State of the Union 2013 |OT| less exciting than a cabin in Big Bear

Status
Not open for further replies.
original.gif
 
So Comcast in Boston thought the middle of the State of the Union was a good time to do their weekly emergency alert system test. Someone is gonna be in trouble.
 
once again, I'd much rather we focus on how to lower the cost of living instead of increasing minimum wage. I can't speak for all industries, but I can tell you with absolute certainty, as my family runs a small independent grocery store, that EVERYTHING does indeed increase in cost to offset minimum wage increase. Our vendors flat out tell us ahead of time that they are increasing the price to adjust for minimum wage increases. A .50 increase can indeed shutter a small business. Especially when the owner of the business makes less than his employees, and less than he did 25 years ago. I speak from experience.

Can't we do both? And again, what happens in the meantime? Continuing to subject employees to sub-poverty level wages? At the very least, minimum wage needs to be directly tied to cost of living. Now if we can reduce the cost of living, great, fine. In the bolded, it would seem there is a lack of a sustainable business model. Why do then those cuts have to come from employment wages? Why not order less or less expensive product? Find ways to save on rent/energy bills? Market more aggressively? Noone says you can't cut costs to meet profitability, but those cuts should not be to the detriment of employees who depend on your work to live.
 
On the topic of preschool, here's Melinda Moyer:



http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...researching_early_education_philosophies.html

This is what I was referencing earlier about how preschool is most important for those kids least likely to attend it and least important for those kids who tend to actually go. And the more rich white families seek it out, the less accessible it becomes for the poorer kids who actually benefit! So a public preschool system is a huge, huge win, because it reaches the kids who really need it. Over time, even, it might drain money away from private preschools once people start figuring out they don't do much.
I want to embrace this but how much is the federal gov going to cover? They only foot about 8% of Education costs and money is already stretched in many districts.

Not to just be cynical but to step back from this single issue, he might be introducing this to increase the dimensionality of the whole of his platform so that other advances will be made to see a preschool program get shelved.

I believe it is needed, and I hate small children. edit: this is a joke
 
Obama's improved so much as a politician, or maybe it just seems like it because all the promise we had for him in 2008 was completely drowned out by the economic crisis. It's hard to be a President on the offensive when you're just trying to stop the bleeding everywhere.

But now with everything improving it feels like he's on the ascendant. It sucks he's halfway done with his Presidency, it feels like he's finally able to get started.
 
I don't want to sound like a luddite, but I don't buy all the supposed benefits of pre-school. Plus, I want a choo-choo train that blazes from New York to Chicago to Denver to Las Vegas to Los Angeles.

there are many, many studies pointing to the importance of pre k programs re: childhood development, higher graduation rates, lower pregnancy, and lower crime. you're in the wrong here.
 
I love that this speech really isn't saying anything at all, no plans, nothing like that. Just government isn't the answer.
 
Jesus fuck, I'm sick of this shit. It's the same argument over and over. Ugh. Also, it's funny that he's talking about Obama wanting "more government" when he just rephrased it as "smarter government."
 
Rubio should have had an alternate speech. Cause Obama explicitly said not a bigger government, but smarter government. Lol.


That fistbump by two nerds...holy shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom