S
- Status
L
LisaA
Guest
Honestly I don’t blame Obama specifically, I blame the Democrats in Congress for the big spending spree they’ve been on the past couple of years. Obama outsourcedWell, i dont know Lisa. I’m not defending Obama. I’m just very critical of RomneyI dont agree with Obama on many issues, I don’t blame him for everything under the sun either. Bottom line, the strategy of the right is not working. If Republicans lose this election it will not be because people are just so happy with Obama.
governing to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and they were like kids in the cookie jar the first two years when they had all three branches. It wasn’t until the 2010 election that they were stopped.I think the Right’s economic strategy would be more effective in moving the economy…back to the thread, I heard Paul Ryan today and he was emphasizing that the Democrat philosophy seems to be success is the number of people in various government programs and his (and Romney’s) objective is economic growth and opportunities. He spoke of improving education, providing more choice and more options so that people would have the knowledge and skills to take jobs once we get the economy moving again. So I like the idea of “an opportunity society” and hope they can get that across.
Lisa
P
ProVobis
Guest
If we were out of any recession, interest rates wouldn’t be sitting at 0%, which they have since Dec 2008 after the complete banking collapse.
L
LisaA
Guest
Well I agree but from some kind of economist’s criteria we have been out of the recession for almost three years now. I’m thankful rates are so low. Not only is my stock up because no one wants fixed instruments but can you imagine the interest on the national debt if it went up to more normal rates.
Lisa
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’ll change fast if they eliminate the charitable contribution deduction.
L
LisaA
Guest
Absolutely. Many corporations work hard to be “good citizens.” If you remember Katrina, it was Walmart that jumped in with trucks full of bottled water and generators and other necessities.A lot of businesses give heavily to charities. But of course Chik-f-la was demonized because they gave to charities unapproved by the left.
My point though was that businesses survive and grow by making profits. Assuming what they do isn’t illegal, that’s a good thing! Unprofitable enterprises don’t provide many new jobs…
Lisa
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I know you believe and agree businesses are profit driven. Which is partly my point: more than one will involve themselves with mafiosi, dictators (if being a dictator is a bad thing), and African strongmen.
Under NAFTA they export U.S. jobs to Mexico and disallow organize labor.
I think I’m familiar with your perspective. All of that is good in so far as competition is good. Fault lies with the losers in society (but possibly not the world as theoretically upward mobility and fairness are only obtainable in the United States) but not with the state or big businesses or the forces that determine the system itself. In purely atheistic perspective I might agree with you to a greater extent. That simply one extension of the theory of evolution in life with winners and losers and no reference to God or morals.
Personally, I would like to see publicly funded education expanded throughout a nation like Brazil, and I think the Bolsa Familia program is a very good thing.
And I’m not anti-business by the way. I just see no reason why they should be above criticism.
In general the individual is not as powerful as either the state or the larger institutions within society.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
So did Catholic slave owners to the confraternities of racial minorities throughout Latin America. That’s how some of the enslaved bought their freedom.A lot of businesses give heavily to charities. But of course Chik-f-la was demonized because they gave to charities unapproved by the left.
It would not surprise me if one or more wealthy satanic persons - persons that worship Satan - give large donations to charity.
Lots of Muslims give to charity too. So do a lot of atheists.
But you have an objection to the governments giving more than annual token charitable donations to the poor by developing a system by were the poor eat everyday rather than once out of the year?
You might say as a Christian, “But the government ‘stole’ the money from me (a few quarters or pennies
) through my taxes,” well, here’s the solution as a charitable Christian obeying his master to give up his cloak to a thief: Give your blessing to the U.S. Government that they can use a few cents off each dollar you provide in taxes to help maintain a certain level of “floor” in quality of life the U.S. poor don’t fall below - instead of using the those pennies to create more powerful bombs to blow the teeth out of the mouths of little children across the world.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I don’t hold any disdain for Walmart over that - although I think it was rather low of them to take out million dollar life insurance policies on employees they knew were going to die, but gave none of the money they got from the policies to the struggling families of their deceased employees.
Corporations - or privately wealthy individuals - can use there wealth and connections for the good. No doubt, and no objection.
But a socialist atheist moved me once - he personally helps provide for the weekly grocery shopping of an elderly woman - when he stated his dislike on annual charities that give out food once a year, when he asked of them, “Where are you every other day of the year when people need to eat?”
Government usually have the scale of economy and structural ability to better adequately provide for the poor or disabled than private organizations.
It was not the private and Catholic charitable organization throughout Brazil that helped raise the average quality of life in Brazil and significantly dent abject poverty in Brazil, it was the Brazilian Federal Government mobilized for the task.
D
DeSanto
Guest
yeah, sounds good doesn’t it? What candidate doesn’t speak about “improving education”? Didn’t they want to get rid of the DOE? Sounds kind of extreme to me.Honestly I don’t blame Obama specifically, I blame the Democrats in Congress for the big spending spree they’ve been on the past couple of years. Obama outsourced
I think the Right’s economic strategy would be more effective in moving the economy…back to the thread, I heard Paul Ryan today and he was emphasizing that the Democrat philosophy seems to be success is the number of people in various government programs and his (and Romney’s) objective is economic growth and opportunities. He spoke of improving education, providing more choice and more options so that people would have the knowledge and skills to take jobs once we get the economy moving again. So I like the idea of “an opportunity society” and hope they can get that across.
Lisa
Ok, sure. You don’t blame Obama specifically. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Just all democrats, right? Republicans are innocent victims in all this and should hold no responsibility, right?
Did you happen to see the other comments I made? I’m much more interested in your opinions on rich v. poor. Who’s taking advantage, who has the advantage?
L
LisaA
Guest
I don’t have any knowledge of Romney or Ryan wanting to get rid of the DOE but quite honestly unless you can demonstrate it provides any benefit to students, why not? Our schools and test scores and competitiveness throughout the world has DECLINED. So the DOE isn’t really doing anything to improve education is it? They set standards and schools cheat (Atlanta) they distribute more and more money every year but again schools are declining. Look at the abysmal rate of graduation of the Chicago schools. What is the DOE doing to help these failing districts? Precious little far as I can see.
As to Romney/Ryan wanting to improve education, they do go beyond mere platitudes. One of their major areas of focus is SCHOOL CHOICE. One of the Democrats strongholds is NO SCHOOL CHOICE because they are so beholden to teacher’s unions.
I didn’t say Republicans were not to blame for any ills of the world but with respect to the last three years with Obama in the White House, the Republicans have been trying to slow down the ever increasing level of government spending. I wish they were tougher but political fortunes being what they are, even Republicans dare not vote against certain spending provisions…99 weeks of unemployment for example, raising the debt ceiling.
Regarding “rich vs poor” OK there are rich people and poor people. This is the human condition. As to Romney/Ryan their focus is trying to get people OFF the programs and dependence rather than expanding the programs and leading to ever increasing levels of dependence. Beyond that I am not sure what you mean.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
So help me connect the dots. We’ve had a lengthy lesson in Brazilian economics and politics but not sure how this relates to the Paul Ryan thread.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
Don’t think they’ll do that. Also charitable contributions by corporations are pretty limited. Ditto with the individual contribution deduction. There are already limits to what can be deducted. Maybe they’ll reduce this a bit but I don’t think either one wants to reduce donations. The stronger the charities the less we have to grow government so I think this is something R&R want to maintain if not expand in some fashion.
Where I see them changing deductions is in the area of how much investment income gets preferential rates, and reduce mortgage deduction further, particularly for second homes. This is not a middle class tax break and it’s a bit hard to stomach Mrs Gotrocks getting a mortgage deduction for her yacht or condo in Aspen.
What most people conveniently forget is when Reagan dropped the rates he also effectively got rid of tax shelters that were allowing high income earners to lower their rate substantially if not completely. I remember as a CPA seeing earned income of $877,000 (and this was in the early 80s!!) and ZERO taxes because the guy had a bunch of trashy tax shelters. They had no economic value and were totally abusive. Once those were gone and rates were reasonable, the money came pouring into the Treasury.
Tax law can make a big difference in decision making. I think both Romney and Ryan understand this a lot better than Democrats who have a “tax the filthy evil rich people” as their one trick pony
Lisa
D
DeSanto
Guest
I have never heard you say one critical thing regarding the GOP. Just saying. Do you really think the debt celing debate was good for our country? Downgrading our credit rating was an accomplishment by the GOP?
Regarding the DOE, yes to cuts in unnecessary spending, slim it down, make some reforms. But, to completely get rid of it. Nope. Not without some clear understanding of the consequences. You would have to demonstrate how that is going to improve education.
Choice is just code word for Charter Schools and Ryan’s favorite word “vouchers”. Good sounding ideas, not so popular when the specifics come out.
Rich v. Poor…please refer back to #850. I believe you missed one of my replies. Basically I was asking…why is it ok in your eyes for the rich to take advantage of the system but not for the poor? Or better yet, why not disdain for both groups?
J
JimG
Guest
The Dept. of Education began operations in May of 1980. It seems to me that the state of education has gotten worse since then. How did the nation ever manage without a DOE up until 1980?
D
DeSanto
Guest
Fair enough. What would happen if we just got rid of it? I would need specifics, I want to know what the alternative is. I just don’t think you say hey, get rid of DOE and everything will just work itself out. That’s not a plan.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, there would need to be a plan. That’s the problem with just creating new cabinet departments willy-nilly. Once they are up and operating and doling out money to the states and hiring thousands of people, they take on a life of their own, whether the results justify their existence or not.
Still, I think it’s something that would be worth trying. I would like to see schools controlled as much as possible by parents–not the DOE, not the States, not boards of education, not city governments, but parents. Yes, it would take some deconstruction. I think it would be worth doing. A good start could be made by making sure that all state or federal funding for education followed the student. Wherever the parent decided to send the students to school, that’s where the money would go. School choice. It’s a start.
L
LisaA
Guest
Yes this is PRECISELY what Paul Ryan spoke about. Schools should not be controlled from Washington DC. If ANYTHING needs local control, it would be schools. Each community, each neighborhood has special concerns, special issues, strengths and weaknesses. There is no way Washington can handle thousands of individual schools.
I can see a role in Washington for setting some kind of standards and for helping areas that do not have the tax base to provide good educations. OTOH money spent per student is a VERY poor way of measuring quality of the school. Washington DC has HORRIBLE public schools and Obama got rid of one of the options for poor kids to go to a quality school like his own daughters. It’s amazing how many politicians wouldn’t think of sending THEIR little angel to a public school! It’s fine for the great unwashed but for the political types…not so much.
Speaking of departments that need a haircut, EPA has turned into a monster and Obama is their Knight in Shining Armor running to their defense. That’s one that needs to be reined in. Oh and the “Dept of Energy” which was created in the 1970s to get us off foreign oil…how’s that workin out? The Dept of Agriculture? The latest Farm Bill was 80%food stamps. Not exactly their real mission.
As Jim said, these departments have a life like nuclear waste. They never shrink, they never go away, and as time goes on they get less and less effective. They need to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
To answer your first question…nothing. I bet not one local school would be seriously impacted by just shutting the doors of the DOE. From everything I’ve heard from teachers, principals and superintendents, it’s a paper factory that just spews out regulations and rules. It doesn’t educate one single student. It doesn’t train one teacher.
Tell me first what DOE does and I think we’ll find out…not much
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
Look I’ve said plenty about the GOP’s overspending, over reaching, and weakness in the face of expanding deficits. OTOH they are pikers compared to the Democrats. Our debt has ballooned more in three years than in the past decade. The Dems passed the stimulus which meant borrowing money in China to fill potholes and pay back the unions. Dodd Frank is killing our finance industry and what I have to say about Obamacare cannot be repeated in polite company.
As to school choice I think the idea of vouchers are GREAT so Ryan isn’t speaking code, he’s very open about his ideas. Why should children be stuck in horrible schools on the basis of geography alone? Parents desperate to get their kids in decent schools are being charged with CRIMES for say claiming a parent’s address as their own so the child can go to a better school. Dollars following the student will mean competition and these failing schools will have to get off their butts and improve or close down. Schools are all about teachers now not about students. It’s been going downhill for years and the more powerful the NEA the less quality in the schools. This is not something I made up…
As to the rich vs poor “taking advantage” of tax laws, government benefits, sure as long as what they are doing is legal. FWIW I don’t think putting in a fraudulent disability claim or lying on an application for food stamps is either legal or ethical. But I also disdain the greedy hogs who did the NINJA loans and bought real estate they couldn’t afford because they thought it would go up forever. Instead we the taxpayers are holding the bag.
I believe everyone should be honest in dealings with the public and private sector. I have no problem seeing a cheating banker or Wall Street type frog marched out of his corner office. Someone like Bernie Madoff should be put in a bare cell with gruel to eat IMO. Now speaking of the Obama administration, somehow the DOJ has time to sue states for enforcing federal laws and voter ID requirements but after ALL of the fraud and corruption on Wall Street could they find ONE SINGLE PERSON to prosecute? Nope. Tell me that Democrats hate the rich and want to help the poor. Far as I can see, they let all those slimebags just skate.
Lisa
- Status