Have you ever seen a poor person create a job, mass produce a product, buy an expensive luxury item that causes increased employment or production, or increase GNP?

Tom said it well... I've never worked for a poor person.

Elliot

How are you enjoying the tax cuts to the rich?

Hope you get back on your feet soon.

Thank you for your well-wishes, NK. I AM on my feet. My current 9-5 job is to find a job, but it IS a job, nonetheless.

Those tax cuts are the very thing that is going to get me back into the work force. Those tax cuts represent the money that will be used for my salary, rather than sucked up by the bottomless pit called government. Without those tax cuts, I would not have any hope of finding a job.

Like Tom and I said before, I've never worked for a poor person. RICH people create jobs, and the more money put back in the hands of the rich, the more jobs they create... either directly through their own businesses, or indirectly by buying the goods and services that will be built and provided by those who are not yet employed but will be when the demand for their goods and services increases. Without those tax cuts you criticize, the demand for goods and services won't increase, and I will remain unemployed.

I'm hoping against hope that Obama sees the light and makes MORE tax cuts. Otherwise I may not see employement against for a while.

Does that answer your question about how I see tax cuts for the "rich"?

Elliot

Nope, you danced around the facts that the tax cuts happened before you lost your job, not just recently.

Please read what I said again. Towit:

"I'm hoping against hope that Obama sees the light and makes MORE tax cuts. Otherwise I may not see employement again for a while."

In other words, I am HOPING FOR MORE TAX CUTS TO PEOPLE WHO CREATE JOBS SO THAT THEY CAN HOPEFULLY CREATE ONE FOR ME.

Is that clear enough now?

How do you expect them to work for you when they failed for you?

Why do you assume tax cuts are the reason he (or anyone else) lost his job?

The same reason he assumes it will be his saving grace I guess.

THEY didn't fail for me. THEY kept me employed for several years.

What failed was the government's actions vis-à-vis intervention in banks. The reason that I was laid off from the Bank I was working for is that BANKS are hurting because the government decided to force them to make bad loans that they (including me, as a credit analyst and credit officer) didn't want to make. If not for those bad loans, banks would be lending money right now. They never would have been hurt by those bad loans. They would still need people like ME to do their lending for them.

In other words, it's government intervention and government social engineering that caused this mess, not the tax cuts.


The tax cuts actually kept me employed for a period while the entire mess was unfolding, (since 2005 or so, when Bush and McCain first brough it up to Congress but were brushed off as overly alarmist). If not for the tax cuts, a whole bunch of bankers would have been laid off YEARS ago as banks dipped into capital to reserve against loan losses. The tax cuts gave the banks something else to tap into before the bank had to fire me in order to tap into my salary to set up adequate loan loss reserves. Because of the tax cuts, I got a break for several months if not years. MORE tax cuts would re-open the job market for me as they did after the 9/11 economic downturn, the S&L crisis, and all the other times that tax cuts have increased employment.

Elliot

I guess I'd rather live in a place where I didn't have to rely on the rich getting tax cuts to stay employed. To each his own.

You guess wrong.

There are sound economic principles that explain how tax cuts prime an economic pump, increase employment rates and productivity, and keep jobs from being lost.

There are NO economic principles (sound or otherwise) that can explain how a tax cut results in the loss of jobs or increases in unemployment. Even Keynes didn't make that claim, and he was a government-interventionalist economist.

The only "reasonable" anti-tax-cut argument is that the government needs the money in order to run things. However, the Laffer Curve clearly demonstrates the fallacy of this argument... and proves that the more you cut taxes, the more the government actually takes in because of increased VOLUME in the economy. People pay lower tax RATES, but more in absolute dollars because the amount that they end up earning is larger in the aggregate and more people are employed and paying taxes.

In any case, nobody argues that tax cuts cause more unemployment. MOST people (including those who are anti-tax-cut) understand that lower taxes increase employment and spending.

Elliot

Would you be this angry and upset if you got your way? No. You'd be telling the people that do want this curriculum to suck it up and accept it.

The fact is that you can't please everyone. Someone is going to be angry. So, what do you do? You either accept the schools decision or you find another school.

It may not be easy, although here in Canada it really is a no brainer, Catholic schools are funded by taxpayers, we all pay, doesn't matter if you're Catholic or not, at least in my Province. That's why my parents sent me to Catholic school.

Public school yes, we pay fees, but if you can't afford $160/year for your child to attend then maybe you shouldn't have children.

I realize that people are suffering through hard times, but what does that have to do with your original post? The question is, do you have to accept their agenda? The answer is no, find someplace that does teach what you want taught, or home school. If you can't afford to do that then yes, accept it.

Prop 8 caused a lot of stir. There are a lot of people that think that gay marriage should be allowed, I'm one of them. Will I get my way? No. Would it stop me if I was gay? No. I'd go somewhere where gay marriage was accepted.

You can't expect everyone to conform to your wishes, to go by your standards and morals.

Well, if you can find such a place, let me know.

And FYI, Canada isn't it. Canada's economy works on the same principles as the American economy. If they cut taxes, unemployment goes down, same as ours.

Elliot

What is it with you people calling me angry? Just what exactly in that post was angry, WANT in capital letters? It's called emphasis, and I'm concerned, not angry.

I'm not in Canada and neither is this school district. In most districts you can go to the taxpayer funded public school in your neighborhood, home school or pay through the nose for a private education. You don't get any other choices.

Not counting all of the other taxes that fund schools, roughly 70 percent of our property taxes go to the local school district, and that's a lot more than $160 a year.

Why are you asking me? You're the one that suggested if we don't like it to change schools. I'm the one telling you that's not so simple in this country.

LOL, let's say this district is going to offer a required course in fundamental Baptist values, do you still feel the same way?

Exactly, I'm not expecting that and never have. Schools should abide by that principle even more so.

Well, then, let's be sure not to anger anyone by giving in on principles, right?

Sorry, Altenweg, but that isn't a very good argument. The fact that me "getting my way" is going to make someone else angry is NOT a reason for me to stop trying to do what I think is right. Giving in doesn't make things better, it just gives you tire treads on your chest where you get run over by those on the other side of the issue.

Or you work to change the policy. For some reason that option seems to escape people.

Interesting. Here in the USA, you pay local real estate taxes to support the local public school system, whether you are in that system or not, but G-d forbid the public school system that we are paying for should ever mention "god", "creation", or "bible" in its curriculum, even though the majority of taxpayers paying for the school system are religious and want creation taught in the schools... and sex ed NOT to be taught. Whereas in your system, the RELIGIOUS schools, with religious curricula, are supported by your tax dollars and nobody would argue that creationalism shouldn't be taught in a christian school. I think there's something wrong with OUR system, not yours, at least in this area.

In the USA, a comment like that could get you flamed on a public board like this one. Even though you are 100% right. After all, such a comment could be seen as racist, because it's only people of certain races that fall into such a category of people having children they can't afford. Of course the reality is that the comment isn't racist, but an accusation of "racism" is much easier to do than to argue the merits of your point.

Or work within the system to change the policy. That too is a viable option.

Ahhh... but the vast majority of gay-rights advocates do not want to just accept it. They instead file lawsuits that are put before activist judges who legislate from the bench, despite the fact that the law is CLEARLY not what the judges have ruled, and despite the fact that the majority doesn't want it. They hijack the system when it becomes to inconvenient to work within the system.

The more reasonable advocates, the ones who understand and respect the law simply try to work within the legal system to change the minds of the people and the legislators. I can respect that even if I disagree with the position. They are working to change the system. They are not HIJACKING the system.

No. But you can work to change their minds from within the system. And that is what I and the other conservatives on this board are advocating. And part of that is to point out where the current status quo is failing the students, the parents and the nation as a whole. THAT is what we are doing here... pointing out the failures and explaining why the status quo must change. I think that's a perfectly legitimate response to an institutionalized issue that we do not agree with.

Elliot

Homosexuals can have a family. And the school is teaching kids about the different kinds of family. They are teaching fact. They aren't telling all the little boys to kiss each other. The are interested in teaching facts; which I agree with. I agree that children should be tolerant of their peers. And yes, the parent should teach them this.. But they aren't doing their job. I think that someone needs to step in.

I just look back at some of my great grandparents who were racist and intolerant, and feel bad for them. And honestly that is how your grandchildren are going to look back at you. Times are changing.

Why is it that every time the issue of homosexuality, abortion or sex education comes up we get this claim? Are they doing their job or are they just not doing it to your liking? I think it's mostly the latter.

My only grandchild was the victim of an abortion, he/she won't be looking back at me at all.

4
If YOU are teaching your children about sex ed, that's great. Unfortunately for varied reasons we can't count on all parents to do that. Should society reap the fall out of that? Or is school an opportunity to learn more than just "reading, writing, and rithmatic"? I think school should prepare children to live in our society. To shelter kids is a disservice to them and society. What is the problem with your child getting a 2nd round of sex ed, if you are also teaching them at home? The facts are the facts, right? What would they teach that is contrary to what you teach them? Or do you leave out parts that you don't want them to know? Believe me, they WILL be exposed to everything somewhere along the way. Wouldn't you rather it be accurate?


I think the key word here is SHOULD. Well SHOULD doesn't cut it. We can't count on SHOULD. It is not reliable.

I didn't say that they couldn't have a family. I said that they cannot have children on their own without 3rd party intervention of some sort.

Aren't they? If they are saying that gay families are "just like everyone else", isn't that the same as saying that "kissing other boys is okay" because it's no different than "kissing girls"? And if they are teaching this to MY child and I don't think that it is okay, isn't that a usurpation of my parental rights?

No they are not. They are teaching an opinion... that a gay family is "just the same" as a traditional family. That is NOT a factual statement because from a biological perspective the two are NOT the same. Ergo, it is NOT a fact, it is an opinion.

Who are YOU to make that decision? Who makes the decision of whether parents are failing at their job because they teach an opinion or beliefe that is different from YOURS? I don't want someone to "step in" and teach tolerance for something that I do not believe should be tolerated.

Perhaps my children and grandchildren will see me that way. BUT IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO CHANGE THAT. It is THEIR decision how to view me, not yours. Nor is it your job to try to "counteract" what I want my kids to learn and live by.

You are trying to use the power of government (in this case the public school system) to push YOUR beliefs on my kids, and I resent it. You do not have the right to brainwash my kids into thinking that homosexuality is "all right" when I don't believe that it is. The government doesn't have that right.

How about instead of trying to teach kids about the environment and tolerance of homosexuality and stuff that doesn't belong in the school system, we instead try to teach kids reading, writing and arithmatic... subjects that we are lagging behind in as compared to every other developed country in the world, because we're too busy teaching kids about the environment and acceptance of gay sexuality. Perhaps if we taught kids to read and write, our employees will end up being competitive with their foreign counterparts. OUR SCHOOLS ARE FAILING and the last thing we need are more excuses to waste time on stuff that doesn't help our kids get a friggin job.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Here's where you guys go wrong. You apparently think homosexuality is a learned behavior. That's why you have to steer clear of 'em, cause learning what they do MIGHT cause some little kid to turn homo...

It's the same stuff you think about sex education. You think sex is learned too, and if you just don't teach 'em about it, they won't do it...

It's the same stuff about condoms... You think that if you don't teach kids about condoms, and you tell them not to, they won't have sex...

You're dreamin...

Like the kid who got cheated out life saving chemo by his mother, the kids of rightwingers need to be UNprogrammed at school, by the WRONGHEADED and backwards notions about sex harbored by the right wing.

excon