Can't figure out why some are upset with Obama for the "freeze"

Hey, in order to govern he has to keep up his popularity, doesn't he? So he dances to the Locomotion by Little Eva tomorrow night and maybe a bunch of idiot tea baggers take it seriously and suddenly start thinking, "Maybe Obama isn't such a bad guy after all".

I mean, you can't be a very effective President if you don't also know your way around show biz and that's what SOTU is all about. By Monday most people probably won't be able to repeat a damned word he said but I bet they'll remember he was a might fine dancer.

As for the "freeze", well defense won't count, medicare and social security won't count, stimulus packages and job creation won't count and hell, anytime Obama feels like it all he has to say is that whatever it is he wants to spend money on is "too important" to count, so what is being "frozen" anyway?

But he sure can dance and that's what he wants people to remember.

which is fine by me:nopity:

:rofl:

But spot on

there's nothing to be worried about when you're in fucking dreamland

in.

that's for sure

The pep squad

Are you aware of the complete 180 that this freeze suggestion is? It is implementing what McCain suggested at the debate and Obama completely dissed!

Do yourself a favor and listen to Thom Hartmann's show. Then tell us that you understand the implications of what is going on.

and he won't even have to wink at me to let me know what he is doing.

All the polls last week said people were upset about the deficit, so he is giving them something in SOTU to show he's serious about it. It will pick up his poll numbers and then maybe HCR will pass, which will in turn pick up his poll numbers some more, and then, well, you probably get the picture.

Like I said, it's show biz and he is, despite arguments on what he is or isn't doing now as prez, the very best at show biz. If it makes him stronger and puts public opinion behind him resulting in some of his policy initiatives being enacted then I'm all for it.

So let Reich and Krugman and all the rest of the politically correct left wingers complain. I really don't give a hoot because I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing.

He was going off on the "Hoover" crap. Then again, he's a big Kucinich fan. Last I checked, that dork got 1% of the vote. You make your choices...

Some of us just aren't as pure as people like Hartmann, who was actually saying that Obama needs to "go after the banksters"...

What is this? Fucking Commander Doofus McFailure going after the banking industry with some kind of film noir fast-motion black and white caper flick roundin' up the Fatcats?

Sheesh... in your fucking dreams, Thom.

If you like him, good for you.

He, however, is a fucking self-serving loser who can barely get 1% of the vote nationally. Plus he's a prick. I could shed light on that proof, but it's not worth the pixels.

Nor is he.

is that he won't get in bed with the Wall Street bankers and corporate interests that traditionally select the POTUS.

You can call Kuncinich all the names you want, but I'll just call him "principled". Obama was my second choice, and I believe in his heart he wants the same things I do, he was just willing to get in bed with some unsavory elements of Corporate America that I can't stomach. I'm hoping he'll go his own way and do what's right. Then again I thought Clinton would during his second term (what do you have to lose at that point???).

I believe the debate is healthy for Democrats, and will keep the party from becoming complacent and losing their way (and majority - see GOP 1994-2006). If you're not challenging one another, you just become stale and irrelevant, and eventually the voters look elsewhere. I'd prefer that the Democratic party remain the place where honest internal debate is encouraged, unlike the GOP where you need to swear a blood oath on a bible held by some redneck televangelist while attending a Klan rally (such ceremonies tend to encourage the lock-step behavior that some are lauding - "look how united the Republicans are! Why can't we be more like that?").

As for me, I'll hold true to my beliefs in the hope that eventually more of the party faithful will come around to my way of thinking.

Enjoy it. You get nowhere and you have some goofy, arrogant dork who has not accomplished SHIT in Congress as your hero.

It's like loving a sax player in a band who can't read music and plays bum notes. You just need to be on bad drugs to enjoy...

the only "bad drugs" I ever got simply didn't work...

corporate interests?

Maybe people don't hate those entities on sight, after all.

we need spending instead of capitulating...yet again.

That's what it's all about!

So you really think Obama is going to "freeze" spending on anything that really matters and that he has morphed into John McCain?

Conservatives.

You dont see a problem with that?

There's only idiot teabaggers. Sure you can argue that he'll never get their vote anyway, but if you read the polls last week about what happened in MA you'd notice that a number of the Democrats who voted Republican for Senator said that the number one issue on their minds was the deficit and felt Obama was not serious enough about doing something about it.

So he'll say in SOTU that he is serious. But unless he suddenly has had an epiphany and is a reborn Republican I seriously doubt it will affect anything but public perception, and that's an area he needs a little help with right now, don't you think?

The Wall Street crowd and old Reagan Republicans.

Thats the only people this freeze will impress.

From the information I have read from places like TPM, 538, Swing State Project, etc., there were socially progressive but fiscally conservative Democrats in large numbers who voted Republican in MA last week precisely due to the deficit issue.

There are hordes of voters who are pretty much libertarian on social issues but who are intensely interested in deficits and balanced budgets.

David Stockman, Reagan's old Budget Director, once remarked that there's nothing inherently wrong with a Welfare State as long as we're all willing to pay for it. That's where these voters come down. Universal Healthcare? Fine. Just don't borrow money to do it.

Freezing the administrative core of the federal budget shows some commitment to fiscal restraint. We're still going to spend billions on the stimulus and Social Security and Medicare will go on as usual, but there's a token acknowledgement that Obama understands their concerns.

This won't effect the stimulus, and it IS good politics.

once you get that this place is full of Obama haters, it all starts making sense. Sometimes I think I'm at FR. I double check the URL to be sure I'm in the right place.

So if Obama says or does anything whatsoever that pleases a Republican or independent with right leaning tendencies he is a sellout, appeaser, traitor and unworthy of the office.

They need to lighten up. SOTU is all about public perception, polls and showbiz, full of, as someone once said, "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I'm looking for a teaching position. Being older and settled, I'm limited in where I can find a job, about a thirty mile radius. With both local and state school budgets being cut, a cut in federal funds could very well mean the difference between finding a job and being unemployed.

Nice to know that my joblessness will contribute to Obama's popularity. Trouble is, I'm not going to have any money to give him or other Dems, and even less inclination to vote for them.

Nowhere, that's where. The only thing "cut", if anything, is the rate of increase in those budgets.

Why is that a bad thing? How can government budgets, no matter how worthy the goal (education) continue to increase as though there were no recession and taxpayers hadn't lost their jobs by the millions all over the country?

It sounds to me like you aren't a teacher but someone who wants to go into teaching as a way out of unemployment. I wish you well in that regard, but if you can't find a teaching job it won't be Obama's fault. There won't be any openings because the jobs are all tenured, an anachronism that should have been done away with a long time ago.

Our budget is being CUT by 2.4 million from this year's funding level. Not a cut to our increase.

Maybe your local school board is losing 2.4 million in state/federal funding but I am calling you out on your local school budget being "cut". I bet the budget itself ahs increased just as it usually does. It's just that funding from the state has decreased.

Unless your teachers took a voluntary pay cut I think you are, to put it politely, full of baloney.

Been here 15 years. The Governor's office sent my projections a few weeks ago. PM me and I'll forward his memo and the Dept of Ed spreadsheets.

The budget is actually higher than last year but the state funding is lower, resulting in a larger tax increase than normal. I am not saying that is a good thing, just that the budget was not "cut".

The Total Program Funding for my district for FY 2011 is 6.12% LOWER than the Total Program Funding for FY 10. For me, that's a cut of 2.4 million dollars from THIS YEAR's FUNDING LEVEL.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Look, whatever the sources of income are for your budget, it doesn't matter. The fact is that your budget is up, was not "cut" and that taxpayers are making up the difference.

It's not Farsi we are speaking here.

I run the finances for the entire district. My funding is determined by the state of Colorado through the Public School Finance Act. This funding is called Total Program Funding. It's comprised first of local property taxes paid by district residents - about 40% of the total. The rest is state equalization aid. This is all the funding we get. There is no other tax collection. This is all there is.

The Total Program Funding for my district for this fiscal year (FY10) is $39,801,786. My Total Program Funding for FY 11 is set at $37,364,496.

Which one is bigger?

"Funding level" has nothing whatsoever to do with the total of a local budget. The only thing "funding levels" have to do with it is to determine who will pay for that budget, whether it be the state or federal government or the taxpayers.

Your "funding level" may very well be 6.12% lower than last year, but you can bet your bottom dollar that your local school budget was up from last year and not "cut".

So what are you saying? Your school district suddenly lost a bunch of kids and no longer needs as many teachers? Your costs of maintaining, heating, cooling, etc. are lower than last year?

Stop trying to blow smoke up my ass. The bottom line is that your budget is UP, as I would expect it to be and would support as someone supportive of education.

However, I do not support bullshit.

I've created budgets for tens of millions of dollars. I've prepared Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for state, local and federal agencies reconciling every dollar we spend. It's pretty obvious you . . . haven't. You know nothing, and it's pretty sad.

Funding level is the level of funding determined by the state funding formula, which is set in Colorado State Law. It's called the Public School Finance Act of 1994. It's a foundation formula, with equalization components. It actually has quite a lot to do with the total budget for a district.

As I showed you in the post above, our Total Program Funding is being cut by 6.12% for FY 11. The state is facing a shortfall of more than $1 BILLION dollars. K-12 funding is their biggest piece of the pie. Property taxes cannot be raised without a vote of the local district residents, so they cannot be used to make up a shortfall in state funds.

And the situation is dire. We are having to close 2 schools and lay off 27 teachers. We are increasing class allocations from 25 to 30:1. You don't do that when you have a budget increase.

http://blog.greateducation.org/diary/483/year-two-of-deep-k12-budget-cuts-announced

Thank you.

Here in Colorado, local property taxes cannot rise to backfill a loss in state funding. All property tax increases require a local vote of the district on General Election day. The state actually sets the Total Program Funding level in statute. Even with a positive tax increase vote (HAHA!) you can't exceed the TPF.

because that is not how it works here in NJ and most of the country. If funding levels are down due to a decrease in state aid, guess who pays the difference? The taxpayers, that's who. I should know - I pay over $13,000 in annual property taxes here in NJ, over 2/3 of which are school taxes.

So does it make me a "right winger" or a "teabagger" to ask if anyone is ever going to help me out of this bullshit quicksand pit I am sinking in?

If you want him we'd be delighted to give him to you.

Jesus.

I just got my tax bill and we pay $2500 to Denver PUblic Schools.

January 27, 2010
South Carolina teachers could be furloughed to cut costs

By Seanna Adcox

The Associated Press

COLUMBIA — South Carolina teachers would take a pay cut and students would take fewer tests under cost-cutting measures that won initial legislative approval Tuesday.

A House panel crafting the education budget for the next fiscal year voted unanimously to require that teachers statewide take a five-day furlough and that administrators take 10 days, saving roughly $100 million in salaries.

(snip)

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100127/NEWS/1270346/S.C.-teachers-could-be-furloughed-to-cut-costs

The nearest city to me cut 80 million out of their education budget last year, and is looking to cut even more out this year. The two small towns near me cut ten million of each of their respective budgets. That's just the local and state budgets being cut.

Federal funds are supposed to help make up that gap, but if they're frozen for the next three years, it's going to be awfully hard for that gap to be bridged. And if you haven't heard about it, there's this little thing called inflation. If the federal budget isn't increased, then inflation effectively cuts into it. That's a bad thing.

Yes, I am a teacher, no I'm not going into teaching just to find a way out of unemployment. I actually quit a decent job and went back to school because I wanted to teach, in part because there are too many uninformed idiots like yourself who have no liking for and no clue about education. As far as your comment about tenured teachers, you just showed how biased you are and how little information you have on the subject.

Tell you what, instead of cutting budgets of programs that actually help people in this country, why don't we put defense spending on the chopping block first? After all, if we stopped fighting these wars we could actually cut our defense budget in half, still be the biggest badass on the block and do our own population, including you, a world of good.

Because they still won't allow supplanting. I can't lower my local support for Title 1, for example, and use the freed up funds to replace the funds cut by the state. So it's fine if I need to expand a reading program, but I can't use it to keep a reg teacher employed.

No city cuts 80 million from its budget. What you mean is that they proposed a budget that was higher than last year and then "cut" some of the increase. The net result, as always, is a tax increase and a higher budget.

If I am wrong then give me a link to this "cut" budget and the total budget for last fiscal year and this fiscal year. I bet you can't show me a lower budget. In fact, I am certain of it.

I said what I mean, the city near where I live cut, CUT 80 million dollars from their education budget last year. There was no tax increase, there was a lower budget, dozens of employees lost their jobs, a lot of needed infrastructure work didn't get done. Why is this concept so goddamn hard for you to accept, especially in an economic downturn.

If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. I'm not going to play your little game any longer, because it is obvious that all you want to do is bash people for being justifiably pissed at this current administration.

Any city that "cut" 80 million from its budget would have generated tons of ink in the media, unless, of course, the "cuts" turn out to be just a reduction in the ridiculous increase they were seeking in the first place.

So put up or shut up. Let's see the "cuts" you are talking about. What city? When? Where?

Show a CUT to current year's funding levels of more than $32 million dollars. Not a cut to the increase, a cut to CURRENT year funding levels.

We expect a similar cut next year as well.

Colorado's economy is in a world of hurt.

All you are talking about is who pays for the increases. If state/federal funding levels are cut then the taxpayers pay for the increase.

I think you saw that above. There is no "automatic" mill levy increase here. ALL property tax increases have to be approved by voters.

The reason state funding is down is because tax revenues are down. I can't follow your logic or assumptions about how we get less funding from the state but it's made up by some secret blood-from-turnips tax increase that turns less tax revenue into more.

Furthermore, more and more of the budget we have is eaten up by every increasing health insurance costs of the employees and retirees in the system. Even if the budget dollars remained static, that would leave less money for education each year. Right now in my state over a thousand dollars per student per year is earmarked to meet pension and health care commitments to retired teachers.

They clownocracy at the WH is panicked and pawing through the Bill Clinton 1995 playbook.

But this isn't 1995.

This stunt will merely increase cynicism within every group. It will not turn around any baggers while being a standing statement to everyone else that the tea-baggers are right about our national priorities.

Lose-lose.

We have no facts yet as to what it means ... so clearly ... we're all dead.

Christalmighty, it is like someone pulled their finger out of the dike in here and let the flood waters roll in.

Obama is making a political statement to gain popularity. But to listen to some in here you'd think he committed a crime for which he should never be pardoned.

Hysteria

Some people suck really badly at chess too.

Was your OP meant in support of Pres. Obama?

'Cause it doesn't seem very flattering to him, at all.

:shrug:

:rofl:

Fat chance.

There are plenty of Democrats, as confirmed by last week's poll numbers, who are concerned about the deficit. What makes you think that you have to be a right wing teabagger to worry about this issue?

God Bless our Drones! :patriot:

Our tax dollars at work.

:shrug:

It'll be interesting to see how much of an issue PAYGO makes when earmarks, and PAYGO. start outing net-deficit states as being the financially irresponsible ones.