Previous 11 - 20 Next
Fine. Pay for it with your own money. Why do the taxpayers have to subsidize pre-school for others? Why do people without kids have to subsidize those who do? If you want kids, pay for them out of your own pocket.
Regan's divorce is irrelevant to the issue of Obama's communist parents and mentors. Hate? Yes, we hate socialism and communism.
From TheObamaTimeline.com: Pushing government pre-schools, Obama says, “Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn’t cost them an arm and a leg.” (That government pre-school would cost less than private pre-school is ridiculous. Wherever the children are placed there are costs: rent, utilities, salaries, insurance, etc. Whether it is the government agency or a private business paying those bills, those bills exist. Additionally, government employees tend to receive higher wages and benefits than employees in the private sector. Thus, the per-child cost of government pre-school would likely be higher than the cost at a privately-run facility. What Obama wants, of course, is not for the parents to pay for the pre-school directly; he wants the taxpayers to pay for the pre-schools. He wants to spread the cost among all taxpayers—regardless of whether they have children. As a result, people who have no children would be paying part of the day-care costs of people who do have children, and working Americans would be paying all of the costs of non-working Americans with children. Obama is essentially arguing for socialism.)
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy. That law states, “No employer… shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex…” For 50 years it has been against federal law to pay a woman less than a man for the same work, yet Obama and many Democrats continue to insist that additional laws are needed—when all that is needed is for the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice to enforce existing laws.
"He ran a strong gubernatorial contest in the 1998 Florida governor's race, but lost." That should read 1994. Jeb Bush lost in 1994 but then won in 1998 and 2002. He serves as Florida governor from 1/5/1999 to 1/2/2007.
The GOP can get Manchin and King and perhaps a few others to vote with them on overriding a veto - if they make their case using good, solid logic.
The author does not want the GOP to implement tax reform? Then why should I vote for the GOP? If the GOP wins the Senate, Congress should (1) pass legislation forcing the go-ahead of the Keystone pipeline, (2) pass secure-borders legislation without any amnesty attached, (3) pass tax reform legislation that cuts corporate taxes while eliminating complicated loopholes, and (4) cut the capital gains tax to encourage job creation. Then dare Obama to veto any of them. If the GOP is not willing to do those things, I may as well vote for the Democrats.
Someone ought to tell all those people waiting in line for jobs at the new Walmart stores that it doesn't actually create any jobs.
The result of your proposal would be the relocation of many businesses to the states that have the lowest (or no) sales taxes. That means even more job losses in high-tax states. If I owned a business that sold via the Internet, I would move it to Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, or Delaware - which have no sales taxes.
“The bill is good for our residents and communities by allowing local governments to collect an estimated $23 billion in uncollected sales taxes on remote sales, allowing cities to provide basic services, such as infrastructure investment and public safety, at no cost to the federal government.“ Uh, does the $23 billion come from the tooth fairy? Raising taxes by $23 billion is "good for our residents?"
Precisely. Banks have ATMs, not ATM's. Armies have soldiers, not soldier's. People have become apostrophe-happy for some reason. I assume it has to do with teachers who don't know better either.
Previous 11 - 20 Next