or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Republicans - They don't want your kids to know how to walk!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Republicans - They don't want your kids to know how to walk!

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 

RCPolicy

Quote:

From 2005 to 2014, Congress will have spent nearly $1 billion of taxpayer money to help kids walk to school.

What has this money bought? Safety vests for crosswalk guards, “safety training” sessions, bicycle racks, flashing safety lights, new curbs and crosswalks, posters, and the like. For $1.1 million in 2010, Maryland counties got “an on-call team of engineers, planners, and bicycle/pedestrian experts” to make it easier for people to walk and bike to schools. For a similar amount the same year, Georgia got marketing materials and staff to promote student walking and biking activities.

 

Let’s hope those are really awesome marketing materials, because over the same period the federal deficit will have exploded and then settled at $667 billion, and the federal debt will have grown by $8 trillion.

It’s a good idea to create safety materials for kids. No one wants a child falling under a bus. That $1 billion works out to about $18 per schoolchild, so surely in itself it isn’t a huge addition to everyone’s federal tax returns.

Except that since 1987, an international nonprofit has done exactly the same thing as the federal Safe Routes to Schools program, with support from private companies such as Johnson and Johnson and FedEx, as well as from local volunteers across the country. They all give their time and money willingly, even exuberantly, to Safe Kids Walk This Way, unlike the way most of us pay our taxes. And none of it increases the national debt.

 

 

We could look at this as a prime example of a place where agreement could occur about the type of cuts the Federal government might be able to make in order to start getting their spending house in order. However our leftist friends cannot allow such discussions because of their very sound reasoning related to programs like this. Let us example that reasoning here.

 

Cuts are AUSTERITY! Any cut to any program anywhere, for any reason is just an attempt to harm the economy. The program need not have any validity or purpose. We have to do something and now that we did something and it didn't work (stimulus) we have to keep doing something or else everyone will go broke due to our refusal to stop borrowing money we don't have to pay for things we don't need.

 

Since AUSTERITY hurts the economy, we can also claim any and all agents are harmed by your actions and thus you hate them. You hate kids, crossing guards, schools, anyone who paints lines on roads and of course support the murder of all these people as well since lack of support is murder per leftist reasoning.

 

You can't even support having these actions undertaken by private organizations. That of course leads directly to anarchy. Lack of direct federal intervention into kids crossing streets means you don't even support the concept of streets being built or traffic laws, or anything else civilized. You of course want lawless mauraders to murder children both by running them down at whatever speed they felt like driving, but also wanted to see them murdered by angry mobs picking up pieces of the decaying and destroyed streets and pummeling and striking small children about the heads and shoulders with them.

 

You also can't support this action being undertaken at the district, city, county or state level because you didn't express enough concern before we were borrowing a trillion dollars a year and the only reason you are concerned now is because you hate having a black man for a president and want him, and the economy to fail.

 

The reason you don't want us to borrow a trillion dollars year, to have federal intervention into your child crossing the street or support private efforts to enlighten the youth about crossing the street, why because you are also an extremist. Moderates borrow 8-10% of GDP per year, want federal intervention into crossing streets and see no need for private charity or other private organizations. Extremists only want any efforts made in these areas.

 

So go ahead and just think about cutting one cent of these federal funds but don't get upset when people yell at you for wanting to murder children walking to school.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 19

Meanwhile, the many suburbs don't even have students who walk because of traffic ("all roads deemed hazardous" by school district).  Just another example of the billions we could cut in wasteful and unnecessary programs.  

 

Also, Republicans hate school children.  Don't forget that important point.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 19

Did someone say wasteful and unnecessary spending?  How about the F-22 and the F-35?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Did someone say wasteful and unnecessary spending?  How about the F-22 and the F-35?

 

 

Yes...having state-of-the-art fighter/bomber aircraft is unnecessary, especially given that, you know, Defense is one of the only constitutionally mandated things our government does.  Yup...let's cut that.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Did someone say wasteful and unnecessary spending?  How about the F-22 and the F-35?

I would love to reform military spending. Get rid if the politics, pork and ear marks. Bring it on.

post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I would love to reform military spending. Get rid if the politics, pork and ear marks. Bring it on.

 

I agree.  But I also don't think that is the biggest problem we face by far, fiscally speaking.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 19

When we spend more than the next 21 countries combined, you are delusional if you think that's not our biggest problem.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 19

that's fine, i think all kids should be wheelchair-bound anyway, makes for less trouble. bicycling is far too dangerous on 2 wheels.
 

post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When we spend more than the next 21 countries combined, you are delusional if you think that's not our biggest problem.

 

Our GDP is much larger than almost all countries as well. Percentage of GDP is the best way to look at it. Complaining we spend more when the economy of California is larger than most of those countries is just silly nonsense.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 19

trumptman, why do you want to eat babies?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 19

You are one sick puppy!

post #12 of 19

If you were president what would you do to make the economy more stronger and the world more safer?

post #13 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

trumptman, why do you want to eat babies?

 

Well two reasons, one there are the federal dietary guidelines which have made us increasingly fatter every year with their recommendations about how to stay slim. The recommended daily allowance of massive carbs is a gigantic sugar bomb and the desire to steer clear of proteins and fat make us weak and of course ever more fat. However the government must know what is best in their recommendations so regardless of the fact that said dietary guidelines read like a giant lobbying manual, I should eat whatever the government tells me even though everyone who does keeps having more and deeper health issues.

 

Second, I eat babies of course because there isn't a government program to advise and teach me how to not eat babies. In the absence of government efforts, things will always get worse. I suspect there won't even be any babies alive this year because there is no government program, nor even a desire to increase funding in the area of prevention of baby consumption. With no action being taken there, I fear all babies will soon be gone.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When we spend more than the next 21 countries combined, you are delusional if you think that's not our biggest problem.

 

What trump said.  The numbers don't lie, BR.  And ss a percentage of GDP (and percentage of total federal spending) we spend much less now than we have in the past. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 19

Still doesn't mean we need to spend more than the next 21 countries combined.  That's fucking overkill to the extreme.  And do you factor in all the other security bullshit spawned from our retarded defense policies, like the TSA, in your figures?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Still doesn't mean we need to spend more than the next 21 countries combined.  That's fucking overkill to the extreme.  And do you factor in all the other security bullshit spawned from our retarded defense policies, like the TSA, in your figures?

 

How many more countries do you think we spend more on with regard to teaching kids how to using a crosswalk and promoting walking and biking to school? I'd bet it is pretty much all of them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

What trump said.  The numbers don't lie, BR.  And ss a percentage of GDP (and percentage of total federal spending) we spend much less now than we have in the past. 

 

To be fair this is a little misleading statement. At one point in the past (during the WWII period for example) I believe the US was spending around 40% of GDP on military and defense. So saying that we spend "much less now than we have in the past." might not mean a whole lot. Even if we were to use % of GDP, that still might not be the best metric. The question is how much is enough? Is it a fixed percentage of GDP? Well that would suggest it should always be increasing and I don't know why we'd make that assumption. We are low as % of GDP (around 5%) historically. But it seems we could go much lower and still provide an effective defense for the people of the US. I mean even 3% if $420 BILLION a year!!!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

To be fair this is a little misleading statement. At one point in the past (during the WWII period for example) I believe the US was spending around 40% of GDP on military and defense. So saying that we spend "much less now than we have in the past." might not mean a whole lot. Even if we were to use % of GDP, that still might not be the best metric. The question is how much is enough? Is it a fixed percentage of GDP? Well that would suggest it should always be increasing and I don't know why we'd make that assumption. We are low as % of GDP (around 5%) historically. But it seems we could go much lower and still provide an effective defense for the people of the US. I mean even 3% if $420 BILLION a year!!!

 

It's not misleading at all.  I didn't state that we are "spending less than in the past"...I said less as a percentage of GDP.  And yes, it does need to increase in real dollar terms.  Inflation alone would dictate that. Even if we look at it in terms of a percentage of the federal budget, we're lower than we've historically been.  For example, in 1970, military spending was 29% of the federal budget.  In 1960, it was 35%.  Military spending is now less than 20% of the budget, and yet that's the problem?  

 

As for how much is enough, I don't think we can really begin to have that debate, because we have vastly different visions as to what our military needs to be, our role in the world, etc.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's not misleading at all.  I didn't state that we are "spending less than in the past"...I said less as a percentage of GDP.

 

I know that's what you said. I'm pointing out that even saying it is much less in terms of % of GDP can be misleading because in the past, as a % of GDP is as high as 40%. So "much less" could still be 30%, 25%, 20%, 15%, etc.

 

We disagree that it should always be increasing or should always be a certain minimum % of GDP. I think this is bad thinking. We do disagree about the role of the US in the world, and since the US constitution does not outline a "role for the US pin the world" but merely a role for defense of its citizens, then I'd argue that this (imperial) "role of the US in the world" is both extraconstitutional, unnecessary, dangerous and provocative.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Republicans - They don't want your kids to know how to walk!