To the editor:
I'm writing in regard to Craig Campbell's "GOP opportunity" printed Aug. 21. Mr. Campbell claims the Democrats are full of rhetoric, that they "ensure that no one will succeed" and undermine the educational programs of America's school children.
I'm sorry, but what country are you living in? Of course the Democrats use rhetoric, but so do the Republicans. As for wanting people to fail, I can't even rationalize such an insipid claim. Tell me the name of one Democrat or Republican who wants everyone to fail.
Finally, I believe it was this current administration that pushed for No Child Left Behind and then largely failed to fund it.
Democrats are not bad people who want you to fail; neither are Republicans. Supposedly Republicans are the financially responsible party, but this administration has done nothing but spend amazing amounts of money without having any means to pay for it. Yet a Democratic president balanced the budget.
Democrats are supposed to be the party of the common working person, yet the common working person is more commonly aligning themselves with social Republicans.
We need to stop these stereotypes and outlandish definitions and just listen to each other and allow an opportunity for each side to explain their actions and their supposed merit. Otherwise our society will just continue to be people like Mr. Campbell and his rhetoric speaking for the majority of us and I will not allow such remarks to stand for me.
Michael Stoecker,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
The country is not being managed by the economic giants of our time.
The money being spent on control for oil could have been better invested in the USA by taking steps that would seriously cut back our needs for foreign oil. The money spent thus far according to Science Friday could have had the USA well on to a grid being powered by alternate sources of energy.
social security is another example:
If President George W. Bush had succeeded in privatizing Social Security in 2001 (something that will probably occur if he is re-elected), where do you think that money would have been invested? The one name that comes to mind is ENRON. Where would the Social Security Administration have to take money from if the government had Social Security money invested in ENRON when they collapsed? It couldn't have come from the very poor... they have no money to give. And we all know it wouldn't have come from George W. Bush's "base" of "haves" and "have-mores". The sound you hear is the knocking on middle-class America's door. Pony up everybody
And where would the 1 trillion dollars in transition costs have come from for the Social Security Privatization plan?
Eight Nobel laureates and 300 other economists advised that the Bush Tax cuts and proposed spending increases would exhaust the projected surplus of both Social Security and Medicare.
The total cost of Bush's Social Security privatization plan is close to 1 trillion dollars. According to candidate Bush, the plan will offer younger workers "a better rate of return so that they'll have a retirement plan in the future." One of President Bush's 2000 campaign ads said "President Bush will keep the promise of Social Security. No changes. No reductions. No Way." In order to privatize Social Security, even if the market stayed up, the cost would still require deep cuts in benefits. And if the market went down, or if an investment went awry (e.g.; if Enron had been one of those companies invested in, around 2001), then the cuts would have to have been much deeper, the deficits higher or billions would have been cut from an untold amount of programs. State aid would have been cut and local taxes to the middle class would have risen.
"This (the Bush Social Security Privatization Plan proposed in 2000) frightens some in Washington because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security like it's some federal program." George W. Bush at a campaign rally in Missouri.
In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush is lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/0505or...
coldandhot (anonymous) says…
Stoecker and Merrill please reach out and hug someone today. There are people out there that love you.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
ummm.....there was something that happened during the bush presidency with very costly consequences....if you can recall or have a flashback in history that far back...it happened on 9/11/01. it changed our world.
things had to change very rapidly. i am surprised the bush bashers cannot accept "change."