- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Stay focues. regardless of whose responsibility it was, the money saved those jobs, and when that money was gone, so were some of the jobs. It has nothing to do with buying anything but the facts.
No. To keep teachers working. Your skewed spin is simply inaccurate.
That's your skewed opinion. Not to be confused with fact. Teachers have a concern to the country outside of unions, for example. if we accept your logic, anything that helps teachers must be because of the union, even if the teachers belong to no union. That's silly on its face.
Wrong the unions have a strong influence on politics
How Much Does NEA Spend on Politics? « The Greenroom
of course they do, as do business and corporations. but you can't argue that there is only one reason for something. We need teachers beyond union wants and desires.
of course they do, as do business and corporations. but you can't argue that there is only one reason for something. We need teachers beyond union wants and desires.
Yes, we need teachers and they are funded by state and local taxes not Federal Taxes. Saving their jobs is a state responsibility not a Federal Responsibility. Obama stimulus plan was not sold on basis that the money was going to be used to "save" teachers' jobs.
Will not happen as long as teacher unions have democrats in their pockets with the vast money they give to elections
He didn't break down whihc jobs, but those jobes, we know, were saved regardless of who you believe is responsbile for them.
What we don't know and never will know is whether or not the states could have saved those jobs without Federal Intervention. There is a bigger issue here, is that what you expected from the Stimulus plan? Is that how it was sold? Is that the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout inefficient state governments?
I thought the stimulus was supposed to fund "shovel ready" jobs? Seems again you and the public that bought into the Obama rhetoric were duped.
What we don't know and never will know is whether or not the states could have saved those jobs without Federal Intervention. There is a bigger issue here, is that what you expected from the Stimulus plan? Is that how it was sold? Is that the role of the Federal Govt. to bailout inefficient state governments?
I thought the stimulus was supposed to fund "shovel ready" jobs? Seems again you and the public that bought into the Obama rhetoric were duped.
But we do know. Once the money was gone, states lost those jobs. not all states are out of that money, but in those in which it was used up, they lost those teachers.
As for me not answering, doood, I'm not here 24 / 7. Give a little time, and try to remember this has been answered before with links. Maybe you should mark them so you can go back when the question arises in your mind again.
What won't happen? I feel like you were reading something else as your response seems to being addressing something I didn't say.
But we do know. Once the money was gone, states lost those jobs. not all states are out of that money, but in those in which it was used up, they lost those teachers.
No, sorry you don't know, those jobs were not lost they were projected to go and we all know what Obama projections mean. Guess you don't have an answer to the question about the purpose of the stimulus. Was it sold on saving "teacher's jobs?"
Aren't teacher jobs jobs? or are teachers not worthy?
Teacher's jobs are state responsibility, not the Federal Responsibility. Noticed that you didn't answer my question regarding how the stimulus was sold. What Obama did was bailout the teacher's unions with stimulus funds which are hardly shovel ready projects.
Doesn't matter to the claim. They are jobs, aren't they? And do students and people not suffer more than unions if teacher jobs are lost?
Most suffer when the market drops as well but you aren't concerned about how the market is doing. Keep diverting which is all you do. The stimulus plan was for shovel ready jobs, not bailing out teacher's unions. All Obama did is what liberals always do, allow someone else to shirk their responsibilities which in this case was allow states not to make the tough choices. There are never consequences in the liberal world when the reality is liberalism is a total and complete failure as the actual results show.
You do make leaps. You should refrain from making calls on what I'm concerned about. And states have bene quite thankful for the help for the most part, and as a person who cares about education, so am I. But, the question was about saving jobs. The answer is those jobs were saved.
What has happened is that states under liberal control have never had to make the tough choices thanks to Obama. That seems to be what liberals do, bailout failures. Obama claims that things could have been worse and you buy it. I claim that those jobs could have been saved without spending "shovel ready" stimulus money on those state issues. The American people were sold a bill of goods and only those like you continue to buy the rhetoric.
Poor, poor states. And it was so different under republican spending. :lol: :lamo :lamo
Poor, poor states? Again keep diverting from the claims Obama made to sell the stimulus plan. This money was for shovel ready jobs not state bailouts.
Because that isn't the question we were debating. You diverted to it when you realized you were wrong.
Private sector shedding 39,000 jobs is the topic of this thread. Teachers are public sector jobs and had nothing to do with the Stimulus sales pitch by Obama.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?