RuffDraft wrote:
@DaCrum: The Teacher's Unions are a nationwide issue. They're supposed to be making things better and yet all we see is massive problems and making it nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher. People hired as teachers, who then acquire tenure, who then don't do their jobs, or who don't care about whether or not their students learn the material, stay as teachers, they just get moved from one district to another. It's called the Lemon Dance in some places.
And why should we pay for a teacher to get Viagra? And what makes you think Viagra is inexpensive? Do you know how much it costs? It can go up to about $2,000 for a
90-pill bottle. So, according to
this, there are about 6 million teachers in America. Let's say in one year there are half a million teachers who get free Viagra, Cialis, or whatever, through teachers' benefits. And lets say that they're using an average of one bottle a year, just for the sake of argument; they'd be using about two pills per week. That means that 500,000 teachers using a years' worth of Viagra would cost $1,000,000,000. And you're saying that we can afford it?
DaCrum, I find your entire train of thought to be completely irresponsible. Do you even care what direction this country is headed in? If the Democrats have their way, our
budget is going to have a $1.65
trillion deficit. The President should not be making the budget a political tool, he should be running the country like a decent leader would, and he's not!
The fact is that Mr. Doren
does know what he's talking about. The only one that doesn't here is
you.
You're selectively choosing sources to make them look bad and you know it. First of all, Viagra is prescription only, so the doctor has to medically examine and approve the person for the pills. Secondly, that means any prices online are going to be a scam (since clearly they aren't prescribed), and so of course will be vastly overpriced, or spam that vastly underprices it. And if you aren't buying it through prescription, the government is not paying for it.
So the cost is far less, the number of users far less, and the need medically recognized as being legitimate for those who do use it in a manner that costs the government money.
If either party has their way the budget deficit is going to be over a trillion no matter what. The fact you're actually identifying on a party basis here is baffling. Republicans ran up the biggest debt in history after having a surplus by Clinton after government deficit spending began with Reagan, who is undeniably responsible for the trend of deficit spending. Now, I do not mean to praise Democrats, they aren't good either in regards to spending, as you can see with Obama, so clearly it is the person that matters compared to the party they're of. Even if Republicans got everything they wanted, the funny thing is we'd still have a massive deficit. They argue a line item here or there but absolutely none of it matters in the big picture which
all politicians and parties are ignoring.
