Your tax dollars hard at work, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 04:35 PM by loam

Originally posted by Crakeur
bah. when someone reduces funding, they refer to it as cutting funding. ...cutting funding just means she budgeted less for this program.

Ok.

But let's use your very own logic. She didn't reduce their actual spending from a previous budget, right? In fact she doubled it, right?

What she cut by only 20% was the legislature's request for *NEW* funding for an expansion of the facility. But she still approved the remaining 80% of it when it was within her power to kill the expansion funding all together, right?

So, given these facts, does the statement "she cut funding for Covenant House" accurately convey what happened?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 04:50 PM by Crakeur

reply to post by loam

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

not sure if we're all seeing this correctly. when she went thru her budget, she cut the amount suggested for covenant house. when a politician cuts funding for something, they are, basically, saying it isn't as important as other areas of the budget.
the fact that she now has a pregnant daughter who very well might be living in the white house, paid for with tax dollars, and she might be receiving medical care paid for with tax dollars, is, in my eyes, ironic.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 05:06 PM by loam

Originally posted by Crakeur
not sure if we're all seeing this correctly. when she went thru her budget, she cut the amount suggested for covenant house. when a politician cuts funding for something, they are, basically, saying it isn't as important as other areas of the budget.

Well, let me ask you this. When you ask for a raise from an employer and he gives you one, but not at the rate you asked for, can you then characterize the increase in your salary as a dock in pay?

See my point?

Originally posted by Crakeur
...the fact that she now has a pregnant daughter who very well might be living in the white house, paid for with tax dollars, and she might be receiving medical care paid for with tax dollars, is, in my eyes, ironic.

I understand that.

But even there it doesn't quite work, does it? Palin obviously didn't oppose funding for the program in question (as already discussed- she doubled it), so why does the fact that her pregnant daughter might become an indirect beneficiary of Palin's earned benefits translate into irony?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by loam]

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 05:13 PM by Cowgirlstraitup7

Wow, I went to Price Chopper for an hour and you guys went all crazy off topic!

Anyhow, to the poster that told me to stick my foot in my mouth. NO, I don't think so.

Well, even if I did get "owned" in my own thread, which I don't believe I did; this is still a first:

Potentially the first black POTUS

Potentially the first women VP

Potentially the first unwed pregnant teen

IN THE WHITEHOUSE.

Woohoo, good times for America.

Too bad the conservatives run on family values...........tax dollars or not, her family does not scream family values.

By the way, I don't care if all people who get their paycheck from tax payer money use it for prostitutes, booze or drugs, just as long as they can do their jobs and don't preach to me about how wrong it is to spend money on said things.

That's the hypocrisy here.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 05:15 PM by Crakeur

reply to post by loam

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

fair enough but comparing someone asking their employer for a raise is a bit different from a non-profit budget item. For starters, cutting funding is, simply put, the term used to describe a decrease in funding. I have several non-profit clients who will tell you that, when they get less than the year before, they are told "we're cutting funding (insert lame reason here)"

Also, the amount crossed out (5 million) is the proposed budgeted amount. It isn't what Covenant House asked for, it's what the lawmakers who drew up the budget propsed. She said no to that number. she still gave a nice amount but she reduced (word used for humorous effect) the proposed amount. Truth is, the lawmakers who drew up the budget might have put the 5 million in there knowing she'd cut the amount by an expected percent. Nonetheless, the point is, it isn't like she cut the funding for homeless people and then her daughter was homeless. She cut funding for unwed teen pregnancies and her unwed teen got pregnant. I know this sounds cold but, dammit, that's good comedy.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 05:37 PM by marg6043

reply to post by Crakeur

Actually is what some may call Poetic justice.

before my mother became a radical fundamentalist or born again Christian she used to say that what we do in this word we pay in this word.

Now she rely on God to do the judgment.

reply posted on 4-9-2008 @ 05:42 PM by ghaleon12

[edit on 4-9-2008 by ghaleon12]

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^