1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Let’s Destroy Liberal Academia

Michael2944 Wrote: Mar 02, 2015 11:16 AM
At the college level - get the government OUT of education loans and grants. Let students be able to file for bankruptcy and wipe out school loans. Make the colleges be the guarantors of student loans. This way, colleges would be more selective in who gets loans, how much they get, etc. If they give lots of loans out and students get worthless degrees in things like ethnic/minority studies, and then the student can't get a good job to pay back the loan...the student can file for bankruptcy and the college eats the loan! With a change like this, colleges might start emphasizing worthwhile degrees - nursing, pre-med, STEM (science, technology, engineering and math)...and reducing the number of less beneficial courses.
In response to:

Let’s Destroy Liberal Academia

Michael2944 Wrote: Mar 02, 2015 11:13 AM
Simple - school systems need to go back to the 1950's/1960's and declare STANDARDS for completing classes and graduating. Then - hold students accountable. Tell parents what the standards are. Tell parents that THEIR involvement is required, and let all (parents and children) know that the free market is tough, and they will fail as adults if they don't work now. THEN - follow through and do the right thing. Hold the students to the standards. Flunk the students that don't work. Don't go to 'lowest common denominator'. Ultimately, give parents the ability to use vouchers and move their children to schools and teachers that perform. Most parents (not all) - would be more informed customers of school systems if they had CHOICES...and recognized that a poor choice would mean possible bad future for their own children. The result would be more work to be an informed consumer and more effort to pick better schools, and possibly more involvement in the whole education process.
In response to:

Fairness and Justice

Michael2944 Wrote: Feb 11, 2015 9:32 PM
Another factor not discussed is what the impact of this 'disparity' is. Yes - the top 1% might own 48% of the world's wealth - but so what! Do the wealthy own 48% of freezers, microwaves, tv's, cars, etc. Nope. The poor in the US (wealthy compared to most the rest of the world) live better lives than the middle class did 80 years ago - and they have better food, appliances, etc. The wealthy own things that might suddenly lose value - or in the zombie apocalypse, have no value. Much of their wealth is in companies that could suddenly go bankrupt, or in art work or other collectibles that would be worthless to middle-class or poor (except to sell for more basic things.) A more careful examination of the way this statistic is used is to justify a call for more socialism, higher taxes, more redistribution, and a destruction of a society that used to believe in free market, capitalism, private property rights and rewarding those who work hard. It is an ugly thing!
Read Obummer's first book (ghost written/cleaned up by Bill Ayers)...and you can find the facts that support Schadenfreude's statement. Easy to do. In Obummer's own words!
It is illogical to assume that the proper response to bad legislation is more but different bad legislation. Obama IS a liar. (You can keep your health care. You can keep your doctor. The borders are safer than ever. The list of provable lies is very lengthy.) AND - take a look at the legislation that HAS passed in the House, but dingy Harry Reid refuses to allow that legislation be brought up to the Senate floor for debate. The Republicans HAVE offered some good things - but the empty suited whiney petulant man-child in the White House is incapable of trying to actually NEGOTIATE any compromise. His idea of compromise is do it his way, or he whines about how the Republicans won't compromise (give in).
Close to the truth ....if Obama is a big supporter of feminists and metrosexuals - that is part of the proof that Obama is anti-(normal) women.
Hughes uses the term 'sex-crazed sluts' to describe (fairly accurately) how LIBERALS perceive most women .....whose voting patterns will be influenced by a big nanny state government that will provide them with free birth control. Conservatives believe that most women could be persuaded to vote for a smaller, more conservative government that leaves people alone and encourages an environment of personal liberties and responsibilites, and free markets that will allow the economy to grow, providing more jobs for everyone. Rush Limbaugh used the term in trying to show, through absurdity, the stupid claims of Sandra Fluke. Fluke spoke about how expensive birth control was (it isn't). She claimed it could cost $3600 a year...while there are MANY forms (birth control pills or condoms) that would cost less than $120/year. Big difference! AND - it is absurd that a college graduate going to an expensive private university should be demanding a government program to give her free birth control!! What sort of imbecile wants the government to force other people to pay for something that is optional and not expensive??? Only a liberal!
Sorry that you failed Basic Comprehension 101....let me explain it further. "Women should be presumed to be smart. Smart enough that they can spend $9/month for most forms of birth control, and not demand that there be a federal mandate to provide them with free birth control (and a massive government program that will result in higher prices, more taxes, etc.) Smart women can deal with individual responsibility. OTOH - Democrats presume women are too stupid to take individual responsibility and require massive programs to help them. Most conservative women (a majority of married women tend to be conservative) recognize a big bloated government is dangerous, The following quote explains the rationale: "Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have."
The top 1% earn about 20% of the income - and pay about 37% of the taxes.
Hey - Obama wanted to keep the precious Bush tax cut for 99% of the people...so it must have been a great idea... AND - Obama didn't want to modify any part of the Bush tax cuts until his 3rd year in office, so he and the Democrat Congress felt that they must have been helpful.
1 - 10 Next