Bullwinklemoos saidIt's probably not as simple as that; the solution should probably be "better investments" rather than simply "raise taxes" or "cut spending".
Anytime a politician uses the word "investments" it means "more government spending."
Haven't they got enough money? Haven't they proven to us that no matter how much they have, they won't be able to spend, er, uh, "invest" it properly?
How much more evidence do you need? How much MORE do you want to give them?
Only enough to improve our society. $18,000 per month to finance Nancy Pelowsi's office is pretty bullshit. So yes- according to you I did commit a blaspheme on this site.
I have no idea if I should be flattered or insulted that you called me a politician.
Because my definition of investment and theirs are totally different.
Besides- I don't know about you or how you live, but personally, I like paying taxes so that I can have public sewers so that I don't have to take a dump in an outhouse.
Is that all you want your taxes to pay for? Then great, you're overpaying by 99% (and by the way, your sewer is paid for not by the Feds, but by your state and local taxes, unless you live on some Federal government reservation somewhere).[/quote]
What made you think that's the only thing that I want? ;) That was called an example, silly. I can pull out other reasons why taxing can be good, like that I like that half of my education is technically paid for by the state of Minnesota so that I can attend a public university. That way, I can become an architect, a farmer (although that would defeat the purpose of a university), a businessman, a doctor, a scientist, etc. I also love my milk, so I'm cool with Agriculture subsidies, so that the prices of normal milk don't skyrocket to $5, 6, 7 per gallon.
Bullwinklemoos saidBesides- if you're the typical conservative that you seem to be, then I have to mention that even Reagan raised taxes eventually.
Yep.... And it was a big mistake of his to go along with the Democrat controlled Congress on that one.[/quote]
Fair enough, but I have to ask- why?
Besides- is it better to invest in schools, which can lead to better jobs in the long run, or is it better to invest in car plants, such as the KIA plant in Georgia, which provide rather blue collar jobs in the short run as well as the long run, but it doesn't provide that much income- especially in a recession where people buy less new cars?
There's that word again... "invest."
Newark NJ public schools get the most "investment" per pupil than any other district in NJ... and they have the absolute worst outcomes per pupil.
"Investment" in education is just code for "growing the bureaucracy" and "lining the pockets of the teacher's union thugs."
[/quote] I've always discussed poverty as a huge reason for this particular case. Newark and DC have incredibly high poverty and disinvestment rates. I went to a school in the Minneapolis suburbs that was incredibly diverse between middle class, upper class and poor. I knew students who were more worried about where they were going to sleep than when they were going to do homework. It's not easy, no, but I have also suggested- based on what I was told by someone- that if we treated Welfare the same way we treated the GI bill, it would benefit us. I still have yet to be proven wrong. Then again- I still have yet to be heard on this idea.
Seriously- would it be better to give a little something something so that single parents won't find a need to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, maybe turn to the bottle, or so that they can help their children with their school work or watch over them?
More Sauce: Washington DC poverty rate- http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2008/tables/08s0687.pdf