Blazer Bob wrote:
OMG you are so behind the times. The GOP's goal is not just to destroy the county, they want to destroy all life on this planet except for spiders and cockroaches.
In other words, they want only the Republicans to survive.
Good one archer! haha
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
If that were the case, the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of the public education budgets would have resulted in the best educated children on the planet. Somehow, however, it seems to work in the opposite way. The more money we sink into unionized teachers salaries, outrageous pension plans and the best health insurance tax money can provide, the less ready for life our children seem to be once they finish their secondary education - if, that is, they indeed finish it.
I will grant you that it has worked that way for the common defense of the States - we do have the best military in existence at the moment, but for some odd reason, success in the primary role of the federal government is seen as a bad thing by the "progressives" as they concentrate on driving us all into the poor house and frittering our hard earned money away on Ponzi based social welfare programs to take care of our elderly and subsidizing colleges and universities so much that very few, other than the very wealthy that is, are able to pay the tuition bill without turning to the federal government for the funds. It's almost as if the "progressive" blue print was to actually increase dependency on the federal government . . . . .
If that were the case, the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of the public education budgets would have resulted in the best educated children on the planet. Somehow, however, it seems to work in the opposite way. The more money we sink into unionized teachers salaries, outrageous pension plans and the best health insurance tax money can provide, the less ready for life our children seem to be once they finish their secondary education - if, that is, they indeed finish it.
I will grant you that it has worked that way for the common defense of the States - we do have the best military in existence at the moment, but for some odd reason, success in the primary role of the federal government is seen as a bad thing by the "progressives" as they concentrate on driving us all into the poor house and frittering our hard earned money away on Ponzi based social welfare programs to take care of our elderly and subsidizing colleges and universities so much that very few, other than the very wealthy that is, are able to pay the tuition bill without turning to the federal government for the funds. It's almost as if the "progressive" blue print was to actually increase dependency on the federal government . . . . .
[/b][/i]
If that were the case, the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of the public education budgets would have resulted in the best educated children on the planet. Somehow, however, it seems to work in the opposite way. The more money we sink into unionized teachers salaries, outrageous pension plans and the best health insurance tax money can provide, the less ready for life our children seem to be once they finish their secondary education - if, that is, they indeed finish it.
I will grant you that it has worked that way for the common defense of the States - we do have the best military in existence at the moment, but for some odd reason, success in the primary role of the federal government is seen as a bad thing by the "progressives" as they concentrate on driving us all into the poor house and frittering our hard earned money away on Ponzi based social welfare programs to take care of our elderly and subsidizing colleges and universities so much that very few, other than the very wealthy that is, are able to pay the tuition bill without turning to the federal government for the funds. It's almost as if the "progressive" blue print was to actually increase dependency on the federal government . . . . .
need to correct you on one point. Military spending as a percentage of GDP hes declined rapidly since the end of the Cold War.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
If that were the case, the doubling, tripling, quadrupling of the public education budgets would have resulted in the best educated children on the planet. Somehow, however, it seems to work in the opposite way. The more money we sink into unionized teachers salaries, outrageous pension plans and the best health insurance tax money can provide, the less ready for life our children seem to be once they finish their secondary education - if, that is, they indeed finish it.
I will grant you that it has worked that way for the common defense of the States - we do have the best military in existence at the moment, but for some odd reason, success in the primary role of the federal government is seen as a bad thing by the "progressives" as they concentrate on driving us all into the poor house and frittering our hard earned money away on Ponzi based social welfare programs to take care of our elderly and subsidizing colleges and universities so much that very few, other than the very wealthy that is, are able to pay the tuition bill without turning to the federal government for the funds. It's almost as if the "progressive" blue print was to actually increase dependency on the federal government . . . . .
[/b][/i]
Ya think!
"The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]"
Alice Walton is bringing art to the Ozark backwoods with a new museum. Letting the people of the traditionally impoverished area access to culture. Wal-Mart's HQ in Bentonville has also brought jobs and money to the poor region.
And why didn't Obama change the tax code for the 1% when he owned the House & Senate? Instead he dithered and sent big goverment contracts to his buddies and the Republicans were able to take back the House and change the Senate in 2010.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
