| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom | Page 1 of 2  |
| Message |
 Why is it preferable to cut education and Healthcare spending rather than tax?Posted by Napoleon I know a lot of people love how "responsible" Jindal is being cutting $500M from higher education and selling off the LSU system hospitals.  on 10/5 at 2:03 pmBut why is this favorable as compared to just raising taxes? Seems to me like education is severely lacking in this state, and I will say unions are a big fault here. And yes I get public schools are the suck. Even though, it just seems like cutting these programs will have a negative impact in years to come. Another thing is, isn't the La budget balanced or close to it? Why do they need to privatize the charity hospitals, and cut college funding. It just seems the the right wing voter wants to cut taxes at every corner. But it just seems that some things shouldn't be cut. I know both systems are a bureaucratic mess, so reform them don't cut them. Reply • Back to Top |
| Because we have spent more and more and more on both over the years and guess what...nothing has improved. In fact, things have gotten worse. yay...government /thread Reply • Back to Top |
| so reform then cut, don't just throw money at it. I know government can be very inefficient. Doesn't mean its always inefficient. Reply • Back to Top |
| We could tax at 100% and everyone would be super smart and super healthy. Let's do it!!! Reply • Back to Top |
| Diminishing returns. Reply • Back to Top |
| Jindal should have never repealed the Stelly Plan. It was actually working. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: why can't reform BE the actual cutting? Let the local level handle this stuff. quote: I assume you won't be voting for Obama then, because that is ALL he has done. quote: History shows Government is inefficient 99.999% of the time. Here's an interesting fact to prove it: Healthcare costs have gone of 2000% in the last 30-40 years. ridiculousness I agree, blame tort law. With that said, in that same time frame Government spending has gone up 3000%. So...why is it the government thinks it can reign in the spending of a area of the economy that has increased in cost at a rate of 50% slower than the government itself? This post was edited on 10/5 at 2:13 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Not really a big fan of his, but Jindal has already taken a huge step in the right direction with vouchers. But nationally, teachers unions fight that kind of thing, as well as any regulation that could hold them responsible for their poor work. Reply • Back to Top |
| Jindal's policy decision are very short sighted. I guess he assumed he will have a cabinet position in President Romney's staff. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: The budget has to be balanced, and cuts have to be made to balance it. What taxes do you suggest be raised and do you understand what has to be done to raise them? Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Actually, it's very much the opposite. What he's doing now is what every governor before him was afraid to do but knew it needed to be done. But because it doesn't bring about instantaneous results, people think it's a waste of time and dumb. However, it needs to be done either now or ten years down the road at a much greater scale for the next "Jindal" to come along. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Because a shi*load of people don't pay fricken taxes ... and those of us that do have gotten fed the frick up with higher taxes and JACK SQUAT to show for it. Since the schools are so damn shitty that I have to fork out a ton to send my kids to private school ... I'd just as soon not waste any more of my damn money on a failed system. Reform but don't cut? GMAFB. How about this? UNFRICK YOURSELF before you ask for more money. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: because too many people graduating with worthless degrees quote: private sector is more efficient Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Let's see, well Jindal has run Louisiana into a surplus heading into next year. And he did it all, without costing taxpayers more money. Why give more money to a government who has increasingly received more tax money every year, and has produced the same results of the past? Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Well increasing funds into public education has not worked. Spending on public education has increased 300% over the past 30 years and the test scores have not changed, and in some areas, gotten worse. Reply • Back to Top |
| Hard to answer the question without pointing out that he HAS to balance the budget and there is a shite load of things that he cant touch to begin with that Im sure he would love to. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Yep, lots of programs are protected that can't be touched so he is limited in what can be cut. Reply • Back to Top |
| Lack of money is not the problem with our education system. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: No damn way because most private school pay way less per student ... pay the teachers less ... etc ... and have way better results. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: By cutting, it forces them to reform. Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
  Page 1 of 2  | ||
on 10/5 at 2:04 pm to 
on 10/5 at 2:11 pm to 
on 10/5 at 3:14 pm to