Answering My Own Question on Palin

Based on my observations of both men during their speeches, I did hear the Obama chap state something to the affect that we have to roll up our sleeves and make a few sacrifices. It will not come easy but we have to do this.

 

I'm thinking that "we" rarely includes those that set policy. "We" means all of you outside the beltway.

 

Money is also not the problem with education. Many systems have bloated administrations and there is significant cost added for providing social programs that are not directly involved with education. Parents are a significant part of the problem. We've been throwing more money at schools for decades and the results are not getting better. Again, more of the same will not fix the system.[/QUOTE]

More money is needed for those who are willing to take the risk of investing in their own future (student loans any one). There is an all time low in terms of availability of funds for higher education. Parenting is also important as you mentioned. But i find it ludicrous that in my area we have public high schools that have facilities that rival some colleges while a few miles away we have schools that are underfunded to the point that simple supplies are unavailable to the students. Like it or not to have a strong functioning society you need a degree of socialist policy, and not just for business, for the people!


[/QUOTE]It is not the place of government to prop up any industry, automobiles included. The auto inductry is in trouble because of poor decisions by management and union greed. Promises made decades ago to mollify unions have created a pension and benefit structure that cannot be sustained.

Any bailout of the above is coming out of my pocket and yours. There aren't enough rich and the poor don't pay anyway. Quite frankly, I feel I pay enough.[/QUOTE]


It all comes out of our pockets one way or another. If a small percentage of what has been spent in an unsuccesful attempt to plunder a region's resources (Iraq) were diverted to domestic programs we would be far better off in terms of our abilities to compete in a global environment. From time to time things need to be propped up. The constitutional mandate for our government is to " Establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of our liberty.

Call it a redistribution of wealth if you must, but the wealthy aren't being taxed into the poor house nor will they ever be. Shift your view to do your part not look what is being done to me.[/QUOTE]

Tommy, your last sentence is troubling to many of us. Everyone paying an equal percentage of tax is one thing, but when we see fit to start taxing one class of people more, just because they have more than others, is called socialism. It's the redistribution of wealth. Do you actually think that's fair? It's the old "slippery slope" thing, where does it stop?

 

Will Maureen Dowd ever get a life and lose some of her venom?:up:

 

I can't figure out how many times I have to explain per diem to these clowns so that they understand what she it doing with per diem is okay and is actually saving the state money.

 

You can't explain what someone doesn't want to understand. (either side BTW)

 

Very true.

 

Which of her questions are venomous and not legitimate? Maybe the one about speaking in tongues? (I did ask about that. Anyone? )

 

Hmmm the Adam, Eve and Devil one. Read the bible and you will know her answer. It's a stupid rhetorical question.

The per diem one.

Hell YZFBeliever addressed them.

 

The guy I wrote about who went to prison had each and every one of his travel expenses approved by the city government. Whether the expenses are approved or not matters not one bit. What the per-diem rate is matters not one bit. At least, it didn't matter to the D.A. in my case.

When you can explain to me how taking your daughter on a trip from Alaska to New York to tour the Stock Exchange is a legitimate way to spend taxpayer money, then I'll stop calling it stealin'.

I mean, really, is this all that complicated?

 

The Creationist one is a bit much if you already know the answer. Otherwise it's a perfectly, good question.

The per diem one is perfectly legit. Scarfing tax dollars for travelling at home is dishonest even if it wastes less money. She's the reformer who is supposed to be catching low-level bureacrats doing this

 

Is there anyone that doesn't know the answer? Even atheists know the story.

 

There has to be a quite a few people who will vote but have barely started to follow the campaigns and stil know very little about her. Her views are a legitimate issue.

 

To a canadian?

 

Most of the questions are the proverbial "Have you stopped beating your wife" question. they are not questions at all, they are accusations of wrong doing or factually disproved items posed in the form of a question..

The Dinosaur / Devil 4000 years ago question has already been shown to be bogus.. but a good media basher never lets the facts get in the way of their bias...

There are PLENTY of idiots that think because it is printed in the paper (or else were) that it is true.. one of the wisest men I have ever met had a great saying regarding this subject..

"Paper has never been known to refuse ink"

 

Call it a redistribution of wealth if you must, but the wealthy aren't being taxed into the poor house nor will they ever be. Shift your view to do your part not look what is being done to me.[/QUOTE]

Tommy, your last sentence is troubling to many of us. Everyone paying an equal percentage of tax is one thing, but when we see fit to start taxing one class of people more, just because they have more than others, is called socialism. It's the redistribution of wealth. Do you actually think that's fair? It's the old "slippery slope" thing, where does it stop?[/QUOTE]

i'm just sick and tired of people dropping the word socialism like it's the debil. a tax, any tax, is a redistribution of wealth by nature and the fact that you surrender the tax implies that you accept that redistribution. Believe me, as a small business owner, i would love to see a more equal tax situation, like perhaps one that taxes each dollar earned only once. I pay tax on the money my business earns, i pay tax on the money i pay myself, and i pay tax on the money that i pay others which they in turn pay a tax on for having earned it. SO even though i wouldn't consider myself wealthy i pay alot of tax and could easily make an argument that it is disproportionate to the amount of money that i keep. I believe strongly in social responsibility. and as i said earlier in this thread i don't believe in handouts, but i do believe in (and i hate this phrase but it seems closest to what i'm driving at) a leveling of the playing field so to speak. The kids that go to school in Logan heights do not get an educational experience that even comes close to those that go to school in Poway or Del Mar in terms of resources and facilities. As i said before on some things like this you need some redistribution because in the end it only hurts our nation as a whole. i guess that's the real point. As to fairness is it fair that Kid A is born wealthy and will attend a public school that blows away the public school that Kid B is going to attend because his parents are poor. Things like public schools should be the same through out the school district period. Dollar for dollar spending should exist to ensure that our schools are capable of delivering the same educational experience to all who attend. This is a responsibility that the State assumes when they mandate that children between certain ages must attend.

 

Perhaps, but being condescending and confrontational does not make one an insightful journalist, just a nosy a$$hole.

 

The current slate of candidates really sucks for you.

That exists to a degree in a lot of places, but your situation is more extreme than what I hae experienced. We have some schools that are better than others and economic DO play a role, but not in the resources allocated to the school. The biggest difference is in parental involvement. Inner city schools have a much higher percentage of poor parent. they are not as involved for whatever reason - apathy, burn-out, long hours at second jobs. You can make the playing field billiard table flat and still not get equal education.

I agree as far as opportunity, but into middle and HS, those opportunities need to address the needs and future of the student. Vocational training, life skills, basic business skills, entrepenuership (is that a word?), whatever. Not all are going to college and not all need to. It is stupid to try and place them in that mold.

My experience locally, is that lack of money is not the isue. Bloated administrative costs, parental apathy, transportation and babysitting costs take money away from the classroom. I think if you will do a little research, you might find that some of the best performing schools in the nation are not the the highest in terms of cost per student. Having enough money is not the issue. How it is spent is.

 

Whenever Orvis uses the word Socialism substitute the word Communism. That's what he really means.

 

No, no, Robert, When Obama disarms us THEN we'll have communism. Socialism comes first.