• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, ONE whole American job vs.FIVE jobs for the Fins. Sounds like a great investment of our tax money. <sarcasm off>

the Obama apologists can never admit that they are wrong or were duped by the Obama rhetoric
 
the Obama apologists can never admit that they are wrong or were duped by the Obama rhetoric

Absolutely. What I found outrageous about the whole affair is the dubious claim that they could find no facilities in the U.S. that could build the cars. If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge over the Ohio River for sale.

I wonder how much the Finnish government gave them to locate there?
 
Absolutely. What I found outrageous about the whole affair is the dubious claim that they could find no facilities in the U.S. that could build the cars. If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge over the Ohio River for sale.

I wonder how much the Finnish government gave them to locate there?

Obama's goal is to generate 1 BILLION dollars for his re-election. Wonder how many Americans that billion dollars would help?
 
Obama's goal is to generate 1 BILLION dollars for his re-election. Wonder how many Americans that billion dollars would help?

Not sure how many Americans...........but it would probably keep a couple solar panel companies out of bankruptcy for a few months.
 
Obama's goal is to generate 1 BILLION dollars for his re-election. Wonder how many Americans that billion dollars would help?

As far as Mitt's $32mill will go to help Wall Street and Big Business.
 
Expert opinion does matter to me. Turtledude opinion doesn't matter me, or the majority of the country apparently, as 63% of the country supports the American Jobs Act.
And yet again the Democrats failed. They could not even keep their party together. It is gone now. So the Democrat Senate voted for more murders and more rapes. Awesome. I love the VP. He is the gift that just keeps on giving. Which name do you prefer for the lovable lug, Plugs Biden or Joe Biteme?
 
So you are for cutting spending on a federal level for schools? Even if that means teachers get payed less and the school can't afford new text books?
Yes. Let us close down the extra-constitutional department of education. It is just one more slush fund for democrat politicians through union dues.
 
Again if they don't have the economy/tax base why do they need schools? Economy/income in taxes is population driven. If the population is not sufficent to support taxes adequate for schools then they must consolidate with adjacent areas until adequate resources are available to support said school. Just because they want a 'local' school is not sufficient reason for other areas to financially support their 'want' via federal tax redistribution.

So you think that states that have more poor people living in them should get less funding (because they generate less tax revenue)?
 
How much are taxpayers paying per American job? 529 million divided by 100 American jobs. Typical government program, wouldn't you say?

But this is a vehicle for the masses..... I heard they only cost $100,000. each and get less than 20 mpg.
 
So you think that states that have more poor people living in them should get less funding (because they generate less tax revenue)?
Yes. The states need to get their acts together. As long as there are liberals there will be increasing misery.
 
Yes. The states need to get their acts together. As long as there are liberals there will be increasing misery.

Strawman

Do you not understand that if there are more poor people there is less tax revenue in an area? Do you not understand that the rich provide majority of the social services, which they deserve to pay. So, if you have a bunch of poor people paying a low amount of money, how do you propose the children get an education? Lets remember, a child's job is to go to school, his job isn't to be a politician, his job isn't to pay taxes, he didn't screw up in life by not going to college. Again, the only way for these low income states to have proper schools is a federal tax. You don't want to admit this because that would mean we NEED a federal income tax.
 
because he got the most benefit from Wall Street with Larry Summer and Tim Geithner in his Administration?

or, when he was still running on his Liberal platform, big business was scared regulation would be brought back. That, and Wall St wants to control both parties (not that they don't already)
 
So you think that states that have more poor people living in them should get less funding (because they generate less tax revenue)?

Now you invoke the second ‘standard Liberal tactic’, misdirection. This conversation was based on economy/income. To infer more poor people suggests that you assume some theoretical demographic knowledge of said ‘state’. Is your reference to those ‘poor people’ who have cable/satellite TV, xbox, etc.? Surely if those comforts are available to them there are sufficient resources (economy) to support local school funding. I mean really, what is the priority here education or comforts?

Consider this do poverty statistics typically account for regional cost of living differences? How about city/urban/rural considerations? Do you think these affect the cost of schooling? Does re-apportionment address these adequately? Are resources lost to the ‘administration’ of this ‘forced re-apportionment’ not depriving the real goal, education?
 
Who should Wall St have feared more: the Progressive or the Conservative?

Actually both (or neither). The references below are considered the deregulation issues over the last 30 years that collectively created the crisis. Note the WH/Congress party majority at the end of each line.

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 – Pres-Dem/Sen-Dem/House-Dem
Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 - Pres-GOP/Sen-GOP/House-Dem
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 - Pres-Dem/Sen-GOP/House-GOP
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (deregulated derivatives) - Pres-Dem/Sen-GOP/House- GOP
SEC ‘net capital rule modifications’ in 2004 - Pres-GOP/Sen-GOP /House-GOP

Note how diverse the players were.
 
Now you invoke the second ‘standard Liberal tactic’, misdirection. This conversation was based on economy/income. To infer more poor people suggests that you assume some theoretical demographic knowledge of said ‘state’. Is your reference to those ‘poor people’ who have cable/satellite TV, xbox, etc.? Surely if those comforts are available to them there are sufficient resources (economy) to support local school funding. I mean real what is the priority here education or comforts?

Consider this do poverty statistics typically account for regional cost of living differences? How about city/urban/rural considerations? Do you think these affect the cost of schooling? Does re-apportionment address these adequately? Are resources lost to the ‘administration’ of this ‘forced re-apportionment’ not depriving the real goal, education?

Well we know what is SHOULD be but is it? Is it really?
 
Strawman

Do you not understand that if there are more poor people there is less tax revenue in an area? Do you not understand that the rich provide majority of the social services, which they deserve to pay. So, if you have a bunch of poor people paying a low amount of money, how do you propose the children get an education? Lets remember, a child's job is to go to school, his job isn't to be a politician, his job isn't to pay taxes, he didn't screw up in life by not going to college. Again, the only way for these low income states to have proper schools is a federal tax. You don't want to admit this because that would mean we NEED a federal income tax.

First the majority of ‘poor people’ are typically ‘poor’ as they are at the beginnings of their career (graduate high school). As they progress in age there income increases to above the poverty line and a new HS class move into their place which is why the poverty line never moves much. Think above it, most kids that enter the work force do not enter with salaries above the poverty line hence the description ‘entry level’. With this increase in income they become more able to provide resources into the local (county/state) economy via property, auto and sales tax. It is these taxes that should support local education. And they are the ones that should be adjusted to account for educational funding shortfalls.

As to your ‘rich…deserve to pay’ comment I will leave it to others.

No, a child’s job is to LEARN! Just being in school is not enough and if you didn’t know that ergo my point.

To be sure we NEED a federal income tax to provide resources for those services specifically delineated in the US Constitution. These include NATIONAL defense, NATIONAL government expenses and FEDERAL court system. There is no FEDERAL education system hence the funds for such are not required.
 
The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. There is also a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation's public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. The primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
Annual Secondary Education Expenditures per Student

ESEA authorizes grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of low-income families; school library resources, textbooks and other instructional materials; supplemental education centers and services; strengthening state education agencies; education research; and professional development for teachers.

This explicitly says why we should have federal funding for state run public schools.
 
This explicitly says why we should have federal funding for state run public schools.

The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution and that includes funding
 
The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution and that includes funding

Why am I finding myself linking you to my previous post you just responded too?


ESEA authorizes grants for elementary and secondary school programs for children of low-income families; school library resources, textbooks and other instructional materials; supplemental education centers and services; strengthening state education agencies; education research; and professional development for teachers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom