Dems Think Teachers Are More Important Than Food!

1. 55

   leebertteaposted 12 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

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 55

         leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 55

               leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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!

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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!

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        kerrygposted 12 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 55

                           leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              I am astonished that you have never heard the phrase:
                              
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

                              replyreport
                              1. 55

                                 leebertteaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 I'm familiar with the phrase, but not your facts. As I said, government has never cut spending, ever! The beast is alive and well still growing and bigger than ever!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 83

                                    kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Starving the beast doesn't refer to cutting spending, it refers to reducing tax revenues in an attempt to force spending cuts in social programs, such as the Democratic Sophie's Choice you are criticizing in this thread.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 55

                                       leebertteaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       If the beast was starving, then why is government bigger than ever? If government has been stripped of it's revenues, how is it that Obama has been able to pass new entitlement programs that cost trillions?
                                       
                                       It's impossible to starve the beast since the beast can simply print what it needs to grow. Certainly revenues wouldn't be a problem if spending declined. Starving the beast refers to cutting off revenues the idea being the government would then be forced to cut spending, but they haven't have they? Ever!

                                       report
                                       1. 83

                                          kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f … nding+cuts

                                          report
      2. 0

         sandra rinckposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
   2. 67

      ledefensetechposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
2. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 12 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...

   replyreport
   1. 55

      leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
3. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 12 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.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Mishaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Agree, may be except for churches

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               Mishaposted 12 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  ledefensetechposted 12 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 55

                     leebertteaposted 12 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
4. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

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

   replyreport
   1. 55

      leebertteaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
5. 78

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   The Union Teachers must be saved.
   
   Who else will indoctrinate our youth into a socialist mentality?

   replyreport
6. 61

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 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.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Dave Barnettposted 12 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            KFlippinposted 12 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
7. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 12 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.

   replyreport