• 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!

Food-stamp use doubles

Muddy Creek said:
No, it was actually a response to cutting the cost of education.

Alabama coaching salaries increase 40 percent since winning titles | The Daily Bama Blog

Who pays for these increases? Not the tickets of the games.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you research how much revnue is generated by Alabama football (especially television and licensing) before making an asinine assumption that it does not support itself as well as the majority of other athletic programs at the University...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I would suggest you research how much revnue is generated by Alabama football (especially television and licensing) before making an asinine assumption that it does not support itself as well as the majority of other athletic programs at the University...
Click to expand...

I don't need to. I KNOW they aren't paying for THOSE salaries...
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree..they need to reign in a lot of the spending. A pretty interesting fact...as tuition has ballooned the ratio of administrators have grown compared to the number of actual professors employed. So a large chunk of that money is going to costly expansions, administrators, and other things that don't necessarily result in a better education experience for a tuition payer. So I agree with that.

But!

It's also a fact that states have been cutting back on the money they send to state universities so a larger share of the cost for running the university is being shouldered by individuals paying tuition. States as of 2013 are spending on average 28 percent less on state universities than they did in 2008.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a difference of opinion in some cases.Administrative Bloat at America’s Colleges and Universities
 
j-mac said:
Amazing how studies have shown that people living off "the dole" as it were, tend to get back to work at what ever point that free stuff ends isn't it....;)
Click to expand...

Not sure that's true. Before "free stuff" we still had out of work poor people. Maybe you just read studies by biased researchers?
 
j-mac said:
Nothing. It should be a market exercise....The problem we have now is too much government meddling.
Click to expand...

That led to unions, which government has weakened for business.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure that's true. Before "free stuff" we still had out of work poor people. Maybe you just read studies by biased researchers?
Click to expand...

And I am not sure that your dismissal of the studies showing this, isn't based solely on your own bias. :coffeepap:
 
j-mac said:
Although it is true enough that there is a balance, tilting too far one way or the other is not good.
Click to expand...

I have always stated that. The trouble I see on your side is the tendency to only see one side of the problem. Too willing to give business the complete advantage. But there does need to be balance.

Welfare, however, is another issue. No matter what we do, there will always be poor and unemployed. The question is how do we handle that?
 
Boo Radley said:
I have always stated that. The trouble I see on your side is the tendency to only see one side of the problem. Too willing to give business the complete advantage. But there does need to be balance.

Welfare, however, is another issue. No matter what we do, there will always be poor and unemployed. The question is how do we handle that?
Click to expand...

Ok, so then can we say that the so called "war on poverty" is a tremendous failure then?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so then can we say that the so called "war on poverty" is a tremendous failure then?
Click to expand...

No. Not perfect, but not a failure. People live better today on the whole than they did before. Hands down. It's not even close. But, poverty is not something that really can be completely defeated. Not in our world.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Not perfect, but not a failure. People live better today on the whole than they did before. Hands down. It's not even close. But, poverty is not something that really can be completely defeated. Not in our world.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't there have at least been some progress? As far as I know, the WoP when started was to address a poverty rate of around 12% of the population. Today, the poverty rate is higher than that....Success?
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Not perfect, but not a failure. People live better today on the whole than they did before. Hands down. It's not even close. But, poverty is not something that really can be completely defeated. Not in our world.
Click to expand...

And it Willi never be defeated because of the way poverty is measured.. If people are living better than they ever did before, how is that poverty?
 
Last edited:
Muddy Creek said:
What a rant and
rave on anti-unions and government. Seems you on the right LOVE big government when it benefits corporations. All that money spent on Homeland security just to help out the MIC getting more money for more weapons on our streets.

And you LOVE big government when it comes to interfering in personal lives of people. Let's have abortion police monitor when a woman buys a pregnancy test and then follow her see if she's going to have an abortion.

And you LOVE big government when it comes to rah rah two wars and get them middle easterners and spend all that money sending troops overseas and building 750 bases in 36 countries to protect corporate interests abroad. Yeah, SPEND that big government money helping the rich get bigger.

Tell you what, when you practice what you preach on the right, we can have a discussion about small government and less spending. Until then, all we have are differences on where we think big government should be put helping out our nation grown.
Click to expand...

Thats a bit desperate dont you think ?

Practice what I preach ? When did I ever say it was ok to follow a pregnant women around ?

And if you have a problem with those two wars contact your Democrat Representitive. Chances are they voted for it.
 
Grant said:
And it Willi never be defeated because of the way poverty is measured.. If people are living better than they ever did before, how is that poverty?
Click to expand...

Walter Williams points out....

To say that "our society creates poverty" is breathtakingly ignorant. In 1776, the U.S. was among the world's poorest nations. In less than two centuries, we became the world's richest nation by a long shot. Americans who today are deemed poor by Census Bureau definitions have more material goods than middle-class people as recently as 60 years ago. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield give us insights in "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor" (9/13/2011). Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn't afford food.

Poverty Nonsense - Walter E. Williams - [page]
Click to expand...
 
The dems have been using this class warfare thing since Andrew Jackson. They will never change that.
 
j-mac said:
Shouldn't there have at least been some progress? As far as I know, the WoP when started was to address a poverty rate of around 12% of the population. Today, the poverty rate is higher than that....Success?
Click to expand...

There has been progress, as few suffer as much as they did then. As for the rate, that is variable, depending on circumstances. Some have been pointing out this coming for sometime. Rules favor business, outsourcing, the gap between wealthy and poor, have helped us get where we are. Like you noted earlier, balance. To compete with India and such, we need to remove health care from business and lower our standard of living, meaning more poor. Balance is lost, and we are out of balance. And your side focuses too much on the people less able to change the tide.

My side may well be just as myopic, but at least the side we point to has more ability to act now.
 
Grant said:
And it Willi never be defeated because of the way poverty is measured.. If people are living better than they ever did before, how is that poverty?
Click to expand...

This is because of the aid you seek to stop. Absent that aid, they would not be. So, keep things in context. The standard overall is actually lowering. The poor are somewhat better than ever before, and the wealthy likewise, but the middle class, not so much.
 
Boo Radley said:
There has been progress, as few suffer as much as they did then. As for the rate, that is variable, depending on circumstances. Some have been pointing out this coming for sometime. Rules favor business, outsourcing, the gap between wealthy and poor, have helped us get where we are. Like you noted earlier, balance. To compete with India and such, we need to remove health care from business and lower our standard of living, meaning more poor. Balance is lost, and we are out of balance. And your side focuses too much on the people less able to change the tide.
Click to expand...

Balance is important. Since you want to make this a 'my side'/'your side' argument, I would say that the ability to bring people out of poverty, or at least what we in this country term as such, is stagnant at best. With more focus on federal giveaways, and less on the incorporation of training to move people out of their circumstances on their own is problematic. Also, as a note the further shift of progressive governance in terms of shifting toward nationalizing private industry in this country that totals a full 1/6th of the nations GDP is worrisome. My concern is not that America will continue to be a country that boasts that anyone can make it, to more of a country of lowering all tides to achieve a static level. That's not freedom.

My side may well be just as myopic, but at least the side we point to has more ability to act now.
Click to expand...

Acting just because you can is not always the smartest path.
 
Boo Radley said:
This is because of the aid you seek to stop. Absent that aid, they would not be. So, keep things in context. The standard overall is actually lowering. The poor are somewhat better than ever before, and the wealthy likewise, but the middle class, not so much.
Click to expand...

The middle class is shrinking because too much wealth is going to the government rather than staying with the people. The Federal government, along with many state governments, is unaffordable. The American people are getting more services and regulations than they need or can afford.

Were all those trillions the feds remove from the economy to remain with the people the middle class would be thriving. The poor can remain poor, the rich will remain rich and the middle will be the first to decline. It really is no secret, and there should not be any complaints or shock from the leftists. It's inevitable in any economy.

There is a very good reason why DC and its suburbs are the most wealthy in the nation, despite there being only one resource. That would be the American taxpayer.
 
iliveonramen said:
I guess I'm confused since I covered Administrative bloat as part of the reason. Are you saying that decreased funding by states to universities has had no impact at all on tuition rates?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I responded to the wrong post.

Yes, of course it's had a dramatic effect. Less attention is now being paid to academic achievements it seems and more to the peripherals.
 
j-mac said:
Shouldn't there have at least been some progress? As far as I know, the WoP when started was to address a poverty rate of around 12% of the population. Today, the poverty rate is higher than that....Success?
Click to expand...
You are starting from the wrong point in time, when LBJ got the program rolling in 1964 we had as a nation been seeing the poverty rate reaching levels of over 20%, as recently as the 1950's. Since then the rate has "remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom