42 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

ranrod, on 24 July 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Every state takes federal government road construction money.  For starters, Iowa got more money than it put in to the Federal Aid Highway Fund ($1.13 for every dollar Iowa put in).  Roads for national parks/forests are constructed by the feds (maybe your state doesn't have any).  Federal grants for local government needs are also handed out on a per-need basis (maybe your state hasn't needed any).

But the Federal budget for highways and such is like 4 to 5 Billion dollars, which really just barely comes into calculations for the trillion some odd dollar year Deficit. I don't think that the Highway fund is what is breaking the Budget.

[Bama13]

ranrod, on 24 July 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

You have to understand that the anarchist point of view doesn't suit everyone.  You may be self-sufficient and live in an area with little federal involvement, but we have 300M people to take into consideration.  Not just you.  The feds have been building roads and granting money for highways since 1905.  Federal grants to address local problems are used in a wide variety of ways.  Depends on where you live.

And where does the fed get that money? Oh yeah, us. Why not give the money to the states instead? Why give it to the feds so that they can turn around and give it to the states? Cut out the middle man and save money. Same thing for education. Everywhere I have lived in this country the school system is run by the county. So why pay taxes to the feds so they can give it to the states so they can give it to the county so they can spend it on schools. Why not just pay the county and save money? Some money should go to the state because some counties have more wealth than others, I get that. Just adding more bureaucracy doesn't make things better or more efficent. In fact it usually just makes things more expensive and less efficent.

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 25 July 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Cut out the middle man and save money.

for one, there would be tremendous inequality between states.

Quote

Same thing for education. Everywhere I have lived in this country the school system is run by the county. So why pay taxes to the feds so they can give it to the states so they can give it to the county so they can spend it on schools. Why not just pay the county and save money? Some money should go to the state because some counties have more wealth than others, I get that. Just adding more bureaucracy doesn't make things better or more efficent. In fact it usually just makes things more expensive and less efficent.

I just want to scream. Again. Schools are paid for locally. Just what do you think the Dept of Ed does? I DARE you to go wiki it. I've posted it on UM a number of times. One, they provide national standards. Two, they provide LOANS so that kids can go to COLLEGE.

[ExpandMyMind]

DieChecker, on 24 July 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

I've looked at this before and it is completely true. There has been little increase in spending since 2008.

But what is also true is that 2008 was a horrendous tragedy of a Budget.

It is like splurging in May and spending an extra 500 dollars more then you earned, and then continuing that into June, July and August, and claiming you're being financially responsible because you have not increased your splurging. When what you should have done is go back to spending what you earn.

This is not an achievement it is a travesty. And putting it out as Good News is simple propaganda.

Excellent point

[Bama13]

ninjadude, on 26 July 2012 - 03:44 AM, said:

for one, there would be tremendous inequality between states.



I just want to scream. Again. Schools are paid for locally. Just what do you think the Dept of Ed does? I DARE you to go wiki it. I've posted it on UM a number of times. One, they provide national standards. Two, they provide LOANS so that kids can go to COLLEGE.

I know that the education system was much better before 1980. I know that the ED was made a cabinet level department in 1980. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that education started suffering at the same time that the federal government started to get more involved. But, then again, perhaps not.

So there were no national standards before 1980 yet our education system was much better than now.

Kids were getting loans to go to college when I was in school, well before 1980.

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 26 July 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

I know that the education system was much better before 1980. I know that the ED was made a cabinet level department in 1980. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that education started suffering at the same time that the federal government started to get more involved. But, then again, perhaps not.

So there were no national standards before 1980 yet our education system was much better than now.

Kids were getting loans to go to college when I was in school, well before 1980.

You realize, of course, that 1980 was 32 years ago, right? How do you know education was better then? No, there were not really national standards. No they didn't need to get loans in the multiple 10's of thousands of dollars. College was relatively cheap.

[OverSword]

Pyridium, on 22 July 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

You just don't get it yet!  I hope this helps.

Obama will win a second term as President.  I explained why in my post titled, "Congrats to Pres. Obama on his reelection".

Now let me give you some of the reasons why he will become the "greatest" president ever.  His knowledge of constitutional law and current law allows him the power to act as head of state and unilaterally enact policies that are helpful to all americans and eliminate provisions in current law that reduce freedoms and discriminate against the poor and immigrant class.  Congress is on autopilot and is not needed to do what Obama needs to do to put this country on a new and compassionate path.

It was the Bush budget passed during the financial crisis of October 2008 that contained budgetary fixes for the crisis.  When Obama and Harry Reid saw this opportunity, they took it.  In 2009, 2010 and 2011, congress simply passed a continuing resolution, which just renewed Bush's budget for a year each time.  There has been no "new" budget since the fall of 2008.  Reid will not allow it.  This is Obama's great scheme to keep Bush's budget year after year (which still contains lots of extra crisis money) and apply most of it to redistribute wealth to the poor and needy.

Obama will not let the Republicans dictate any new budget that reduces spending by even a dime.  We are on the path to real social justice and compassion.

Vote Obama or just stay at home.

Please see my post about the need for a dislike button.

[OverSword]

Pyridium, on 22 July 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I have only stated what Pres. Obama has promised and what he has delivered.  We have all seen what it took to pass his healthcare law.  Were we just lucky to have 60 votes in the senate to pass it?  No ObamaCare, No legacy.

Sarcasm?  Everyone here is entitled to their own opinions about the facts.  I have seen nobody discount anything that I have posted.  I try to stay as factual as I can, but maybe my socialistic side tends to show itself too much.

I just wanted to be the first to post Obama's reelection success.

And if you read my contribution in that same thread you will see the real reason he will be re-elected, which I have no doubt he will be.

[OverSword]

ranrod, on 23 July 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Must be hard for you not using any public roads, not having an education, not having access to ambulances, or security for when you retire.  Well, at least you're not a freeloader!
Rafterman, the premise is simple.  Bush created the situation Obama inherited.  Obama is trying to fix it.  Republicans are running interference to avoid his re-election.  Should I explain again?

Anyway. the thread premise is true, although there are caveats.  Republicans have blocked all new spending and tax increases are off the table.  If Obama had full reigns, who knows what spending would have been like.  It would be misleading to say Obama is solely responsible for it.  By looking at the OP's chart, it looks like Republicans are only against spending when it's someone else doing the spending

Are you implying that his hard earned wages, which were then taxed by the government didn't go towards paying back the money the government borrowed from the federal reserve bank in order to build those roads?  And wether or not people our age will be able to retire and collect those benefits we have yet to see.  Since the government has already invested that money in hedge funds that is not a guarantee anymore.  Wake up zombie, wake up.

[Bama13]

ninjadude, on 26 July 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

You realize, of course, that 1980 was 32 years ago, right? How do you know education was better then? No, there were not really national standards. No they didn't need to get loans in the multiple 10's of thousands of dollars. College was relatively cheap.

Because I'm over 50 and I know what I knew when I got out of HS and I know/have hired enough HS grads to know what they know. Most can't even figure out how to make change without a calculator. Many thought the Russians and Germans were on the same side during WWII.

"Relatively" being the key word. I worked for about $2.65 an hour. Now they make over $7.00 per hour. So yes, college was cheaper, but wages were less also. I worked at night during the fall and spring and had two jobs over the summer so I wouldn't have to borrow money. I also didn't have a cell phone, air-nikes, and sometimes a car.

Ever think perhaps college was cheaper becasue the feds weren't as involved?

[MysticStrummer]

Michelle, on 22 July 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

I don't find it the least bit cute...or whatever you thought it was when you felt the need to interject it into the conversation.

You really don't see the relevance of that poster? I find that odd. As for the OP, FactCheck.com had an article on this very subject not long ago and concluded basically the same thing. EDIT - I went back to look at the FactCheck.com article. It doesn't show exactly what the OP does. It's a response to Romney's charge of a "spending inferno". The chart is interesting though. It appears that government receipts were briefly higher than government spending until the time of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those evil Clintons must have been responsible. ; )  http://factcheck.org...inferno-or-not/

Edited by MysticStrummer, 26 July 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[ninjadude]

Bama13, on 26 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

Because I'm over 50 and I know what I knew when I got out of HS and I know/have hired enough HS grads to know what they know. Most can't even figure out how to make change without a calculator. Many thought the Russians and Germans were on the same side during WWII. on

this is in fact one of the changes. There was an emphasis reading, writing, math. Science and history got relegated to fill in subjects. Simple mathematics relegated to calculators in order to understand higher math like algebra and calculus.

Quote

"Relatively" being the key word. I worked for about $2.65 an hour. Now they make over $7.00 per hour. So yes, college was cheaper, but wages were less also. I worked at night during the fall and spring and had two jobs over the summer so I wouldn't have to borrow money.

here's the difference. You amazingly made little money and paid what 30 a credit hour.  The costs rose much faster. Now it's 10-20 Thousand per year. even at community colleges. At 7 an hour you can't even get a foot in the door. A geometric curve of increasing costs.

Quote

I also didn't have a cell phone, air-nikes, and sometimes a car.

Cell phones are not a luxury. It's a phone. Landlines are obsolete. There are no pay phones. I'd agree with the shoes. You can get away without a car if you live somewhere with good public transportation, otherwise not so much.

Quote

Ever think perhaps college was cheaper becasue the feds weren't as involved?

Nope. They aren't involved except to provide loans. It's pure greed.

[preacherman76]

ninjadude, on 26 July 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

You realize, of course, that 1980 was 32 years ago, right? How do you know education was better then? No, there were not really national standards. No they didn't need to get loans in the multiple 10's of thousands of dollars. College was relatively cheap.

Yea, cause there wasnt anyone backing these kids to go to school at todays prices. Soon as the government started providing student loans, prices went through the roof. Government is directly responcible for the fact that our students are collectively in over a trillion dollars worth of debt before they even start life. Yea thanks uncle sam. Thanks for nothing.