I'm glad I don't live in Texas anymore

[Victoriana 10]

Oh btw, whats a cojones?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Balls :faint:

Testicles :faint:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Dear Tired OLD Man, Im a Republican, I pay taxes and my kids go to public school.

Even my Republican friends that send thier kids to private schools still pay the same taxes and their private tuition, to me that means that somebody elses kids get the tax benifits that they still contribute. Why be so exclusionary? Last time I paid my taxes that money went to medicaid and welfare etc...

looks fuzzy in here!!!

It is their choice to go to the private school after the have paid for the public schools.

Are you talking about the welfare for the poor that was gutted in the 1990's or the welfare for the rich that is the deficit interest paid to people who buy treasury bills?

If you think that people should be given back their tax money for programs they don't use; fine, I want by tax money back for the star-wars antimissile shield and for my share of the money wasted invading Iraq and rebuilding Iraq over and over.

[BJean 16]

Victoriana: You are aware that Republicans have for many years wanted to give tax deductions to people who send their children to private schools. In fact it has been on their agenda since my children were small - like as in longer than dirt. LOL

Interestingly enough I haven't heard a word about Republicans wanting to allow people who don't have children in any school to get the same deduction. Can you imagine what all this would do to the public school system?

I only hear them talk about changing Social Security so that they can ensure that they get to keep more of their money out of the hands of the government. In theory it all sounds good and makes sense, but practically it won't give Americans the ability to provide an education for all of our children. And surely the Social Security thing is a joke and they just haven't revealed the punch line yet.

[bitteroldhag 0]

I'd really love for people with no kids to get a hefty tax deduction since it costs a fortune for me to take care of my 7 animals, not to mention mother. I'm single and I really get screwed on taxes. Luckily this year I can write off lapband surgery. That should help a whole lot on the old tax returns. As is, I'm paying for other people's kids to go to public school while rich folks get a nice write-off for sending their kids to private schools. Our school taxes went up tremendously a few years ago. Yet I don't see that money in my freshmen who don't seem to know anything at all and don't read to find something out. But at least most of them CAN read and do basic math which is probably all we can ask.

[green 6]

I usually agree with you, Bitter, but on the issue of paying school taxes I don't. Like yourself, I have animals instead of children and yet I believe that single people should contribute to school taxes. Educated young people make for strong and stable neighbourhoods and indeed for a strong and stable country. They are also likely to be employed, productive adults, ones that will be paying into those programmes that support retirees instead of sucking up our tax monies through welfare, police, judicial and prison costs.

I will add that raising children is a much more expensive proposition for the parents than maintaining a menagerie of pets. I kinda think that you and I got off lightly.:heh:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Victoriana: You are aware that Republicans have for many years wanted to give tax deductions to people who send their children to private schools. In fact it has been on their agenda since my children were small - like as in longer than dirt. LOL

Interestingly enough I haven't heard a word about Republicans wanting to allow people who don't have children in any school to get the same deduction. Can you imagine what all this would do to the public school system?

I only hear them talk about changing Social Security so that they can ensure that they get to keep more of their money out of the hands of the government. In theory it all sounds good and makes sense, but practically it won't give Americans the ability to provide an education for all of our children. And surely the Social Security thing is a joke and they just haven't revealed the punch line yet.

One thing that must be understood about the Republican party is that part of their agenda is the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare. They pretend to want to improve them, because the voters would not allow the destruction of the two popular programs at this time, but by giving an Rx program that can not be paid for, they have undermined Medicare and if they ever get private accounts, that will be the first step towards the end of SS.

[Carlene 12]

One thing that must be understood about the Republican party is that part of their agenda is the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare. They pretend to want to improve them, because the voters would not allow the destruction of the two popular programs at this time, but by giving an Rx program that can not be paid for, they have undermined Medicare and if they ever get private accounts, that will be the first step towards the end of SS.

I read just this morning that Medicare Part D has created a huge windfall for pharmaceutical companies. In spite of that, drug costs have increased 6% over the last 12 months - twice the rate of inflation.

George Bush's big push for Part D had zero to do with helping seniors and everything to do with making more money for big business - and not just the pharm industry. It gave all businesses who had contracted to provide continuing drug converage to retiress an out. I don't know of a single one that did not drop their drug coverage for retirees on Medicare. My mother-in-law, who still pays the same premiums for her retiree medical care, even though they no longer provide drug coverage, now has to pay several hundred additional dollars per year for Medicare Part D, and she gets less for her dollar. She worked for Kroger for almost 40 years. It's a shame to do that to people who have been so loyal.

The working class are the people who got shafted by Part D. I have since asked all my older Republican friends, "So, what do you think of Bush now?" Lo and behold, once he started getting in their pocket, they didn't like it. Too bad they slept thru the alarm and woke up too late.

[missy4gordon 0]

About the education question, for missy4gordon: your experience is NOT unique. In fact, it is not as severe as many I have seen and heard about. In the district where I work, which is considered a wealthy district, we are forced to give some of our tax money to the poorer districts in a "Robin Hood" finance plan...so now, we are "strapped for cash". But not so strapped that the curriculum office can't afford to hire several consultants each year...pay their way to our area, put them up at luxury hotels, pull hundreds of us out of our classes for a couple of days, feed all of us lunch, and then there is the consultant's fee...which can run in the thousands. We are not so strapped that the principals make in the 90,000s, mid-level administrators/superintendents make in the 150,000s, and there are dozens of them, and I've already mentioned what the superintendent makes. A starting teacher, brand new, makes 42,000, which is pretty good. After 29 years, I now make 57,000.

Most teachers I know are not so much complaining about the salary, but the inefficient management, the crazy rules, the lack of support, the high-stakes testing, etc. Any of us COULD move up to administration...the point is this: what if you WANT to teach? What if you WANT to stay in the classroom with the kids, and that is where your gifts are?

Hope this answered some questions about the state of education for you, and even more, hope it causes some of you to start digging around and asking questions of your school board and demanding fiscal responsibility. This is not depriving the kids of anything! Believe me, they will not be hurt if the district cuts back on things like "English curriculum coordinators" and "elementary gifted curriculum design implementation coordinator". Believe me.

Thank you for your response, mousecrazy!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

George Bush's big push for Part D had zero to do with helping seniors and everything to do with making more money for big business - and not just the pharm industry. It gave all businesses who had contracted to provide continuing drug converage to retiress an out. I don't know of a single one that did not drop their drug coverage for retirees on Medicare.

My company dropped my coverage, so it will cost me 3 times as much to get drugs as it does now as soon as I hit 65.

[green 6]

The Province of Ontario covers drugs for people on welfare, disability pensions and all folks over 65. Because they buy drugs in bulk they can negotiate cheaper prices with the pharmaceutical companies and naturally generic drugs are automatically substituted whenever possible.

My company drug plan also stipulates that generic drugs are to be substituted when available. Unfortunately, Canada does not have universal drug care. *sigh* I am under the impression that many other countries with universal health care do have both drugs and dental care as part of the package.

[Carlene 12]

The Province of Ontario covers drugs for people on welfare, disability pensions and all folks over 65. Because they buy drugs in bulk they can negotiate cheaper prices with the pharmaceutical companies and naturally generic drugs are automatically substituted whenever possible.

Wow! That's a GREAT idea! Unfortunately the Republicans refused to allow Medicare Part D providers to negotiate for bulk pricing. The VA is allowed to, but not Medicare. It would decrease the cost of coverage dramatically, but of course, it would also decrease the record profits the drug companies have just posted. And we can't possibly allow that, can we?

[Carlene 12]

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

I'm so proud to be a Texan I could fairly burst! I have traveled to many states and I have lived outside of Texas. I also came running back!

GOD BLESS TEXAS!

If I owned both, I'd live in Texas and rent out heaven!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Wow! That's a GREAT idea! Unfortunately the Republicans refused to allow Medicare Part D providers to negotiate for bulk pricing. The VA is allowed to, but not Medicare. It would decrease the cost of coverage dramatically, but of course, it would also decrease the record profits the drug companies have just posted. And we can't possibly allow that, can we?

Negotiating bulk discounts would also DECREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT by about HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS over ten years.

But since Treasury notes are Welfare for the Rich, why would BuSh allow that?

[BJean 16]

Gawd if it isn't depressing enough getting older, now we're faced with these threats to Social Security and our Medicare plan. I just hope something good happens before I reach the age of Social Security and Medicare.

Let me ask you a question T_O_M - do you belong to AARP? Do you think that they actually have any effect with their lobbists?