John Edwards chosen by Kerry as VP

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'm confused. Since when is calling someone a liberal going negative?

When one wants to distract people from realizing that the vast majority of one's own posts are negative in nature. It's a quaint diversionary tactic some hope will work on the simple-minded and supporters of Kerry-Edwards (and those who drink M. Moore's Kool-Aid).

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Since when it is the responsibility of the Federal Govt to give states money? If the States are running out of money, they should cut waste first, then look to raise taxes.

If the federal goverment is going to mandate certain programs to the states, then shouldn't they share the responsibility in funding those mandates ?

Nah...Makes too much sense...

 

[jrydberg]

Just to sum up (for those not wanting to read through this thread):

John Edwards is either the savior or the embodiment of all that is evil. Jury's still out on that one

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by suzannen
No, but how much money a state is getting from the federal government is a major factor for states determining their budgets. If the amount is decreased, most state funded organizations, like colleges, take budget cuts and the difference usually turns up in things like tuition hikes.

Tuition hikes ... yes, how dare an institution of higher education expect someone to actually pay for the privilege of attending the school. This sounds a lot like entitlement as though everyone is entitled to a college education, whether one can pay for it or not.

I've never known any college or university to say we're going to CUT tuition, even in the boom times of the 90's, because we are getting too much money from other sources.

 

[Arabella Figg 2003]

no, they don't cut tuition -- but they give more financial aid.

 

[spearenb]

another take from the rich and give to the poor scheme

 

[suzannen]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Since when it is the responsibility of the Federal Govt to give states money? If the States are running out of money, they should cut waste first, then look to raise taxes.

Not sure what business you are in, but I don't Bush or the Administration is responsible for your company losing 1/2 billion dollars in 20 years. Take that up with your Executive management and your Board of Directors. The fact that your STATE governor raised taxes can't be blamed on the federal administration.

We didn't lose 1/2 billion in 20 years, we lost it in a 2-year period following 9/11 as did most other major foundations in this country. I work at a foundation doing philanthropic work. When our assets drop, unfortunately, so does our grantmaking. And, I agree that our executive management, like so many others, didn't think the stock market would fall as much as it did and an entire reorganization about our investment strategy has taken place. I'm lucky though. A great many of my fellow workers at other foundations have been let go due to downsizing. (Hewlett Packard let go of about half of their staff).

And, as I said in my post, my republican governor and mayor gave that as the reason for the increases - I didn't.

And, as far as when it is the federal government's responsibility to give money to the states - I also never said it was. I said that states, whether they should or shouldn't, take the federal government's financial assistance into account when deciding their budgets. My mother had to help work with the University of North Carolina's budgets for over 30 years. That's just how it worked in that state. I think it would be nice if all states had balanced budgets and enough funds to go around for all. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen much.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Jury's still out on that one

 

[dennis99ss]

Keeping the poor man down, keeping the rich man up, and never let the two mix.

There is an article, I will try to find it, about the downfall of the great civilizations, and one major factor in all was the disappearance of a middle class.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by dennis99ss
Keeping the poor man down, keeping the rich man up, and never let the two mix.

Ah yes, we must all strive for the great socialist utopia - take from the producers and give to the non-producers so that all are equal.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Ah yes, we must all strive for the great socialist utopia - take from the producers and give to the non-producers so that all are equal.

No, but can't there be a happy medium between that and "screw the little guy, we're just for the richest 1%" ?

 

[dennis99ss]

It is not that at all. However, when the costs of education get to a point where only the wealthy can attend higher education, and obtain post graduate degrees, you begin to form a two class system, instead of a multi class system. When there is only a two class system, those who have much, and those who don't, those who don't become disenchanted, and begin to grumble, and, eventually, create an uprising. I believe that you will such was the case with the ancient empires, as well as the middle age empires. You see it happening today in the middle east.

 

[AirForceRocks]

No, but can't there be a happy medium between that and "screw the little guy, we're just for the richest 1%" ?

How is the "little guy" getting screwed? Because the people that actually PAY the taxes are the ones getting the tax cuts? How do you cut income taxes on people that don't pay any income taxes?

 

[Robinrs]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
When one wants to distract people from realizing that the vast majority of one's own posts are negative in nature. It's a quaint diversionary tactic some hope will work on the simple-minded and supporters of Kerry-Edwards (and those who drink M. Moore's Kool-Aid).

It seems like being condescending and insulting seems to be the only way to relate to people who do not think the way you do. This kind of rhetoric says nothing about the character of the people you are referring to, but volumes about the person making the statement.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
No, but can't there be a happy medium between that and "screw the little guy, we're just for the richest 1%" ?

You mean like Kerry and Edwards?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
If the federal goverment is going to mandate certain programs to the states, then shouldn't they share the responsibility in funding those mandates ?

Nah...Makes too much sense...

I agree. My point is the Federal Govt should not be sticking it's nose in States business except for issue regarding interstate commerce

 

[dmadman43]

When asked who would do a better job of running the country, 45 percent said Edwards, while 38 percent said Cheney.

Someone explain this to me. How can a man who just 6 months ago was called by the person who picked him as a running mate someone who was not ready to accept the Presidency, a man that the voters IN HIS OWN PARTY did not feel was a viable presidential candidate (by virtue of his "success" in the primaries) , a man who could barely muster one primary win in his bid for the presidency, suddenly, in 6 months, be condidered to do a better job of running the country than a man that has served in numerous capacities in a number of administrations?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I agree. My point is the Federal Govt should not be sticking it's nose in States business except for issue regarding interstate commerce

Wellll.....That's a different issue On some things, I think the fed should be involved (think racial integration) and on others, maybe not so much (schools, to some degree). Really depends on the issue where I come down on that one.

 

[KarenC]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Tuition hikes ... yes, how dare an institution of higher education expect someone to actually pay for the privilege of attending the school.

I have no quarrel with having to pay for college. But back-to-back tuition increases that far exceed the rate of inflation are hard to handle.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Wellll.....That's a different issue On some things, I think the fed should be involved (think racial integration) and on others, maybe not so much (schools, to some degree). Really depends on the issue where I come down on that one.

I would dispute the racial integration issue, but for the most part I agree with you. Believe it or not, I have NO PROBLEM with taxes helping people that are able to to added the college or university of their choice. I didn't say completely fund, but I have no problems with grants in aid, govt subsidized loans, or other programs that help those that have the grades and committent to attend a college or university