Comments about ‘Even if Utah accepts federal money, schools may only see half of it’

Utah should take the money.

However, Utah needs to take a leading role in curbing this sort of tyranny. Yes, tyranny. It doesn't matter how you slice it, government education, like government roads, housing, food, healthcare, etc. can only be funded by forcibly taking from those who have and distributing it to those who have not. That is stealing plain and simple. Calling it "taxation by the consent of the people" makes it no less stealing.

But the only "morality" state leaders can point to in considering forgoing this money is that federal tyrants are moving in on their state tyranny. It's a gentlemen's gang warfare. Nice!

The money has been looted. No good can come from forgoing it. Take it. But for goodness sake become a force for ending tyranny in the land of the free and the home of the brave in the future. And let the leadership for such begin in Utah.

Please do some investigation to find out what the "strings" are that come with this money.

It has been said that if a state takes the money this year, they must commit to finding the programs at the same level next year with state money. And, that you cannot use these dollars for schools and take money you would have spent on schools for something else.

The federal government needs to get out of the education business and abolish the huge, and costly, Department of Education bureaucracy which does not teach a single child.

No, taking this money is a very bad deal with the devil. Better to reject it and let the feds try to send it directly to schools, then cut the school funding by the same amount.

It comes down to two things in my opinion. 1) Obama is a socialist/communist, his primary agenda being, to bring the people into total subjection to and dependent upon the government for everything. And, 2) The "stimulus" money, as it always has been, is nothing but fiat money, imaginary money.

Obama knows "zero" about economics; but, clearly knows the path he wants to take us down. November won't come soon enough; nor, will 2012.

So the state legislature wants locally elected school districts to understand that the state will decide how the money is spent in the name of "local" control. Fascinating logic there.

I just don't get Republican legislators and their Tea Party terror rants. Sometimes I think they are just offended that President Obama didn't personally fly in and ask for their permission to respond to our country's problems.

During these incredibly difficult economic times, our schools must remain stable and functional. Why the constant whining and accusations of socialism? The same type of emergency measures would have to be taken by a Republican president if we had one--we already no that we don't have the money we need to ride out our current challenges without at least some Federal support.

So how is the state dictating to local school districts how to spend the money any different from the federal government dictating to states how to spend the money? If we're talking about tyrrany we should be looking at all levels.

I cant believe peoples opinions on DN. If the state legislature properly funded education this wouldn't be a problem.

Apparently Obama is still a socialist and now a communist, but as of yet nothing he has done or enacted is neither socialist or communist. Even the health care plan, which proposes to "force" everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty, has yet to go into effect. But good ole Bush, who took us into a war that a lot of people didn't want us to go into - Iraq, not Afghanistan - thereby using my tax dollars for something I didn't want it used for, is okay. Glenn Beck, who stands up and basically pronounces we need to become a theocracy, is okay. I'll take the alleged socialist/communist (not) anytime.

Shaun is correct.

I am a teacher and I know money isn't the only answer. You can't solve every problem by spending money, but you can fix some. Class sizes in Utah are among the largest in the nation and there are some technologies which can help teachers teach.

Unfortunately, Utah has a poor attitude when it comes to public education. Teaching is not a respected profession in Utah, and too many parents believe their 'little darlings' could never be a discipline problem in the classroom. Until Utah the state, and Utahns in general change their attitudes towards public education, schools in Utah will struggle.

The small differences this money could make to individual schools should not be ignored. Even a few thousand dollars can buy supplies and books, and as that money is spent, the economy grows.

One final note: If Rep. Wimmer's biggest complaint about this money is that he loses a small amount of control in the Utah State Legislature, he does not have Utah's best interest in mind. His priorities are out of whack and he doesn't deserve to hold office.

I am against federal intrusion in most cases. Utah government, however, is even more intrusive to its citizens. Polls show that the majority of Utahns want more money spent on education. Those polls have also shown they are willing to pay more taxes to achieve that. However, our legislators are too worried about compensating a profession they are whole heartedly against. Why doesn't our state government respect the will of the people?
I don't know which legislator it was, but on the news he said we don't want to give this money to our teachers because they might get used to it. What? The teachers might get used to not being the bottom paid state in the union? That would be a tragedy.

Utah:

We don't want that 'socialist' money! It's communisim!

What? Utah might only get half of it?

Hey, that's not fair!'




How can one group claim to be 'against' federal money...
and then complain when they don't get all of it?

Is this like the Utah senators who voted AGAINST the stimulus money...
and then made x8 requests' for those funds before the stimulus went through? (Bennett, Bishiop)

Utah is a hypocrite.

Mr. Wimmer seems much more interested in threats to his "power" and "authority" than helping Utah school kids.

1. As mentioned previously. The legislature doesn't want the money because the state is closer to the people and should decied what goes on in schools.
However, the Wad-duh-puts says,"school districts need to understand the Legislature may have different ideas than educators about how the money should be allocated – and that $50 million of the money may end up easing the deficit in income taxes, which go to fund schools. "They just might be surprised," Waddoups said. "If they're counting on their percentage of the $101 million, it might be half that."
Oh the irony of that logic and how unrepublican of the "most conservative" republicans in our legislarure.

2. We don't want educators and local districts maximizing the value of one time money to best suit learning for children; That would be taking control away from the state dictators in the legislature...Unbelievable that they call themselves republicans.

Obama wants the government to control every aspect of our lives. And he never has given anything, but what he's wanted more federal control in exchange for it. Whatever happened to "limited" government? Can't you see the dangerous path he's dragging us down? Since his fraudulant election (which I base on the fact that he lied about virtually everything just to get elected), he's burdened the economy beyond repair, the government now controls the banking and mortgage industries, has taken a major role and ownership in the automobile industry; and, when Obamacare kicks in, with another 1,500 IRS agents to enforce his unconstitutional healthcare program, if it doesn't come sooner, the econcomy will surely collapse in 2012 because it cannot sustain any further burdens on the system.

Use the half to lend to school districts to fill budget holes. Use the rest as tax refunds to Utah taxpayers.

'Whatever happened to "limited" government?' - Keith43 | 11:59 a.m.


*'Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt' - Posted by Mark Knoller - CBSNews - 03/04/10

Line:
'With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.'


* 'Heavy infant in Grand Junction denied health insurance' - By Nancy Lofholm - Denver Post - 10/12/09

Line:
'By the numbers, Alex (Lange) is in the 99th percentile for height and weight for babies his age. Insurers don't take babies above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are otherwise.
"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange...'


Alex Lange could have gotten that insurance under Obamacare.

'Whatever happened to "limited" government?' - Keith43 | 11:59 a.m.


'Bush signs the Patriot Act Oct. 26, 2001' - By Andrew Glass - Politico


'On this day in 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law drawn up in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
(sic)
Opponents have cited its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without court orders; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and personal financial records.'

'Whatever happened to "limited" government?' - Keith43 | 11:59 a.m.


'Bush signs the Patriot Act Oct. 26, 2001' - By ANDREW GLASS - 10/26/07 - Politico

Line:
'On this day in 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law drawn up in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
(sic)
Opponents have cited its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without court orders; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and personal financial records. '

It is very difficult for me to understand how Utahns believe we fund for roads, air control, police, national security, EDUCATION????????????? It is through local, state and federal taxes. It is indeed our money that the Federal Government is trying to enhance job security in the educational field -- but it is also our voice that determines who is voted into office to make those decisions. I thank God that I voted for President Obama -- I would hate to see the status of our country under John McCain. It would probably look a lot like Utah, where we don't want to fund education.

RE: Pagan | 2:54 p.m


Why do onlly tell half th sory , at most,

why do you not tell the whole story,


OBAMA made the Patriot Act PERMANENT,


or are "bad" things suddenly okay when the LEFT does it?


with the LEFT,

ALWAYS politics over principles


NO STATE should be accepting money the FEDERAL government does NOT have,

and NO money should ever be accepted that comes strings attached to it.

the power of the government must be kept limited,


obviously the LEFT does not think so, OBAMA made the patriot act permanent, and usurp control of many much of the economy.