My Mother In Law was big on moderation and balance...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cole
I guess the use of the terms red and blue states could be provocative. I've lived in both many times in my life and they all have pros and cons.
I don't see them as provocative, I think suggesting that one or the other is full of cretins might be. That would be both unbalanced (both have pros and cons is balanced) and immoderate... :D
Quote:
But guess when we are mainly concerned with military matters, we are concerned about the military budget. How will it be funded in years to come when so many other obligations to include the deficit are looming?
Valid question and topic Note A and B below:
A:
Quote:
My pro-Republican argument is that you cannot spend $77 billion at the federal level on education as proposed...because as my "wife" argument showed, there are already too many folks at higher HQ who make life harder for local educators. Increasing pell grants is nice...you don't get diddly squat when you have a decent income and that would not change. At some point you must look at making college cheaper...not providing more federal money to allow it to get more expensive.
B:
We should not spend $77 billion at the federal level on education as proposed, it merely puts a band aid on the real problem. At some point you must look at making college cheaper...providing more federal money is likely to allow it to get more expensive.
A:
Quote:
My pro-Democratic argument is that rich folks can afford to pay more taxes than they already do. If they don't want their kids to serve, then they should at least pick up more of the tab for those who are so willing.
B:
We aren't overtaxed, in fact the well off or rich folks could easily pay more -- the problem is our tax system is skewed. The Feds take in over 60% of all government revenue but spend only about 40$ of all government expenditures. The difference is handled by grants and trnsfers and this inefficient way of doing business has been a factor in our economic problems for year under adminsitrations from both parties.
... ...
The foregoing is provided, mostly tongue in cheek and really without intending any snark, to unnecessarily edit your two not really provocative comments. Aside from changing glad to happy, all I did was take out the reference to political parties. Note also that your comment was even handed. The problem I see is that everyone doesn't always try to be balanced -- even I screw that up on occasion :( -- and if one seems to be slamming one side (or protecting the other) that tends to invite argumentive comments.
Quote:
Get the idea. It is possible to discuss the issues without a flame war. No revolutions required.
I totally agree -- and that's why I do my best to only intrude when someone -- not necessarily you -- seems to be getting one sided instead of trying be reasonably balanced and stick to the policy in question and not the party or faction involved.
We all have ideological leanings and biases, the owners of this site merely ask that we leave those at the door and be civil. The key to discussion where there must be a political content is, I think moderation and balance. As long as those two traits are present, there's not going to be any interference by me. :cool:
Quote:
Education may be part of the answer to making our economy better, but simply throwing $77 billion at it in 2012, a 20% increase over 2010, is not necessarily going to be money better spent than say an extra billion and a half spent each year to have a split buy on KC-X and put 98,000 to work in a long term high tech aerospace industry that does not require college.
True. We'll see what the final amount in the budget that actually gets signed into law happens to be...
P.S.
I'm still confused over the :conflict of interest" and the Two Cop kids...:confused: