How can you guys defend this?
 

Tea party economics 101. I don't understand why anyone can say that cutting education by 44% is a good thing. But I guess when you scare everyone into voting for you because of guns, gays and God you can get away with it??

Jim , read what this says about your hero Jindle. LOL.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...to-kansas.html

And yes that piece rips Bernie style economics to shreds too. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you cut education it forces the kids to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and build character.

I have not read it but this country should prioritize education and figure out why we overspend for low quality educations then cut budgets

Oh that's rich. Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The current model
Is a failure .
Look at our ranking and our per student expenditures.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To a large part I agree.
However, that is a small piece of the article on the two examples of cut taxes, reduce spending, and guess, what, the jobs and revenue haven't come in.... Kansas has been simmering for a while, I had read something a while back on it. Louisiana was more news to me.

Another one is here:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...-strained.html

Most states are dealing with a deficit , even those with high tax rates . Bottom line is the government is not very efficient at converting tax revenue into anything productive or tangible .
Too much corruption, very little pride , and no one ever held accountable
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there's another trillion dollar failure
but the top politicians keep their head buried in the sand
and let it continue

they are bought and paid for

What I said, was that I am surprised by Jindal's fall. It was epic, and I agree with the title of the article, we need to learn from what went wrong in LA and KS, and we also need to learn from what went wrong in CT and RI and Mich. Agreed?

"I don't understand why anyone can say that cutting education by 44% is a good thing"

Here's one way...when the money being spent on "education" is going to insane teacher pensions, insanely cheap teacher healthcare, and making union bosses filthy rich, then that money gets allocated to "education" in the municipal budget, but it does absolutely zip to help kids perform better. And if the state can't afford that anymore, it should be cut.

Our problems with education sure as hell aren't because we don't spend enough money. It's because we don't spend the money on the kids, we spend it on the union's demands, and those are very different things.

I'm not saying that kind of indefensible fat is what was cut in LA or KS. But not all "education" spending is sacred or holy. Much of it is as political and dirty, as it gets. Liberals don't like to talk about that.

I went to a Board of Ed meeting in my town. I told them what would be saved if we switched teachers from pensions to a 401(k) (which everyone else did 25 years ago), and I pointed out that with th esavings,m we could hire more teachers, and therefore reduce class size, and THAT has been proven to help kids perform better. I didn't propose budget cuts, I proposed that we spend the same amount of money...but I proposed that we prioritize student performance over insane union benefits. Do you want to guess how the teachers responded? They said I didn't care who was teaching my kids, that I hated teachers, that I wanted them all to freeze to death or starve to death or meet some kind of awful demise...

But what you left out, is that some places that control spending and taxes, are the places where people are moving to (NC, TX, GA, SC, FL). OH cut taxes, and the jobs are coming in. In NJ, Christie forced the unoins to accept cuts, and people still apply for open teaching positions.

Cutting taxes doesn't have a 100% success rate, as the KS story tells us. But the liberal model of tax and spend without any restriuctions? Where has that worked? Doesn't it have a zero success rate in this country?

Neither extreme works all the time. But there are generalizations, I think, we can make about what states are doing well, and which are circling the drain. i don't think Spence or Nebe would like the honest facts that would come to light as part of that conversation.

Correct., And the reason why is below...there are 4 types of spending...

(1) you spend your money on yourself - this is the most efficient type of spending, you want the best deal you can get

(2) you spend your money on other people - in this case, all you care about is spending as little as possible. This is why children get socks for Christmas form distant relatives.

(3) you spend other people's money on yourself - in this case, you want the highest quality, and you don't give a rat's azz about price. This is what happens when ex-wives get their ex-husban's credit card and go hog-wild at Tiffanys.

(4) you spend other people's money on other people - in this case, you have to reason to give a crap about quality or cost.

Government spending falls into the last 2 categories, which is why it's so inefficient.