You know who doesn't have to do the same or more with less? The people who stand to gain the most from the continuing erosion of wages and benefits the people who have done very well these last few decades.

They can also choose who they admit, which lets them avoid educating the expensive ones.

This part is true. but then that can open the debate over whether it is good public policy to 'mainstream' kids that don't have the mental capacity to tie their shoes just because you are afraid of hurting some feelings or self esteem. Should there be other alternatives?

This part is true. but then that can open the debate over whether it is good public policy to 'mainstream' kids that don't have the mental capacity to tie their shoes just because you are afraid of hurting some feelings or self esteem. Should there be other alternatives?

They are entitled to an education regardless of it being mainstreamed or not, and educating special-needs children is always more expensive.

They are entitled to an education regardless of it being mainstreamed or not, and educating special-needs children is always more expensive.

Educating special needs children in the same settings as non-special needs children is even more expensive. And when you have 3 or 4 at each school, instead of having several at ONE school, is even more expensive. Nobody ever said they didn't deserve an education, so no idea why you even brought that up, except to insinuate that somehow I thought they didn't.

Educating special needs children in the same settings as non-special needs children is even more expensive. And when you have 3 or 4 at each school, instead of having several at ONE school, is even more expensive. Nobody ever said they didn't deserve an education, so no idea why you even brought that up, except to insinuate that somehow I thought they didn't.

I brought it up to reiterate that public schools do not have the option to turn kids away like private schools.

 

And mainstreaming isn't done to "protect peoples feelings" or some other nonsense, it is done to best-educate them and not ostracize them from society. It isn't just severely disabled that are more costly and that charters are free to deny.

 

 

Like when it cuts taxes.

 

That wouldn't be a misallocation of resources. My money isn't a governmental resource.

That wouldn't be a misallocation of resources. My money isn't a governmental resource.

 

PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!! Like Obama's buddies at GE do. Oh wait...

PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!! Like Obama's buddies at GE do. Oh wait...

I agree. This is a serious problem and should be dealt with. Low corporate tax rates are clearly having very little positive impact on economic growth.

Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

 

Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

I agree. This is a serious problem and should be dealt with. Low corporate tax rates are clearly having very little positive impact on economic growth.

 

But they paid bribes to the Democrats. Fair share paid.

 

Now Southside2k5, he needs a tax increase.

But they paid bribes to the Democrats. Fair share paid.

Will you apply that same standard when a GOP candidate proposes continued reductions in the corporate tax rate? You know I'll oppose those.

Did anyone else see Eastwood's Chrysler commercial as intimidatingly pro-Obama last night?

Did anyone else see Eastwood's Chrysler commercial as intimidatingly pro-Obama last night?

I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me.

 

I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me.

 

Now that I watch it thinking about that, the "Halftime" part...

I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me.

 

I believe he is a republican

<!--quoteo(post=2545589:date=Feb 6, 2012 -> 10:20 AM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->

<!--quotec-->I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me.

 

Now that I watch it thinking about that, the "Halftime" part...

 

Well that combined with it being how awesomely Detriot is coming back post-bailouts...

 

 

He is a Republican but appears to be at least mixed if not center-left on social issues. He supported McCain in 2008.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

Well that combined with it being how awesomely Detriot is coming back post-bailouts...

 

 

He is a Republican but appears to be at least mixed if not center-left on social issues. He supported McCain in 2008.

I've seen him dig into both parties. I really don't think he's distinctly Republican or Democrat, as I said, I think he's more like a libertarian.

 

As for that ad, I don't really see a message that is pro either party. But it was a pretty good ad. Chrysler may have spent the last decade making s***ty cars, but I have to admit, their ads the past year or two have been fantastic.

 

I'm projecting the political background behind the auto bailouts and Chrysler in particular to come away with that projection. Apparently some conservative pundits had some faux outrage over the ad.

I've seen him dig into both parties. I really don't think he's distinctly Republican or Democrat, as I said, I think he's more like a libertarian.

 

As for that ad, I don't really see a message that is pro either party. But it was a pretty good ad. Chrysler may have spent the last decade making s***ty cars, but I have to admit, their ads the past year or two have been fantastic.

I like them too...especially the ads for the 300 with the Jay-Z remix of Heart of A City...and I dig the 300, but I just wish they would realize their logo/badge looks cheap.

I'm projecting the political background behind the auto bailouts and Chrysler in particular to come away with that projection. Apparently some conservative pundits had some faux outrage over the ad.

I get it, I just think the outrage is indeed very faux.

 

If Ford made a similar ad - they didn't get a bailout - there would likely be some Dem pundits screaming too, and they can also just go away.

 

I like them too...especially the ads for the 300 with the Jay-Z remix of Heart of A City...and I dig the 300, but I just wish they would realize their logo/badge looks cheap.

I've driven a 300 twice, both as rental cars, and the sight-lines are just horrible. Never been in a sedan with so little vision of the road and other vehicles. I like the styling, but that lack of safety and practicality takes away from it.

 

This wasn't the current version of the 300 that I drove though, this was the previous generation.

 

I get it, I just think the outrage is indeed very faux.

 

If Ford made a similar ad - they didn't get a bailout - there would likely be some Dem pundits screaming too, and they can also just go away.

They DID make an ad stating that they didn't take a bailout, and were pressured by the Obama Admin to take it down. How's that for a level playing field.

They DID make an ad stating that they didn't take a bailout, and were pressured by the Obama Admin to take it down. How's that for a level playing field.

 

I'd clarify that the Ford ad wasn't made for the Superbowl, that both the White House and Ford denied the WH exerting any pressure to have Ford take down the youtube ad and that the ad was put back up shortly after it was taken down.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/...E78T54E20110930

 

I can't really find anything past the September blog OUTRAGE! over this issue to see if there was ever anything more than an unattributed claim in the Detroit News article.

Edited February 6, 201214 yr by StrangeSox

I'd clarify that the Ford ad wasn't made for the Superbowl, that both the White House and Ford denied the WH exerting any pressure to have Ford take down the youtube ad and that the ad was put back up shortly after it was taken down.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/30/...E78T54E20110930

 

I love stories like that. I'm sure Ford took down the ad because no one of any consequence put any pressure on them...

The ad had been up for months and Ford has said it was part of the normal rotation. After the OUTRAGE!, it was promptly restored.

They DID make an ad stating that they didn't take a bailout, and were pressured by the Obama Admin to take it down. How's that for a level playing field.

Ford's was blatant and direct about the topic, so not the same. But, for the record, I thought it was BS that ObamaCo made an issue of it (if they even did).

 

Look, I'm just saying, I thought the Chrysler ad was good, and I didn't see anything IN THAT AD that said anything about one party or the other. That's all. Please don't try to paint me as some sort of Obama protector.