I agree the private sector has to grow, that is why I laugh when the Republicans blame the government for not creating jobs. I also get sick when the Republicans get on their soap box and claim they are fiscal conservatives - after all they have done. People like you blaming the Democrats for the economic ills without acknowledging any responsibility of the GOP.
BTW - I am a fiscal conservative and mad as hell. Just so we are clear on the definition of a fiscal conservative, Michael Bloomberg sums it up pretty well
To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we've got one coming. --Michael Bloomberg
If Bush and the Republicans at the time were truly fiscal conservatives as they had claimed to be - they would not have cut taxes, expanded entitlements (Medicare part d), expanded government spending, and not fund two wars. Trillions of $ would be available to us to weather a down turn - an inevitable part of the economic cycle.
ok...
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 12:12 — Bob_SconceGWB was a neocon, which is very different from being a fiscal conservative--the Tea Party is also a reaction to Bush's high-spending ways. But, the current question is how to fix the mess--the historians can figure out who to blame later.
Because it is not true
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 01:06 — Voice_of_Reason_The problem is entitlements and base line budgeting, they have Democrat smell all over them. The debt would be lower during Reagan's term had the Dems not renegged on their spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts. Also Reagan had to spend a huge amount to rebuild the military, it was in shambles after Vietnam and Carter. I know, I joined in 1979 under the Carter administration.
I too am a fiscal conservative and I do blame some Republicans as well as Democrats. The difference is the new crop of Conservative Republicans are trying to do something about it, that can't be said of the Democrats.
Most Republicans and companies are blaming excessive new regulations and regulatory uncertainty as the #1 reason jobs are NOT being created in the private sector. That is clearly the Executive Branch's fault. Nobody really believes the White House can create new jobs in the private sector, they need to get out of the way.
Not True
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 10:05 — Solon77I agree baseline budgeting is a problem and the largest institution that benefits from it is Defense. Billions and billions are wasted every year. Entitlements - if there is the belief the package is to rich, then modify it going forward. If you believe we just need to cut the reduce the SS of grandma today, we should also add to the pool of cuts the pensions and benefits of military retirees - let's be fair.
Regulation and uncertainty - it depends on what side of the fence you are on. For example raising the bar on gas mileage (which by the way all of the major automakers agreed to) will lead to technology advances and create jobs. Not many new jobs are created by the same old same old. Uncertainty - watched an interview of GMs CEO, the number one concern is instability of gas prices and commodity speculation - neither of which have the hand of government.
Of course Republicans are going to blame the lack of jobs on excessive government regulations and uncertainty - what else is there. The tax cuts the Bush administration put forward did not create a sustainable base of new jobs - it was a failure. The Republicans are pretty sad - on the one hand they claim foul on government regulation and intrusion except when it serves their interest - Women's rights on abortion and requiring a written log to get your drivers license.
OK a little agreement
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 17:30 — Voice_of_Reason_- Baseline budgeting is a big one to agree on. At 8% growth, discretionary government spending DOUBLES every 10 years.
- On Social Security, NOBODY is saying change SS payments to those getting checks in the system. I believe the proposal was a gradual reduction to those younger than 55 and that was a gradual phase out to a different program (one you could pass on to your survivors when you die). Blacks get disproportionately less Social Security BTW because they live shorter lives in general. Social Security in it present form is unsustainable, nobody denies that.
- On pensions, out of all the pensions in the federal government, military should be the last to cut. I would add the law enforcement arms on the safe list next. I will speak from experience on the military one. When I voluntarily joined in the late 70's the pension scheme was a big reason I stayed in. The pension is based on only the base salary, not the total salary and also includes a health care component. In the military there were many like myself who worked many 18+ hour days and spent a tremendous time away from our families with no extra compensation. We risked our lives for little if any extra pay. Also many of us gave up civilian careers and worked in jobs without civilian equivalencies. Some, like myself, worked in jobs that did not relate to my college degree (mine was Engineering). So without the pension, I would doom myself to low income or a starter job in my late 40's/early 50's. Also you need to consider families...how about the spouse. Try to get a decent job having to move every 3 years including to foreign countries; not to mention additional child rearing time due to lack of family support and spousal separation. Even the court recognizes the spouse, if the couple divorces with 10 or more years of marriage while their spouse serves; they get an automatic 50% of the pension in alimony. The Health care is also not that great, the federal government only provides the medical provider the Medicaid reimbursement rate so their are few providers willing to take it. Also if you want low co-pays you must pay a premium for that and only use the HMO providers they list. I have to go to UNC Chapel Hill to get good care for most of my family's health care needs (I live near Wake Forest). Dental insurance is available, but only if you pay more than most company plans offer (an not as good a plan either). And pensions are taxed bythe federal government, so they take some back.
- On regulations, some are good, some are not. Your example of the gas mileage standards may bring newer technologies, but at what cost? You might have to drive a car ten years to offset the higher car costs that will come with it. Personally I wish we would convert to natural gas powered cars so we don't have to import so much oil. That wouldn't require any new technology, only infrastructure changes at gas stations. Also I will grant that some regulation also gives rise to new businesses. Those businesses don't create wealth though.
- On tax cuts. Why do taxes create jobs? The normal business cycle and the housing bubble bursting were the main reason for the massive loss of jobs during the Bush years, not tax cuts.
ON the blame of uncertainty and excessive regulations, don't take my word for it, just ask ANY small business with three or more employees.
Drivers licenses? You must be scared the dead can't vote anymore if it passes.
Wow. Let me sum up VOR's
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 04:51 — jeffrey1Wow. Let me sum up VOR's position: Everyone should have to suffer a little except me.
Pick a word or phrase (they all apply): conceited, egoistical, egomaniacal, individualist, megalomaniac, narcissistic, pompous, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-concerned, self-indulgent , self-interested, self-loving, self-serving, selfish, wrapped up in oneself.
VOR was in the military, so when it comes to cut spending, he wants to cut everything except for defense spending. The USA is responsible for 43 per cent of the world's total defense spending, distantly followed by the China (7.3% of world share), UK (3.7%), France (3.6%), and Russia (3.6%). One example or our excess: The US Navy's battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. And still VOR doesn't want to cut it.
VOR was in the military, so don't touch his pension either. After all, he worked long days and had to move around a lot (Boo Hoo). The response from non-military families? WELCOME TO OUR WORLD! We all make choices in this world, and those choices have consequences. Deal with them - just like the rest of us.
VOR is younger than 55, but he has no problem phasing out social security (or considerably reducing benefits) for those currently under 55, but don't touch his pension!
VOR thinks it's a terrible idea to raise taxes on the rich because they are the ones that create jobs, but here's his idea for raising revenue (from a later post):
"I would raise Medicare taxes and raise them with health care cost inflation."
In the last 20 years, health care costs have gone up 160% while the overall price inflation (CPI-U) has increased just 75%. So there you have it. Don't touch my pension, but make the elderly pay more and more for health care. Unbelievable!
You will never garner any respect from anyone here on this forum with such self-serving opinions.
Thank You for your sacrifice (LOL) Jeffrey
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 15:03 — Voice_of_Reason_How exactly do I personally gain? I do not rely on my military pension to live on (it is not enough), it helps me sleep better, that's all. I would qualify for the F&R program if it was all my income. When I die, it goes away (other than family health care). My views are more against people like you and Salon77 that probably say "We support our troops" and don't mean it. I forgot to tell you, I am over 55 and I am a disabled vet didn't I . BTW- They are changing the way inflation is calculated, my pension will decrease in real money terms. Also I only got a couple of years I could contribute to something like a 401K, with no co-pay. I also couldn't ever contribute to an IRA since I had pension plan checked since day 1 even though I never was vested at 18 years. How about all the people that served around 15 years I saw kicked out because of reduction in forces that occurred twice while I was in, they got a small severance package? BL- I did make a decision based on a promise from the American people and gambled my life on it, you can't say that about a bureaucratic or corporate job. Yes there is a difference for military pensions , just like there is with police and firemen.... I'm sorry, the country (or community) owes it to us to keep their promise in return for the risks we take. If you want to change it, change it before you promise.
I am not against raising taxes, but not without huge spending cuts. Also any taxes raised should be across the board. Did I tell you I make under $100K AGI so I would get a tax raise? That's selfish isn't it.
On healthcare, I don't get it free, I pay every year for my family's insurance plan. The plan is not the best either, very few doctors around here take it, I have to travel to Chapel Hill since it re-inburses on Medicaid rates (not Medicare). In a few years, I'll go on Medicare, I have to pay too (I do get my prescription drugs at a lower price still). I also don't have long-term care coverage. I feel the pinch and Obamacare will make it worse because less and less health care providers will take my insurance. And who said make the elderly pay more for Medicare? I said increase the payroll Medicare deduction so it funds the system better for the future. And for SS, I would agree to a phase out that would transition to a new system that you have more control over, the current scheme is no longer self funding. In case you don't know it 401-K and IRA's didn't exist when SS came about and the whole idea of SS has changed dramatically since it's inception.
BTW- I am not against cutting Defense, it needs to done smartly and we need to reduce our overseas commitments some of which have the full weight of our Constitution since they are treaties. Did you know about that? I do believe the other countries do need to share the load better. It is easy to say let's cut 50%. I think getting rid of the DHS airport security (turning it over to the airlines) and arming pilots would be a easier cut than let's say cancelling the F-35 program. Of course we could also stop procurement so our stuff could deteriate and go obsolete while our enemies keep getting higher tech stuff. BTW- A lot of the cost of new procurement is due to the high tech revolution. I got an idea, let's let Iran send a couple of nukes over here and explode them high over the US, ever heard about EMP? Read the book called "One Second After" it's based in NC, to give you a slight idea of what could happen and get an idea how vunerable we are.
And shared sacrifice, I probably lost more money last year than you made in two due to this economy, while still paying a hefty tax bill at the end (5 Figures just to the county- there goes a big chunk of my federally taxed retirement); I'm not crying though...that's life. I adapt. I don't covet my neighbor's goods; I live within my means and adapt as best I can. I am thankful for the blessings I receive, few or many.
P.S. Jeffery, it is really funny how on one hand you want me to sacrifice more for you and on the other you would gladly dump crap on my head. It say's a lot about you and others that think like you....just saying . I am glad you are in the minority. You are a fine example of what the left is all about.
My views are more against
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 21:03 — jeffrey1My views are more against people like you and Salon77 that probably say "We support our troops" and don't mean it.
I can't tell you how angry I get when I hear a comment like that. Of course I support the our troops, and SHAME ON YOU for assuming otherwise. Thousands of men and women died needlessly in the war on Iraq, and I shed tears every time I have to read about a 19 year old kid that lost his life.
Iraq was a needless war, Saddam never had any WMD or the capability to use them against us. But the neocons pushed us into Iraq.
Afghanistan is not winnable! Ask the Russians. If you want to continue to fight the war on terror, you can't do it with tanks, and nuclear subs, and stealth bombers.
I also couldn't ever contribute to an IRA since I had pension plan checked since day 1 even though I never was vested at 18 years.
You could have contributed to a non-deductible traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, like my wife and I have done.
Yes there is a difference for military pensions , just like there is with police and firemen.... I'm sorry, the country (or community) owes it to us to keep their promise in return for the risks we take. If you want to change it, change it before you promise.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree on this one. Under more normal circumstances, I might agree with you. But the country is in serious financial trouble, and EVERYONE should have to contribute. No one should be immune. As for failed promises from the government, we all are affected in some way or another.
On healthcare, I don't get it free, I pay every year for my family's insurance plan.
Join the crowd. My out-of-pocket health care expenses were over $12,000 last year under what is supposed to be a reasonably good corporate health care plan.
And shared sacrifice, I probably lost more money last year than you made in two due to this economy.
If you only knew just how false that claim is.
Do you see a pattern forming here? Let me fill you in. We all sacrifice, we all have been affected by this economy. You seem to want to believe that your choices have led to greater suffering than others.
while still paying a hefty tax bill at the end (5 Figures just to the county...
Again, join the crowd. You own two homes -- and with that comes the responsibility of property tax. For me, I'm self employed, which means I pay employer and employee share of SS taxes. Paid close to 6 figures some years under the Clinton tax rates.
P.S. Jeffery, it is really funny how on one hand you want me to sacrifice more for you and on the other you would gladly dump crap on my head. It say's a lot about you and others that think like you....just saying . I am glad you are in the minority. You are a fine example of what the left is all about.
I am not asking you to sacrifice one iota more than me, and I am not dumping any crap on your head. The fact that you have to resort to mindless partisan insults says far more about you than anything I could possibly say. As soon as someone disagrees with you, you make cowardly comments about that person's support for the military. The fact is that I appreciate your service to our country - but I don't think that gives you the right to stand on a soapbox and shout "Woe is me," and to put down any person that did not serve.
I'm not crying though...that's life
Seems to me that is all you are doing...Crying! Look, we all have issues. Every single one of us. Some lose their job. Others lose their homes. Some deal with extraordinary medical bills. Others deal with life altering ailments, both physical and mental. Some worry that they won't be able to afford college for their kids. Others worry about what the future holds for their kids.
My only point, the only one that I am trying to make, is that it is going to take some shared sacrifice. You have suggested several solutions, but none of them seem to affect you (don't cut my pension, don't play with my social security, don't make cuts to the military, etc). I see that as being selfish. You do not see me saying protect small businesses, do you? As a small business owner, I have benefitted from many tax deductions not available to others. You don't hear me trying to protect those deductions. We need to close tax loopholes. Just like everyone else, I need to make sacrifices in order to save our country from financial ruin. And so do you.
Everyone needs to be a part of the solution. If not, then you're part of the problem.
Well Jeffrey _ YOU DON'T
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 23:22 — Voice_of_Reason_I can only tell you how 80% + of the military feel when you critize THE PURPOSE of a war that was authorized by congress whether we needed to go there or not. We go when we are told and expect the US public to support the effort AND we expect them to give us the resources to win it. That is angry. The Democrats also as soon as we got Saddam started criticizing Bush for political purposes. If Bush made that error on purpose he should of been impeached, end of story. Yes there was bad intel, but it was very credible. Otherwise why on earth do you expect us to risk our lives? Afghanistan is a different due to mission creep. I actually agree with you. I too am critical of what we are doing today, that is because of the political climate preventing the correct way to fight. I saw it first hand, I know. I am not into spilling blood and a lot of treasure for nation building. I personnaly don't think it is possible to form a stable nation there and don't see the strategic value. The initial war punished the Taliban for helping Bin Laden. It was originally just an Air Force and Special Forces war that used Afghan tribes for ground troops. Mission creep started when the State Dept wanted to instill a stable government there, that IMHO was not the original mission or IMHO an achievable goal. But Jeffrey, I stand by my comment, if you think the US Government should reneg on it's legal obligation to pay military pensions to those that have them under the terms set out in law...YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE MILITARY...pure and simple. Go ahead and lie to yourself otherwise. And it's not about me, it's about every career soldier,sailor, airman, or marine that did their time . And as far as major broad across the board cuts in Defense, you put every military person in harm's way. If you want cuts, they must be well thought out and surgical.
As far as sacrifice, as far as I see you have done very little other than pay taxes like the rest of us. At least you earn money and pay a fair amount of taxes, more than I can say about a lot of people. I do that and have sacrificed 24+ years of my life in direct service to my country including participating in 3 wars. I already sacrificed A LOT more than you. And you say you don't want me to sacrifice one iota more than you...Give me a break.
And BTW- If everyones agree to touch social security even for me, be my guest... I think as long as I get the money I put into it, I would be happy (And that is a lot less than most people get ), I'm willing to sacrifice there, how about you, would you take that deal? I am also willing to pay more taxes, as long as everyone else does, I am not asking the rich to pay more "% wise" than me. How about you? [caveat- I want government cuts first, big ones]
P.S. I only own one house now, I lost $100K on the sale of my other...that's life. But I still pay a five figure tax bill to the county, my current home is severely over tax appraised in value (even at 2008 value), but I can live with that, I knew it when I bought it. I am not crying. What I think you refer to is my disagreement of the fairness of how property taxes are levied (not the amount), I stand by that.
I can only tell you how 80%
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 01:40 — jeffrey1I can only tell you how 80% + of the military feel when you critize THE PURPOSE of a war that was authorized by congress whether we needed to go there or not. We go when we are told and expect the US public to support the effort AND we expect them to give us the resources to win it. That is angry.
Then I will tell you what 80% of the military doesn't understand then. You can criticize the mission WITHOUT criticizing the effort. In fact, I challenge you to find a single person who criticized the mission, and did not support those who carried it out. You won't find anyone. I don't want to see a single young man or woman put in harms way unnecessarily. I don't want to see needless loss of life.
You're living with the legacy of Vietnam, when the peaceniks of the 1960's took out their frustration with the Vietnam war on the soldiers. That was an embarassing time in our history, but it's in the past. Today we criticize the purpose of a war, but we NEVER criticize the effort. Stop living in the past.
Ordinary American citicizens should never put blind faith in their leaders decisions. Yet that is exactly what you think I should do in order to support the soldiers. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The Iraq War was wrong. It is my duty as a citizen to express my dissatisfaction with the purpose of that war. But make no mistake - I want our soldiers to succeed, and I want them to return home quickly and safely.
But Jeffrey, I stand by my comment, if you think the US Government should reneg on it's legal obligation to pay military pensions to those that have them under the terms set out in law...
I NEVER said that the US Government should reneg on military pensions. I said that everyone should have some financial skin in the game. You however, are valuing your life as more important than others. You are asking for special considerations. You are claiming to be immune from making financial sacrifices. That's what I find troubling.
YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE MILITARY...pure and simple. Go ahead and lie to yourself otherwise.
If it helps you to sleep at night, go ahead and tell yourself that. I, and the God that I pray to, know differently.
As far as sacrifice, as far as I see you have done very little other than pay taxes like the rest of us
You're missing the point. I, unlike you, am willing to make additional sacrifices in order to save our country from financial ruin. That's the difference between us.
I already sacrificed A LOT more than you.
Keep throwing that Patriot Card around. You've served our country proudly, you have my thanks and appreciation. But statements like that take away from your contributions. I can't help but wonder what your superior officers would have to say about your need to understand and interpret the world through yourself, and your need to tell everyone around you that "I am better than you." I doubt that is what you were taught in the military. That kind of rhetoric has to be an embarassment to those who serve with humility.
I am also willing to pay more taxes, as long as everyone else does, I am not asking the rich to pay more "% wise" than me. How about you? [caveat- I want government cuts first, big ones]
I have already said that everyone, including me, needs to be part of the solution. However, I am not going to ask those that already live in poverty to pay more. Raise my taxes, but do not raise the taxes of the millions who struggle to get by each day. See the difference?
Jeffrey, come on
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 07:31 — Voice_of_Reason_- One I understand the difference of what happened in Vietnam is not the same. I actually saw and remember that. But there were many Democratic politicians in Washington (and their minions) that started criticizing Bush as soon as WMD's were no found for polical purposes. They saw the intellegence and came to the same conclusions. I saw the intellegence, and IMHO it was credible. Yes, we were duped and duped partially by Saddam himself. But the fact is we went to war against a sovereign country because that country was violating cease fire agreements [that part is undisputed] made ending Desert Storm and they appeared to be have WMD's; not to mention the appearance of cooperation with Al Queda. Once we commited to war we had an obligation to rebuild their government. That political criticism emboldened our enemies at the wrong time and many of our troops and innocent Iraqi's paid for it with their lives. That is why myself and others were very mad. To this day "ha-ha Bush & Cheney are Evil" crowd really piss me off. It's just a political game. Yes, in the case of Iraq, the mission was criticized.
- I never said I am better than you, I said I sacrificed more than you for our country. You have discarded any sacrifice that career military men and women did and said we should sacrifice more by cutting our earned pensions since " we are all in this together". I will sacrifice more in taxes just like the rest of America if necessary. What you and Solon said is like a boss saying "We decided you are not worth what we agreed to pay you so we decided to retroactively reduce your pay", only on a grand scale.
-True support of the military requires alot more than prayers for their safety, but I thank you for that.
- I am not saying tax the truly poor. I am saying taxing just the rich is wrong, as you said... shared sacrifice. That is why I am for the flat tax, the poor would still get a rebate in most plans. I am also saying we waste a huge amount of money on needless government programs and programs the states should have the option to run. Big Government needs to sacrifice first and IMHO it can start with the politician's pensions.
- Honestly Jeffrey, I don't see you as part of the solution.
Thank you VOR, I have seen
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 04:29 — jeffrey1Thank you VOR, I have seen the light:
I'm asking our leaders please do not increase taxes for me. It's just not fair. I'm a small business owner, and I am the key to our future. I pay enough taxes already. Please find someone else to help bail us out of this mess. What about all those waitresses, truck drivers, teachers, dishwashers, etc. They pay no income tax whatsoever. Please see what you can get out of them before coming to me.
And I have to admit that I don't support the military. Never mind that my father served in WWII. Never mind that I've participated in school projects that sent care packages to soldiers. Never mind that I shed tears every time that I read about a 19 year old kid losing their life to a roadside bomb. Never mind that I pray for your safe return.
I had the nerve to criticize our government for going into Iraq, and I understand that means that I don't support the military. Please forgive me. I understand now that our world spins on the axis of evil. I just don't know if we should invade Iran or North Korea next.
And I'll never be a part of the solution to our financial problems with my current thinking. So thanks for changing my mind:
Clearly our country is in financial trouble because we have the nerve to ask older citizens to stop working at the age of 65, and then we have the gall to give them 40% of their pre-retirement income for the remainder of their lives. And then what happens when they get sick? The government has to pay for all those expensive medical procedures, hospital stays, and medications. Why aren't we making the sick people pay? If they can't pay, just let them die.
And why does the government spend money on low rent public housing? Our ancestors lived in caves, and seemed to get by all right.
And then there's that pesky AFDC and TANF. Honestly, if you can't afford kids, you should never have them in the first place.
And why so much money for Food Stamps. How much do Raman Noodles cost anyway? And don't get me started on that school lunch program. I mean, if I can get by on a couple of cups of coffee throughout the day, why should a kid have to eat anything before dinner?
And what's with those Stafford Loans and Pell Grants? Don't you realize how risky it is to lend money to an unproven high school graduate, who's just going to party his way through college, and wind up making my latte at Starbucks?
Thanks again VOR!
Ron Paul in 2012. Restore America Now.
Be silly and childish all you want, Jeffrey
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 06:24 — Voice_of_Reason_BTW- I am no way in line with Ron Paul's thinking, I am not a Libertarian. His foreign policy and monetary system ideas are dangerous. You are actually much, much closer in line with him on his ideas of the role of the military and foreign policy.
I bet you can't wait to go to a football game with and support your team by worrying about the safety of the players. Then I guess you want to go to the school board and ask them to cut the football team's equipment budget at you school and bitch about how dangerous football is. [not the best analogy, but you might get the point]. Sleep well at night, I know you support your team.
AND if it will make you feel better, the views you just espoused are no were close to mine or any conservative that is not fringe. You really should read so much left-wing propaganda.
Not silly or childish at
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 06:46 — jeffrey1Not silly or childish at all. Because of you, I truly have an entirely different view of the world.
I'm going to enlist later today -- it's the only way to become a true patriot. I just hope I don't have to step over any homeless people on the way.
Thanks again VOR.
Ron Paul 2012. Resore America Now.
Hope you enjoy the football season with your team Jeffrey
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 06:59 — Voice_of_Reason_I hope nobody gets hurt when those equipment cuts happen, I know you will be devistated since you support them so much.
P.S. You responded so quick I didn't get to correct my mistake, "you school" should of been "your school".
No time to worry about
Thu, 08/11/2011 - 07:01 — jeffrey1No time to worry about football - I'm off to boot camp.
Thanks again!
Some agreement..but
Sun, 08/07/2011 - 18:15 — Solon77Pensions - it was your choic to go in the military. The fact is the choice made to go into the military is no different than any other choices so why should the military be exempt. There are many of us in private industry who worked long hours without additional compensation, traveled , ect and all for the golden pension at the end. But half way through the company decides, well we can't pay for it so we are ending it - your new option is now a 401k. So we start from scratch. I don't see where military should be exempt from government pension and medical benefits cuts, they are in the same boat as everybody else.
Just what businesses do create wealth then ?
Housing bubble burst - so are you saying the only jobs the Bush tax cuts created were centered around housing ? The Bush tax cuts did not create any jobs here in the US. They may have created alot of jobs in China as US consumption increased.
Drivers Licenses - For a 16 year old to now get a license they have to provide a written and parental signed log of x hours of driving experience.
Invest in smart kids not smart bombs
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 15:31 — user12345I think we should half our military spending which would put us only 2X higher than the next countries and invest the money in education, infurstructue, etc. which will pay a future divident. Pretty soon all we will have left are old hunks of metal that use to be some advanced figher and citizens not smart enough to create a new one or repair an old one. Ironically, our huge military spending to keep us free may in fact be the end of our liberty as we become bankrupt
========================================
As we cut, China will
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 12:06 — shearertwAs we cut, China will fill the void....Comfortable with that?
news.yahoo.com/chinas-first-aircraft-carrier-makes-maiden-sea-trial-000047792.html
From the article published online today (how timely)....
"Its symbolic significance outweighs its practical significance," said Ni Lexiong, an expert on Chinese maritime policy at the Shanghai University of Political Science and Law.
"We're already a maritime power, and so we need an appropriate force, whether that's aircraft carriers or battleships, just like the United States or the British empire did," he said in a telephone interview.
Notice Lexiong's use of past tense in the above statement......"did".
User, Unfortunately that history is "outdated"
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 20:54 — Voice_of_Reason_Modern warfare is too quick, lethal, technological, and mobile to make that statement of Gen Eisenhower valid today. I am not sure we could even mobilize an Army like WWII considering we have lost most of those industries. This is not the 1950's anymore. And part of our huge size is due to the defense treaties we have to honor that were made post-WWII.
Nice slogan
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 17:06 — shearertwNice slogan User........
Unfortunately, things are a little more complicated than that. First, the Chinese Army (potential) is a lot larger than they'd have you believe. Forget that for the moment.
I'm sure, like every other government endeavor, the military could take some trimming. The problem is, it needs some modernization as well. The Chinook that was shot down in Afghanistan over the weekend comes from a line of aircraft first put into the field in 1963. No wonder it was shot down by some guy who lives in a cave with a rocket that was invented over 60 years ago. Trimming of the military needs to be strategically done over the course of many years. We could do a good job IF we had a budget in place where things could be prioritized, etc. Unfortunately, your Dem buddies can't seem to put a budget together in over two years.
I should also remind you that defense is an obligation of the Federal gov't, unlike public education. I say we strategically trim and modernize the military at the same time we eliminate the Dept of Ed and send that money back to the states where it belongs.
You really would be a lot
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 17:23 — danofncYou really would be a lot easier to talk with if you'd drop all the partisan garbage.
I doubt very seriously that there is going to be a major performance upgrade to any helicopter designed to do what the Chinook does. It's a heavy-lift aircraft, and they aren't usually very nimble.
You act like the Chinook that was shot down was built in 1963.
Then, you make the budget blasts which lead me to want to ask how much Bush's deficits would have been if he'd put war spending into the budget, which I believe Obama has done. Under Bush, it was done through emergency appropriations, right? And I don't think that shows up in the budget.
No...I didn't act like the
Wed, 08/10/2011 - 11:53 — shearertwNo...I didn't act like the Chinook that was shot down was built in 1963. I was simply pointing out that the wars we are fighting today and will fight in the near future are very different than what much of our equipment was designed for in 1950. Sure, there have been upgrades, but the basic designs/platforms remain the same. I don't trust the current administration of community organizers, Harvard lawyers and Chicago thugs to cut and reconstruct the military as needed. There are deep special interests on both sides of the isle with regard to military spending. That’s why we have engines we don’t need and don’t have the new aircraft we do need.
As to your second comment, what Obama budget included the wars? I can’t seem to find that budget anywhere?
DanofNC partly right
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 19:06 — Voice_of_Reason_The Chinook is 60's vintage and still a viable aircraft, just like the older B-52. But it does require upgrades to stay viable and those upgrades cost. Upgrades such a electro-optical countermeasures, avionics, data links, new jam resistant communications equipment, radar, and night vision equipment. Plus the older they get, the more they cost to maintain. Yes Dan, we fly a lot of 60's & 70's aircraft in today's military and even som 50's vintage. But you are right, the performance upgrade probably won't happen and they aren't very nimble.
I have no idea though what you are talking about with Obama, he has increased military spending on the wars, not reduced it. He has also got us involved in Libya for some unknown reason. Even if Bush put it in the budget it makes no difference, Obama is not even using a budget, the Democrats didn't do their constitutional job and produce one. Give me a break.
So can I ask a couple of questions? Why do you blast partison rhetoric when you use it yourself? Do you feel like you only have that right?
I know this is quite 5th
Tue, 08/09/2011 - 19:40 — danofncI know this is quite 5th grade of me.....but go find a post where I started it.
If someone says something that I disagree with or think is factually inaccurate/misleading, I will point it out.
This is a message board, after all.