Does the Govt care about education?

[Mixed28]

So the state of Washington cut student work study BY HALF. Really? Also they reduced the amount of hours a student can work. So pi$$ed. God forbid we raise taxes on millionairs by 2 percentage points because some how thats socialism. Im a business major with a minor in Econ and there is a huge difference between taxing an individual and taxing a business. Lowering individual taxes on 1 percent of the country is not going to do much. Allso taxes can be too high but apparently this country does not realize taxes can be to low. Also hardly anyone in this country knows what socialism is. In a socialist country all profits a business makes goesto the workers. Do we have that in the private industry? no.

[Woggle]

Not in the least. People have no clue what socialism is and only know the word because Sean Hannity said it.

[Feelin Frisky]

The modern crop of right wing ditto heads that use the word "socialist" or the term "socialism" as a weapon in US politics to sway the emotional uniformed are mouth pieces for economic plunderers who want to own everything while paying nothing--in short, they are the enemy from within. At the Republican presidential debate, Newt Gingrich said Barack Obama is a “national secular European socialist”--he and others made it a big point to say we don't want to be like Europe and cheers went up at the assertion. Well, what has happened in the last 20 years since the death of communism is that SMART countries have shed their austere commitments to one totality or the other--the capitalist totality or the communist totality-and have taken the best elements of both systems and in doing so have ceased fighting within themselves over ideology. This has allowed them to make progress in exponents--China being the most glaring example although not European.

 

Countries in Europe however learned right away after the grip of atheist communism had disappeared that secularity--the separation of church and state, just as America had observed since it's foundation--is the only way to go as ancient religious tribal feuds immediately reignited in the Balkins and elsewhere in which millions of people died.

 

The European Union which has come into existence since that time has never sought to impose a socialist totality upon the nations which comprise it. And many have been doing very well economically and socially--getting far ahead of America in the "developed country list" with better education and much wider numbers of people having health insurance.

 

So why in the hell would republican presidential hopefuls scorn Europe and continue to demonize "socialism" as if the whole history that shows the socialism in not a threat and merely a tool of the most competent countries on Earth today? The answer is partly that there are some people in America with a lot of power who are living behind the times in a big way and are continuing to fight a war that has been over for 20 years. Socialism is not a "movement" or "a force", or "a threat", or a religion. In truth, it really just represents an impulse--the impulse to have a heart at the plight of one's contemporaries. We have social systems and social safety nets because we are better than barbarians who simply write off any who don't have immediate utility to the market. Those who curse secularity along with socialism--to say nothing of our fellow human beings in Europe and China--do not make a very good case for the "Christianity" they purport to practice. They are liars. They are our evil. They say they represent the good in the world but show the exact opposite.

 

God help us all if gullible Americans return another regime of these liars and heartless plunderers to power in the US. We will see our worst days and just how bad those can be few if any can imagine.

 

 

Look around at the modern world-take a good look. Any country without social consciousness and social safety-nets is not a modern developed and competent country--it is a dinosaur at war with itself.

[creighton0123]

I seem to be the only person who recognizes that in periods of economic recession it is important for governments (state and federal) to make temporary spending cuts in order to balance the budget.

 

Really... just because spending is cut in one area doesn't mean that the cut is permanent. State governments and the federal government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have until a period in time in which tax revenue increases due to reduced unemployment and increased consumer spending.

 

The answer to this problem facing many states isn't raising taxes for the rich or for big corporations. It is in reducing spending to the point where a surplus can be reached to pay off debt. If that requires short term spending cuts in programs across the board, so be it.

[gaius]

I seem to be the only person who recognizes that in periods of economic recession it is important for governments (state and federal) to make temporary spending cuts in order to balance the budget.

 

Really... just because spending is cut in one area doesn't mean that the cut is permanent. State governments and the federal government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have until a period in time in which tax revenue increases due to reduced unemployment and increased consumer spending.

 

The answer to this problem facing many states isn't raising taxes for the rich or for big corporations. It is in reducing spending to the point where a surplus can be reached to pay off debt. If that requires short term spending cuts in programs across the board, so be it.

Common sense! Thank you.

 

I would think a business major would understand you sometimes have to cut expenditures when your revenue isn't up to snuff.

Edited June 21, 2011 by gaius

[Mixed28]

I seem to be the only person who recognizes that in periods of economic recession it is important for governments (state and federal) to make temporary spending cuts in order to balance the budget.

 

Really... just because spending is cut in one area doesn't mean that the cut is permanent. State governments and the federal government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have until a period in time in which tax revenue increases due to reduced unemployment and increased consumer spending.

 

The answer to this problem facing many states isn't raising taxes for the rich or for big corporations. It is in reducing spending to the point where a surplus can be reached to pay off debt. If that requires short term spending cuts in programs across the board, so be it.

 

I am for budget cuts. How about we start with defense and corporate welfare? You can not defend the amount we are spending on defense. Also get rid of the war on drugs, it has failed. Also you know the main source of government revenue and economist agree that taxes must be raised. Again taxes can be too low and they are.

[Feelin Frisky]

I seem to be the only person who recognizes that in periods of economic recession it is important for governments (state and federal) to make temporary spending cuts in order to balance the budget.

 

Really... just because spending is cut in one area doesn't mean that the cut is permanent. State governments and the federal government needs to stop spending money it doesn't have until a period in time in which tax revenue increases due to reduced unemployment and increased consumer spending.

 

The answer to this problem facing many states isn't raising taxes for the rich or for big corporations. It is in reducing spending to the point where a surplus can be reached to pay off debt. If that requires short term spending cuts in programs across the board, so be it.

 

 

No offense but it sounds like you've bought the right wing media line on all of this hook, line and sinker. I don't know why you should think you're the "only one" however. If you've watched or read any of the other media since November you'd have probably heard that President Obama has been soundly criticized by his own party and millions of the people who elected him for being so willing to cut so much without a fight. Well, without going back into all that, many more cuts were made than the Republicans originally asked for and the Bush tax cuts were extended two more years to complicate things even more. But what all this has done is for many many people on both sides of the political spectrum is wake them up to the truth that the Republicans haven't been interested in balancing the budget at all really--they've just been ginning up the economic crisis they created to now try to win culture wars (like ending Planned Parenthood) and destroying Democratic Administration accomplishments like Medicare, Medicaid and so forth.

 

Many unions have agreed to take pay cuts and offer "give backs" to help states "economics woes" only to find out that their new Republican governors had created their micro economic emergencies by huge tax give-aways while setting their sights on ending unions collective bargaining powers and indeed the unions themselves.

 

I thought I'd frankly see better from you. Sorry for how that sounds but this really struck me as "can he be serious?"

 

Anyone who simply argues to "cut spending" without considering what that spending goes to pay for is either an incompetent or an ideologue feigning necessity. There are other ways to take care of getting our financial houses in order than blindly hacking off what some think of as an expense. There is no way anyone can know who will be in office in a few years so there is no way anyone can guaranty that today's cuts to programs like Medicare will ever be restored. The right is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to sell people lies and win these long wars against the social safety nets and education that makes us a civilized and compassionate nation. I can't imagine what they expect America to turn into if and when they win on all these points but I don't want to find out.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Feelin Frisky