jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (35 posts)

Dems Think Teachers Are More Important Than Food!

  1. leeberttea profile image61
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    The senate passed a bill that extends stimulus benefits to teachers and other civil service union jobs and to pay for it cut food stamp funding!

    Yes this is the democrats, the caring party, the party for the people, the party of equality and level playing fields. You can expect more of this from their other legislation as politics will play a role in who gets what treatments in the health care bill.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … wD9HD668G0

    1. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And makes multi-national U.S based companies pay their fair share of taxes.  Besides, I thought cons didn't like the food stamp program.

      1. leeberttea profile image61
        leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh please! The democrats are always talking about helping the poor, and what do they do, they help the well off at the expense of the poor! And why do they do this? Because they belong to unions that make big campaign contributions. The democrats don't care about the poor, they only care about staying in power and using our money to do so! Hypocrites!

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure we could find many examples of Democratic hypocrisy.  Both causes are worthy of funding, but sometimes choices must be made.  Yeah, some probably voted due to political influence.  This is nothing new.

          1. leeberttea profile image61
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            BOTH causes are worthy of funding? People are losing their jobs, and their homes, they are having to move. In AZ the immigration law has caused schools to lose thousands of students and as a result a half a million dollars in aid. So what are all these teachers going to do without students? Should money go to schools with declining student populations to maintain teachers jobs and benefits?

            That's ridiculous! Everybody is hurting and we all have to share the pain. Why on earth anyone would agree to fund public service jobs at the cost of providing food to the poor is beyond me, it's unconscionable!

            1. kerryg profile image86
              kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              They may be losing students in Arizona, but in most of the rest of the country we're losing teachers by the hundreds or even thousands due to budget cuts.

              I find it hypocritical of conservatives to complain about cuts to one social program in favor of another social program, when they don't support either. You ought to be rejoicing. The beast is starved, and now you're dragging everybody else with you into your brave new world.

              1. leeberttea profile image61
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know if you noticed, but hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, so why should teachers, cops or anyone else be immune? What makes them so special? Are they so much more important than the rest of us that we should go without food so they can keep their jobs?

                And you say conservatives are hypocrites? LOL!

                1. kerryg profile image86
                  kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't know you were on food stamps. That's... ironic.

                  Teachers and cops ARE necessary to the proper functioning of society, at least as it is currently set up.

                  I would prefer to see both programs funded myself, but years of "starve the beast" policies put in place by Republican lawmakers have ensured that this is not possible, so tough choices must be made. Blaming Democrats for a choice foisted on them by Republican policies is pretty rich, especially since you know that if they'd chosen to cut cops instead Republicans would be screaming about how Democrats are soft on crime and are going to get us all murdered in our beds.

                  1. leeberttea profile image61
                    leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You keep referring to "starving the beast"... what exactly do you mean? As far as I know, government spending has never, ever, ever decreased, ever.

      2. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They also want more law enforcement (Union of course) but they don't want the Union!  They also want Construction jobs, (Union of course) but not the Union.  They also want tax cuts, and they got them for businesses who hire the unemployed starting with those who have been unemployed the longest but... 

        They are just being disagreeable to be disagreeable.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's because unions are suboptimal employees.  Did you see where the superintendent of Washing area DC schools fired the bottom 4% of teachers?  It's past time school administrators cleaned out the teacher's unions.  The only thing the unions are good for is protecting useless employees.

    2. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, the administration is only paying off the teacher's unions for their support.  What exactly is wrong with that?  Oh....right.  Corruption.  Just like this government has paid off SEIU and other special interest groups.

  2. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I think this sums it up, it's simply opposition to the party in power. of course, I know there are plenty of conservatives affected by this recession also receiving federal aid, all the while complaining about the very hand that feeds them.

    I know one person who claimed unemployment, continued to work for her daughter's business and absolutely abhors the democratic party.
    she was living in a condo worth 300,000...

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is precisely why redistrbution of wealth is unjust and doesn't work. The government should not be in the charity business.

  3. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I think there needs to be a better way to truly help those in need and nix those who are abusing the system. there are many who need it and don't abuse it.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is, it's called charity and it's usually best handled by churches, families and neighbors.

      When the government is involved what you get is corruption, waste and inefficiency. Money that could be used to help the less fortunate is spent on supporting a bureaucracy set up to screen the needy through means testing and verification etc.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Agree, may be except for churches smile

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Now now, Misha, I have a good friend who is a pastor and he is very careful about who he helps with his congregation's money.  There is, in fact, an ad hoc meeting of pastors, priests, reverends, etc. who get together and share information on people who "church hop" or want money for booze or something similar. 

          One thing you won't see is the sort of lawlessness, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and violence you see in the projects around the first of the month.

          1. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I do think that churches are better solution than government, yet they still are prone to corruption and such. Family and neighbors look the best IMO. smile

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed.  We should deal with issues at the correct level.  Personal, family, friends, locality, county, state, nation.  Which is why I mention my local churches.  I don't include so-called megachurches in the equation because they can be just as wrongheaded and destructive as any government.  Heck all you really have to do is look at the history of the Catholic Church to get an idea of how bad corruption can get, the larger an organization  you have.

              1. leeberttea profile image61
                leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Right! When I included churches I was referring to local community churches not the Catholic church, or the Church of England, etc.

  4. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    well, we disagree. I don't see that working either. some programs clearly are not charity.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes well the government shouldn't be involved in those either.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image92
    Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago

    The Union Teachers must be saved.

    Who else will indoctrinate our youth into a socialist mentality?

  6. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago

    A proverb in Tamil says: "When hunger strikes a man everything will fly away".  Food must be the first priority.

    But we should differentiate them: Food is an internal necessity and teacher is an external necessity.  Every teacher should ask his students "have you taken food?" before starting the lessons.

    1. Dave Barnett profile image60
      Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe they believe that to merely feed someone is an ongoing thing. They become dependent on the system. Teach some one to fish or to grow food, feeds not only those being taught, but also a multitude. Then again, maybe we're all just screwed.

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I never said someone must be fed.  Only I said food is the first priority, if that topic comes for discussion.  We should first take our food and then go to hear the teacher.

        I am of the belief that those who dont work has no right to take food.

        1. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And you are very right on, as most always. American taxpayers give and give, yet it is some how uncivil to actually say why don't you have to do something productive for your community for the grace of free help.  If someone living off of our social programs has kids all school age, or is putting them in state or fed supported day care, they should be required to DO SOMETHING every single work day like the rest of us.

          1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image61
            VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And it is also uncivil to accept help without doing anything.

  7. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    As always, check the fine print.

    The cuts in food stamps don't tkae effect until 2014. The teachers jobs we save - we save now.

    The jobs are not being saved to benefit the teachers - they are being saved to benefit the students. If we curtail the commitment to teaching our children now - for a period of 2 or 3 years, the futures that are lost because of a budget education - may never be recovered.

    "everybody is hurting and we all have to share the pain."

    I take it you will be a supporter of letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Those making over 250K aren't sharing much pain - or burden.

 
working