LumRaiderFan

Work of two people...lol.

Typical liberal solution...all we need is more money...that we don't have.

  Federal gov...really?

  No it's not that simple...police don't work for free and many ISDs could not afford police on every campus.   Pamfam, do you not think that a teacher can be capable or handling a gun?   As sick as it makes me to read about these shootings, it makes me equally as sick to read about these teachers that died that ran TOWARDS the gunfire or try and hold a door to protect these kids without a gun...they are going to try to protect the kids whether armed or not...I would like to give them the option to be able to run towards the gunfire or stand behind the door with a weapon...for theirs and the kid's sake.

  OK...they buy one illegally on the street...we can do this all day but I won't...you don't seem to have any solution to stop a shooter that enters a school.   Arming teachers that are trained is a great solution IMO and if a shooter did enter the school and I had a child in there, I would want someone in the IMMEDIATE area that could stop them...several actually.

  That's your solution...really?   OK, say a student steals a gun rather than gets one from his parents and enters the school...what's your solution to stop them?

  What's YOUR solution?

  You are right and proving my point...when they call it a shutdown and send hundreds of thousands of employees home and the nation continues to function because they keep the essential employees at work...hmmm...seems they may be a tad bloated.

  Sad but true.

  And there's the problem...too many folks depend on the fed gov for everything they need.   And the fed gov has shut down several times...don't remember too much devastation occurring.

[Hidden Content]

  That is exactly what I am saying...the fed gov has no business in the education business.   The ISDs and states can handle the education of their kids just fine without any interference from the fed gov.

  Here is a breakdown of federal spending in 2007...maybe if we weren't spending money on the items in red we wouldn't have entered a recession (led by Franks and Dodd I might add)   Regardless of who led us there, Obama has kept us there.   $586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security $548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2] $394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare $294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare $276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related $243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology $20.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

    You are right...he didn't vote for it because he wasn't even in the Senate at that time...smh.

[Hidden Content]

It does say a lot...about the ignorance of many voters that wanted" change" but had no idea what that meant, and when the country was in poor shape after 4 years of this guy, voted for him again. I will agree with you on entitlements getting him lots of votes...as they do many Democrats.

Sure does.

Why don't you Google how many high level Democrats, including Clinton, thought we should stop Hussein because he had WMDs. I would imagine the Kurds felt like he had WMDs as well...Google that too.

Any proof of that statement....and wouldn't you like to know what happened?

  Gotcha...couldn't remember the timeline of events.

  Maybe BG is getting a waiting period confused with registration.

  Yes sir...the good old days!   :)

  To your point:   [Hidden Content]   From the article:   When compared with those in the past, the Obama recovery has been the slowest and weakest since the Great Depression. As The Wall Street Journal notes, the average quarterly GDP growth for all post-1960 recoveries was 4.1 percent, with total growth of 21.1 percent. Compare that to the anemic Obama recovery, which posted an average of 2.2 percent quarterly growth and a total of just 11.1 percent—about half the historic average.   Even more marked is the difference between the Obama recovery and the 1982–1983 Reagan recovery, which resulted in GDP growth of 23.1 percent over 17 quarters (25.6 percent for the entire recovery). According the Joint Economic Committee, this translates to a growth deficit of $2 trillion between Obama’s recovery and that under President Reagan. That is $2 trillion more that would be in the hands of U.S. businesses and workers today, when—despite the Obama supporters’ cheery sentiment—many American families are still aching financially.

I have problems with every administration...they all spend too much, increase the size of gov and continuously add fed gov programs that should be handled at the state, county or city level.   The only difference is the Republicans and Democrats feel they can overspend more wisely on their particular interests than the other.   Their ideological differences, however, are getting smaller and smaller.

  You got us...having qualified trained volunteer teachers carrying weapons to protect the kids is the same thing as wanting to arm the kids...smh.