START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Senator Arlen Specter, Now A Democrat?

Posted 33 months ago|33 comments|580 views
Written by
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
Some awful news out of Pennsylvania today, Senator Arlen Specter has decided he “now find[s] [his] political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans” (1).

This is very interesting news to me. Senator Specter has seemed like a Republican to me, but maybe I’m just crazy. What’s even more disturbing is the Patriot News (A Harrisburg Newspaper) has been saying his senate race against Pat Toomey was going to be a close one. Funny, isn’t it, I don’t think Toomey is the democrats pick anymore. I have a feeling this little flip-flop will keep Specter in office longer then planned.

The GOP is about as bit more convinced in his “change of heart” then I am, but they stilled condemned the swap. RNC Chairman Michael Steele had the following to say about it “He [Specter] left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.”

There's another hatchet to throw in the mix: "The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race" (1). Problems, problems, problems. No good can come of that. Both parties need to be kept in check. This will not bode well for America I'm sure.


I will most certainly not be voting to Specter, because when your personal interests trump your values and morals, there is a serious problem.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
33 months ago: I disagree. He wants to stay in office and it is a savvy move to switch. Rendel did the same things years ago. The party affiliation is less important than the person. I don't expect any idealogical shift to occur with Specter--and he's not the guy to just go along with the crowd. I wouldn't worry about filibusters. He's not a band-wagon-jumping kind of guy.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: I don't like the party switch. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from Dem to Rep during his term in office. It was big new in the Republican Party though, they went on and on and on and on and on and on about how great this was that the first Native American Represenative was now a card-carrying Republican. I don't think Michael Steele's equivalent at the time had anything derogatory to say about him, though, by some coincidence.

It bugs me when people switch parties during their term because I think it is dishonest to the voting public.

In this particular case, however, it has been interesting to watch the conservative response from Limbaugh's "take John McCain and his daughter with you" to Olympia Snowe's take as the sole remaining moderate Republican in the Senate. She said it didn't have to be this way. But didn't it? As the GOP's new strategy is to swing further and further to the right leaving no more room for moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats, and certainly not independents, what's a person to do? To have power in our current government, you really need to be aligned with a party in general and the Republican or Democrat party in specific. Therefore, Specter had to go in order to hold true to his values. Unfortunately, I'm afraid to say this is the tide of things to come for the GOP unless and until they realize that extremism of the Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-O'Reilly variety is earning those guys millions a year, but it's cutting of the Party's legs at the neck. If only 21% of people in Pennsylvania self-identify as Republicans? Well, you do the math in an election. Likewise for the bulk of the nation. If the aforementioned four horsemen of the Apocalypse can reign in 21% of the viewers and listeners they're doing great, but that won't win elections. It also won't moderate our government.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
33 months ago: Frankly it goes way farther then anything posted here. With the two left-leaning independents Obama has 62 votes that will go for his next wave of reforms. The country will see a new health-care system, more social security, cap and trade on industry's that can hardly compete, and a very large deficit. Spending, spending, spending. If America wants socialism, that is the people's choice. But irresponsible spending from a man that promised voters responsibility, is sad. Next years federal interest payments for the national debt will total over 1 trillion dollars. That is a little under a third of the total national revanue.
Bush spent, the people answered with a man that promised to reduce the deficit, look at what we got. Citizens no longer have control, both sides have betrayed us. We now live in the beginning stages of an imperial republic that will collapse itself with a mountain of unplayable debt. The Golden age of America is over.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Colorado, I, of course, in name alone respect your opinion. You bring up a very important point about the voting margin in the Senate and House which will empower bold and positive changes for our nation – something the Bush Government, despite its six-year majority never did.

I'd like to push back / challenge the rhetoric that any of these plans, however, increase the deficit, increase spending, increase costs, or push us any more toward socialism than we already are – for some reason that good old socialist public school system we enjoy comes to mind.

First off, health care...
This is the largest drain on the productivity of our businesses from the mom and pop shop to the Fortune 500s. The governor of Colorado, as you may know, got unexpected support from fiscal conservatives when he began pushing for statewide care for all citizens of Colorado. Why? Because any Fortune 500 CEO that wouldn't like to transfer the line item for health care off his balance sheet onto anyone else would be a plain and simple fool. Just dealing with the insurance companies costs businesses valuable staffing and work not to mention managing all those premiums etc. And, every year it just keeps going up and up and up. Nationalized health care couldn't come from a vacuum. But, every nation that has gone the route has seen average health of the nation go down and the spending per citizen plummet. Of course there are powerful lobbying organizations out there in our nation who stand to lose the very billions saved and guess what, they don't want this and will spend billions to stop it just like the auto industry spent billions fighting the improvements that would have made them solvent today.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: In the stimulus bill alone, was the money to computerize all medical records and standardize them across the country, some $80 billion I think I read. But that money will save hundreds of billions in the next few years as health records no longer have to be stored in files in offices and sorted and so on. Mistakes made due to a lack of information also will be decreased and so on.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Now let's move on to the Cap and Trade concept. This is being maligned all over the place by people that have agendas. The agenda ought to be restore our sovereignty first. We need to immediately begin to take over our own energy. And in so doing, we will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. American jobs not jobs in India or Malaysia. The stuff to produce renewable energy can all be manufactured and assembled in the good old USofA. Cap and Trade will force us down this path. Companies will see two options: pay a tax or switch to solar power. The ones that switch will pay now for the installation of the solar or the purchase of currently more expensive electricity. But, down the line, their power will be less expensive and they'll pay no tax. A classic example of this is our own Denver International Airport which just leased the land and allowed a company to build a solar farm on it. The energy generated by the farm is enough to power 60% of the needs of running the electric induction trains to the concourses for a year.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: In 10 years, the solar farm will be paid off and belong to the airport where then ever after the electrical demands on the airport will be greatly reduced saving the airport and airline that operate there loads of money. This cost the airport nothing. This cost tax payers zero. It is a myth that cap and trade will force people into higher costs and operating expenses. In the short run, maybe, but in the long run absolutely not. Do you think it costs more to produce electricity from solar panels at DIA or to mine coal in Wyoming, transport it via diesel powered trains to Pueblo, burn it, and then send it DIA via electrical power lines that lose energy through out the transit process? Think about it? Then place that same logic uniformly on transporting the oil via steam ships from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans for refining and then trucking the gas all over the place. If you localize the energy it's better for the economy if not the environment – not that conservatives other than John McCain and Tom Wing seem to care one iota about the environment.

Going green is not only going to cost us less in the long run, it could actually restore our nation to its previous prowess as a true world power.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Lastly, I'd like to push back on the notion of the federal deficit. I am pretty sick and tired of conservatives bringing this up now. It's two-faced to have had fully 6 years of total control and 8 years of Congressional control before that to chisel away at the deficit and to have done not one single thing about it, and now to suddenly start screaming deficit. Sorry, but our memory isn't that short people. You cannot jump on the deficit band wagon now. The rest of us were so furious about it during the Bush years, we independents vowed to vote for Democrats, and guess what? We won. So, don't go on and on about it now. We don't believe you because you did nothing to stop it when you had the chance. The more you protest the more angry people like me get because you didn't listen for 8 years of Bush. No, you didn't. Don't try to lie. You created an entire new department called the Department of Homeland Security, you spent us into oblivion under the guise of WMDs in Iraq that, well, never turned up. If you want my advice on how to regain your sanity, your populace, and your dignity, you'd just shut up for 2 years. Say nothing. Go along with the crowd. Toss out a polite suggestion or two. Vote with the President. My gosh, Democrats voted with the President to take us to war, but you won't vote to save our country from a real threat of economic depression? Where's the logic. You have lived a two-faced lie for too long. Time to own up to your mistakes, admit you obviously don't know everything and are mere mortals like the rest of us.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: It's the taxing, spending and corruption of both sides sending us into a depression. The only reason democrats voted to go to war is because they wanted to be re-elected, no principle just re-election. Hey sounds like Benedict Arlan. You guys can have him, the only reason the Repubs went down the toilet was moving left. We'll see what happens in a few years when we either
a. purge the party of those with no principles, or as the media calls them "moderates"
b. bring priciples back to those who may have lost them or
c. both.

I sure don't want this to be the United Socialist States of America. I will not leave either, I will wait for my country to come back to me. And if revolution against a corrupt Congress, Elite House and media is needed wel sign me up. And trust me I'm not talking about the last 100 days, although he's done about as much damage as Bush and Clinton did in 12 years.

Let me tell you something. This president is not smart enough to mess things up this quick, it was people like Spectar, Barney Frank, John McCain, Feingold and the whole lot. If you want true freedom take back the pooers the Judiciary stole from the States and vote in term limits for Senators and Representatives, that is the only way.10th amend. Baby
33 months ago: The correct answer is C.
33 months ago: Billy,

Another single bullet theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter

Do we really want to read 12 page 6 post replies? No.

Try making a firm statement in a single reply/post.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
33 months ago: Coloranter: All of what you said above is correct in theory. I personally am not a member of either party. I hated Bush's lack of fiscal responsibility and congress. But I am also displeased with the lack of liberal control on the budget. They have been in control of Congress sense 2004, and they banded on the same spending wagon as Bush.

Solar power needs a back up system and is very unreliamble and expensive to maintain. The back up system is Coal and other dirty power sources. I do not like coal, and I do not like solar. Nuclear is the only energy source I would have back up solar, if that happened I am for solar.

Health care is fine on the state level, but can not work on the federal level.

To much is being spent REGARDLESS of party. Both are at fault and it will not get better until leaders are responsible with budget. Which I have ZERO faith in. As always, it is a pleasure to hear your thoughts.
TheLegendTomWing
TheLegendTomWing
 Administrator
 Philadelphia, PA
33 months ago: I disagree with Colorado on that one, Health care will probably fail on the state level. What happens when some states use different systems or cover different things? confusion and problems.

As for nuclear energy, i think meltdown concerns and storing the spent fuel rods are both two serious problems. I would suggest wind energy. There is a huge wind corridor in the middle of the United States, if we built wind turbines all throughout there we would have enough to power almost the entire nation. Once you do that, start a government program that rewards tax cuts for those who purchase solar panels for their homes. Between the wind turbines and having air/heat fueled by solar power, in 20 years we could be harnessing free electricity.

That is the real money saver, i have to say, i identify with the conservatives rather than the liberals, but on this issue they are dead wrong. Implementation is key.

As for deficits, Coloranter is correct.

I guess I'm one of those conservative moderates you so badly want to purge. Well, i would do some research on that one, it'll never happen. Look at the election of 1964, think about why Barry Goldwater lost, he made Reagan look like a cross-dressing hooker. The answer is simple, government needs to be run based on kindergarden principals: Play nice with others and share. It isn't socialism, and as Coloranter so astutely point out, look at the public school system. I went through it, it did right by me.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
33 months ago: Good point, I strongly dislike nationalized health care period. There should be a very basic safty net, but let the private sector handle health care, it did fine before government help.

As for energy, I will create a post about nuclear energy. There are a lot of misconceptions about it. I do not think it is the save all solve all, but its a hell of a lot better then coal or gas. Wind power is great, so is solar. The problem is they need to have a constant back up system because of the power peaks and dips. You can build a ton of wind and solar farms, but the coal plants will still be there.

And I think we all agree, someone just learn how to balance a checkbook, that is all I want from the government. Good post, keep it up.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Colorado, I would like a cogent explanation for why you dislike nationalized health care, if you don't mind. I'm curious. I am in a family of doctors. My grandfather told me not to follow in his footsteps. I always did what he told me. I became a teacher. So, now I have around 75 medical doctors in my fold. Anyway, every civilized western democratic nation on earth but the United States of America has a nationalized health care system. Why don't we try it? This isn't working. It's working for the very rich and that's about all. I know Michael Moore is a dirty word in the conservative circles, but you say you are unaffiliated, so, see Sicko and report back. I cannot imagine why we continue on this path. It's the elephant in the room for how Obama plans to balance the budget. If our nation could spend $1 trillion less annually on health care, well you figure it out.

As for it working on just the state level or federal level, Manitoba was the first province to try is in Canada. Everyone said it would fail. Everyone said all the sick people would move there for the free health care. Guess what? They were half right. Everyone did move there for the free health care. Canadian companies moved there in droves. It was so stunning how good it was for the economy of Manitoba that the nation realized they couldn't let all the companies, people, and jobs move there, they decided they had to nationalize the system. See Sicko and see the witness the scene of the man who cuts of two of his fingers in an accident and the US Physicians make him choose which one to reattach due to his health coverage. It's absolutely one of them most illuminating documentaries I've ever seen not just on this but on any subject.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Now, as a biochemist, I'm going to tell you that you need to get off the nuclear path, Colorado, right away. It's a disaster nightmare waiting to happen. Perhaps you are too young to remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

Solar and wind do not need reliable back up systems – that, I'm afraid, is coal company dogma they've been trying to perpetuate for 50 years. It's hogwash. We have these things called batteries. They're not a new invention. They can store the excess energy created when it's super windy or sunny for days when it's not. And, presumably you've lived in the sunniest state long enough to know that we get a lot of sun here. 300+ days a year. It's why they built the Air Force Academy in Colorado so the cadets could have the most days of clear skies. Sorry Florida, California, and Hawai'i, but you lose. Anyway, Solar farms from the north to the south all along the border with Kansas could power the entire southwestern USA alone. Supposedly, one calculation done recently suggests that wind farms in just a small portion of nearly vacant Wyoming could supply California's entire energy needs. It is just plain foolish and stupid not to harness this free energy. But, that's the thing, do you think the coal, nuclear, oil, and gas industries want that? Heck if they could figure out how to charge us for the air we breathe they would.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Nuclear energy does not have an unearned bad rap. 5-legged frogs in Chernobyl can attest to the fact. The waste from the plants has to be stored somewhere. That waste has to be transported. Nuclear waste trains, by the way, make excellent targets for bad guys. We don't need to go that route. Unlike the French, we have millions of acres of unpopulated, unused land in the western US that can provide unlimited energy to power our nation. For less than the cost of the Iraq war, we could have built all the solar and wind farms we could ever need. Instead of 4,000 dead soldiers and 100,000 dead Iraqis, and skyrocketing oil prices, we could have built the infrastructure for free energy for the entire nation. But, it takes people with courage and free of ties to lobbyists and electorates to make such bold plans. Sadly, we have too few politicians who don't owe the most wealthy and powerful corporations. But the science for solar and wind power is sound. The concept of solar has been around since photosynthesis evolved in cyanobacteria over 1 billion years ago. If there were a better way, nature would have found it.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: A simple reason why we should not try it is that it is a failure everywhere else. National Health care = Rationed Health care. With more special interests controlling our health.

Health care should not even be provided by your employer. I would rather have the cash, however my employer gets a bigger tx break paying for my health care.

I will encourage you to read Winning the Future by Newt Gingrich, he takes the best aspects from our current system, and other nationalized systems and combines them in a free market way. Where we the people have both rights, and responsibilities in a new kind of health care system.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Really, Billy, everywhere else it's a failure? Really? Because that's not what I hear when I talk to people from everywhere else. My British friends tell me that they cannot wait to move back to the UK (there are on a teachers exchange) where they don't see that co-pay every time they take their kid to the doctor here. Really, because I spent a lot of time in Minnesota with Canadians who traveled down for hockey tournaments and who raved about their health care. Really, because Michael Moore, oh I know he's Satan, found the rest of the G8 nations were in 7th heaven with their health care systems. Rationed care? What the heck. the Congressional Budge Office said the number of Americans without health insurance will rise to 54 million this year. source: http://blog.cleveland.com/medical/2009/02/number_of_americans_without_he.html.

Rationed? Give me rationed vs. zero any day of the week. But, rationed? This is an alarmist strategy put out by the lobbyists. You know the people who work for the pharmaceutical companies, the hospital industry, and the health insurance companies. You don't see them getting bailouts. How come? They are robbing us all blind.

You need to talk to some people who live overseas. My brother was beaten over the head with a pipe for his watch outside a bar in Italy. The nation covered his entire health care costs. He was hospitalized for over a week. He said he had insurance, they said, "In Italy we take care of people." Huh?

I will take a look at Newt's plan, however, to satisfy you on that point. It isn't impossible he's on to something.

But I do think it's terribly ironic that the same people who bash the bailouts and of big banks necessitated by their long period of deregulating everything in sight to allow "free market" to rule the world, the same people who held tea parties from coast to coast to protest the insane spending, would be the mavens of free market health care.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Explain to me this, why in America do we guarantee every child the right to a K-12 education, but couldn't care less if they die of a curable disease but had no health insurance to get them an immunization?

Are you not able to read the numbers and see that we would be saving trillions annually with a nationalized health care system that would cut sick days take by the work force in half, reduce the costs of health care to all businesses and so on?

Anyway, I'll take a look at Newt's plan and get back to you. Remind me if I forget.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Also, Billy, I would like you to explain to me why we don't do away with socialized education in our country. We have private schools. Let's just do away with free education. Let's make it all free market. Let's put both rights with responsibility. You want you kid to go to school? Great, $12,500 a year. That's the least expensive tuition of the private schools in my area. I wonder how many kids would get an education if we de-socialized public education in the United States. But, hey, if you think education is so important, you should get out and work to pay the tuition. It's the same argument in reverse for health care isn't it?
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: How many of those 54 million will be illegal aliens?

How many of them choose not to get health insurance? I know plenty of people in there 20's who would rather spend there money partying than the $300 a month for health insurance.

How many of those 54 million, or the 45 million today are in between jobs?

I bet you that website does not give you that info.

And as for Italy, stay there. I do not need, nor want the government to take care of my health. They tried that in 1976 with the last "swine flu pandemic" and got to say they did not do a good job.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: I wish we would do away with socialized education. It has been a failure. To many people stealing from the till. I will pay for my kids to go to private school, it would be alot easier if I did not get hammered w/ property taxes to pay for failing schools.

If 12,500 is the cheapest move elsewhere. If there were no public schools there then the free market would dictate a lower price.

School Vouchers does the trick. Competition against the Unionized monopolistic public schools.

If you are worried about kids not getting educated I agree. There are too many people out there having kids and not realizing there is a sacrifice that goes along with it. That is getting a job or two and working to get your kid educated so he has a better life than you or I.
Somewhere in time that value was lost.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: None are illegal aliens, hence the term Americans in the sentence.

Billy, may I ask you an honest question?
If you were the owner of a small business with say, 100 employees. Maybe you are? And to be competitive, you really need to offer them health insurance or they might go to work for your rival who's offering the slightly less pay, but full health benefits? And this was costing you $100,000 a month? And it was getting harder and harder to make a profit with this health care cost going up 10-15% a year? And somebody told you, how'd you like to cut that line right out of your balance sheet and have an extra $1.2 million a year in profit or money to use to grow your business? What would you say? Wouldn't you say, "duh" and jump at the chance? You see while taxes would have to go up to pay for nationalized health care, most workers who have health insurance are paying a part of the premium themselves or via a lower wage. Nationalize health care would help the bottom line in the following ways:
(a) nationalized health care costs would plummet due to the collective buying power – which the supply companies and pharmaceutical companies all fear – so the amount needed to purchase the same care would be dramatically lowered, so the necessary tax burden could actually be lower than the current premiums being paid by the company and the worker combined;
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: (b) this would allow companies to keep more of their profits and utilize them for their own workers and gain, they could actually afford to pay the workers more and still be ahead of the game, which, of course, would be good for the corporate profits and the shareholders dividends,
(c) people would be paying higher taxes but it would be wash on their pay check because there would no longer be any healthcare costs including medicare which would be rolled into the new plan being deducted from their check instead these would be rolled into one new deduction that could be lower or even if it were slightly higher than their insurance deduction and their medicare deduction combined, it would be a wash because now they would have unlimited, no cost health care for every family member – no more deductibles, co-pays, etc. Plus, the companies could afford to pay their workers more no longer being liable for this cost which could make their raw take home pay higher!
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Now let's look at a few more positive benefits to the bottom line for nationalized health care:

• hospitals don't need to make profit
• all the money advertising and running health insurance companies and plans is no longer needed and therefore saved
• all the money spent processing claims and rooting out fraud is saved
• the extreme financial settlements in accident and injury lawsuits for medical bills is gone as are the ambulance chasing attorneys and the court time

A nationalized health care system would also allow anyone to go to the doctor at any time, so waiting and procrastinating until a small bump becomes an incurable tumor would be a thing of the past. Doctors having to deny patients treatment because their HMO doesn't approve of it would also be gone.

I just don't see the downside of any of this. Doctors I know say they'd prefer it because they would know they would get paid for services and knowing that their malpractice premiums would plummet since suing for the medical expenses would be off the table and people would only be able to sue for negligence.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: a) Health care cost would not plummet, they would rise because Health care providers would have their hand in the bottomless till of the treasury. Give me an example of the govt. purchasing anything for the lowest price.

B) this would lead to more corruption throughout this country. Nationalize maybe if you can get rid of corruption and fraud at the state level.

b) people would be paying much higher taxes. It would not be a wash because you will have to pay one helluva lot more beureacrats through out a nationalized system (i can't believe helluva didn't get the red underline)

C) companies lose the tax break for not paying health insurance, and company pay more because now payroll is higher thus more payroll taxes. So company not only loses the tax break, but now has to pay more. Remember employer also pays taxes on what the pay employees.

Once again I refer you to Winning the Future, or Real Change.

My point is to get government out of our lives. There is nothing in our constitution that gives the federal government the right to impose a huge bureaucratic health care system upon its citizens.

Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: How can you say hospitals don't need to make profit?? It's a business where is the incentive then fpr the hospital to surpass it's potential.

Second all those advertising and insurance jobs are now absorbed by the government.

Tort reform ends ambulance chasers not nationalized health care.

Your arguments are very Soviet Unionesque.

It would also tie up doctors with useless cases of the common cold.

I know few doctors on both sides as well. But to me if there is a free market solution to a problem I take that route first. Unfortunately we do not leave in a free market society, it is on of Merchantilism. Our government disguises it as free market capitalism, but it is not. You would be shocked at what the free market can do.

Please do not say look what it did to Wall Street. Merchantilism is the Economy this country practices. It was dodging regulations that caused that downturn., not the lack of regulations.
Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Ok, guess what, I give up. I don't care to argue the point with you anymore. You have your opinions I have mine. I'm getting over it and moving on. Maybe Texas will secede and you won't have to worry about it.

I just hope my state goes the way of our Governor's plan and becomes the first state in the USA to have health care for all citizens of Colorado because I believe the right to health is no less fundamental than the right to life.

Coloranter Raver
Coloranter Raver
Denver, CO
33 months ago: Billy, I forgot to comment on your education comment. While I agree with every one of your points, and I'd go further by saying that not only is the system a failure it's worse than that because we spend hundreds of billions educating kids so they can do what exactly?

For the record, vouchers are government money, right?
For the record, I'm not opposed to doing away with property tax funding for public education. But, most people's property taxes would not cover the cost of even a cheapo religious private school subsidized by the local church, especially if they had more than one kid, the percentage of kids who already live below the poverty line would be out of luck, and it would create a nation with a far greater stratified class system based on nothing but wealth. Right not we believe that anyone can go on to become Bill Gates. But, Bill Gates attended one of the nation's most elite private schools, The Lakeside School of Seattle which has a Middle and Upper Schools, Grades 5-12 tuition of $23,500. Even though Bill Gates gave them $40,000,000 toward financial aid budgets and other stuff, that's still going to be out of the realm of comprehension for most people except the fabulously wealthy who attend the school.

Is this what you want for our country?
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: I'd have to look up private school pricing. But vouchers through property taxes will probably pay for school choice, being that I heard that the nations worst public school system in Detroit spends about $40 k/student. Education is important, but one should not be forced to pay for failing schools if that person is using private schools. Competition just might make Public schools better.

My question to those who think public schools are great...if they are so good why do they oppose a voucher system? It can't be because the teachers union is trying to protect bad teachers so as not to lose their union dues. That is just too cynical.

Well off to work...good discussion
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
33 months ago: Here's a link talking about vouchers Raver. It is from the Cato insistute but the numbers don't lie. about $26k per student in DC. a little over $6 k for a private school. So even if they gave you a $10 - 12 k voucher I think you would be able to find a pretty good school. One of those schools in DC's voucher program is where the Prez sends at least one of his daughters.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/04/06/the-more-obama-challenges-the-more-education-looks-the-same/

Once again, I'm know there will be a right leaning slant, but just look at the numbers.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave