TumorAttitude

ONE | The Big Read

*copy pasted* ONE and The Global Campaign for Education will present The Big Read, a storybook promoting literacy and education worldwide, to President Obama on June 16 -- along with our request that he fulfill his campaign promise of contributing $2 billion to a Global Fund for Education.


If we have money to bailout soulsucking companies, surely we have money for global education? Eh, I signed. If you agree, you should sign as well.

Inuzuka Skysword

Since bailing out those companies was a dumb decision in the first place, you best change your logic.

TumorAttitude

Thats an excellent point, actually.....
I still think you guys should sign it.

sleepy jack

How much are other world powers contributing?

__________________

polyphonic

Between bail outs and credit card debt...it shouldn't matter how much anyone else is putting in. We obviously have the means to do such a thing and even if we stand alone so be it. A great leader would be willing to do such a thing (wow that's deep man). But really! We had a money problem so we threw money at it?!? Whatever... We could do whatever we want, and usually we do. Why not do something good? The real question is who's moderating the money and where exactly is it going? No matter what you say we'll never know for sure, but still....

Where do I sign?

__________________
How quickly I forget that this is meaningless.

TumorAttitude

^^Well said polyphonic. After much digging, couldn't find anything. I assume its because nothings definite yet.
Yeah, thats pree much my point. If we money for THAT, then don't we have money for teaching children in the Third World how to read?

The Unfan

Do you two nimrods even understand economy at all? Throwing money at money problems is logical because they're trying to kick start the economy. Its no different than taking business loans which technically put you in debt until you pay them off. On the other hand spending money to no gain while you have no money is not only impractical but its detrimental.

polyphonic

RIGHT! Like War money funding for the war on drugs, political campaigns, raising salaries for members of congress, funding for immoral and illegal detainment camps such as Gitmo, crap hold on, I've gotta go but I'll be back with a whole list.

__________________
How quickly I forget that this is meaningless.

sleepy jack

Point A. Taxpayer money doesn't go to political campaigns that's raised by the DNC/RNC and donations.
Point B. Congress can only raise their salary when a new session begins and they have to vote on it they don't do it whenever they feel like and the raises are never really that extravagant. Also Congress has never raised their salaries individually recently.
Point C. It doesn't cost much money to rent the area that is Guantanamo Bay detention camp and we've been renting it for a long time. The fiscal amount to keep that running should be the least of your concerns when it comes to where money is going. Unless you suggest downsizing the military (or at least military expenditures which President Obama is doing) which would be silly seeing as we're in two wars and they'd just be sent elsewhere (and will be seeing as it's been shut down.)

I hope your "whole list" is as thought out as the preview you provided us which only has the war on drugs and the war in Iraq going for it which are hardly new/shocking revelations of reckless spending.

__________________

polyphonic

A: Public funding of Presidential elections means that qualified Presidential candidates can receive federal government funds to pay for the valid expenses of their political campaigns in both the primary and general elections, and to pay for their national nominating conventions The Federal Election Commission administered the first public funding program in 1976. Eligible Presidential candidates used federal funds in their primary and general election campaigns, and the major parties used public funds to pay for their nominating conventions. Alternate political parties can apply for funding that is to be based on the voter turnout from the last election cycle.

B: Congress can still raise their own salaries, and regardless of the fact that the personal raises aren't that much in themselves, when you add it all up...

C: Paying rent at Gitmo isn't the point, the cost of running such a place is.(Moral issues being a whole different topic)

Not to mention that the fact that the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" being old news doesn't disqualify them from being good examples of irresponsible spending.

Obama letting wife take air force one to Chicago every weekend.
100 dollars per pound steaks flown in from japan at white house parties.
Palin can go drop thousands on suits from Saks, Neiman's and Barney's.

There were six candidates in the Presidential Election of 2008. The approximate amount spent by each candidate are as follows:
1. Barak Obama, Democrat, 730 million.
2. John McCain, Republican, 343 million.
3. Ralph Nader, Independent, 4 million,
4. Bob Barr, Libertarian, 1 million.
5. Chuck Baldwin, Constitution, 208 thousand
6. Cynthia McKinny, Green, 145 thousand


These are a blip on the radar screen of examples.
Where is the money really going?

This whole argument is only furthering my original point; we can debate HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars all week, and the fact is that there are hundreds of billions to argue about. With all of the affluent spending going on around us, regardless of financial situation, why not do something good with it?

__________________
How quickly I forget that this is meaningless.