Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
On tonight's episode of #Crossfire, host Newt Gingrich questions the progressiveness of New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio. Watch how our guests, Democratic pollster Margie Omero and Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, respond.
What do you think of de Blasio and his policies?
Posted by CNN's Christina Manduley
Filed under: 2014 Elections • Bill de Blasio • Debates • economy • Health care • Hillary Clinton • Kellyanne Conway • Margie Omero • Newt Gingrich • Van Jones
Author, documentary filmmaker, historian, Speaker of the House (1995-1999), and 2012 Republican presidential candidate
Fmr. Obama Deputy Campaign Mgr. and W.H. Sr. Adviser, founder of Precision Strategies, fmr. Sr. Adviser to Maj. Leader Reid and Sen. Kennedy
Conservative columnist for New York Daily News, contributing editor at Townhall Magazine, commentator and author
Former Special Adviser for Green Jobs under President Obama, co-founder of Rebuild the Dream, author and attorney
Well, you missed the point entirely. The validity and acceptance of a tax should be based on the belief and proof that the money will actually be used wisely and for the purpose stated. It never is. How many times do we fall for the "it's for the kids". I am still wondering why our schools are so destitute with the windfall of lottery income. Should I assume without the lottery they would be using abacuses and drawing in the dirt?
What happens is that most states don't limit what lottery money can go to. Because of this, state legislatures reduce other education funding as lottery dollars come in... so there's no great windfall for education.
Georgia was VERY smart in how they applied their lottery money and it worked very well. They constitutionally limited what lottery dollars could be spent on. Technology in the classroom, HOPE scholarships and Universal Pre-K.
Because of that, the OTHER funding for education was not able to be reduced. The state still has to pay for books and pencils as normal... the lottery money was targeted to specific areas. Because of that smart plan, the state has had a great improvement in education. Test scored have been increasing steadily at higher rates then other states despite a MUCH higher percentage of the state's students being tested (for example, in 2012 81% of Georgia's students took the SAT... compared to a national average of 31%). While they're mean scores are lower, they're lower because a MUCH higher percentage of GA students will be attending college... because the HOPE scholarship makes that possible.
The GA model is so much better then how other states handle lottery money for education. I can't understand why more states haven't copied them.
Time to stop referring to these paternalistic-grievance-mongers as "liberal." If one calls his or herself a "liberal" due to whatever guilt they feel for a sad but true legacy of racism, jingoism, capitalism, et al ism-isms, yet will always advocate for the government to save us from ourselves with taxes, bans, academic brainwash, censorship etc- this person is not a liberal in the first place.
Using the government to resolve grievances and address dysfunction in society is not an unusual idea. Pretending that you understand the motives of every instance of political activism is simply mindless, which is the crux of your assertion.
Newt, do you really need the money? Then what? Why on earth would you compromise your principles so much as to look that American hater van jones in the eye without spitting in it?
Van jones, your not an American boy. Being an American is so much more than being born in America. Be sure van that no American Americans find the first syllable that rolls off of your tongue worth its subatomic particles weight in dogpoop!!
Newts ONLY unchanged principle is the pursuit of more money.
NYC is in for some bad changes. Stop and frisk will probably be first. Raising taxes will not be limited to rich! $$$ spet on education isn't getting results! My smpathies to a rea city!
First off, "universal pre-k". I think you better go out and look at the numbers. Kids who were in pre-k, high-5, and other programs meant to get them "kindergarten ready" (sorry, I grew up in the 60s and I find this completely stupid) – are no better off or farther along than their peers who did not start school until Kindergarten BY THE THIRD GRADE. Talk about throwing your money down the proverbial toilet.
And, I'm sorry, taking ANYONE'S money to do charity work NOT of their choosing, is STEALING. I don't care how you look at it. You can call it taxes all you want, you can say it's making things "equitable" all you want (and, btw, who promised YOU a rose garden?) – it's still stealing.
Very well said...
I think many people don't realize how schooling has changed since they were kids.
With my kids having recently gone through it, I can tell you that schools EXPECT kids to have gotten Pre-K education. Kindergarten classes are designed in a way where certain concepts aren't taught... your kids are expected to know them. Those without that are at a huge disadvantage, because they won't get taught those building blocks. For example, if your child doesn't know the alphabet before hitting Kindergarten, they're not going to learn it there. They don't teach it there anymore.
Research from the 70's and 80's does't apply anymore... because back then the building blocks were taught in Kindergarten. Those who didn't have pre-K still got them when they entered school. That's simply not how the schools are designed now.
More recent numbers that show the opposite of what you claim. One example would be the state of Georgia's Pre-K program (instuted with the state lottery in the 90's). A 2001 study showed that those who took part in the state's Pre-K program scored 82% better then those who did not on 3rd grade testing.
What a silly topic.
A democrat proposes a tax on people making over 500 grand a year that (for them) is insignificant that can provide universal pre-K in his city.
And the GOP, rather then railing against the tax increases... are talking about how he's not 'courageous' enough by offering only a "soy latte" tax increase?
The point (which the conservatives are trying to hide) is that NYC is instituting a tiny tax on the wealthiest that can provide a very significant benefit. They don't want to talk about that because it doesn't agree with their viewpoints... so instead they're calling him "chicken" for not taxing more (which they would have pounded more for being an unfair tax).
This sort of thing is why people are becoming less and less fans of our media. They aren't being journalists anymore. They're not keeping us informed. They're having people intentionally deflect from the actual news by talking about silly Starbucks analogies rather then the ACTUAL PROPOSAL that the analogy was used for.
Poor job CNN.
I love that you feel entitled to someone elses money so long as you perceive them to have more than they need and value in its proposed use.
Anything beyond $14,350 is technically fair game.
How I feel about taxation really doesn't matter.
The point is the "analysts" on the show disregarded the actual proposal and instead discussed a phrase used in talking about the proposal.
The question that should have been discussed is "Is it worthwhile to impose a 3 dollar a day tax on those making over 500,000 a year in order to provide universal pre-K care." Debate that all you want. Take whatever side you want. But talking about "soy latte's" is simply avoiding the actual topic.
My opinions on the issue don't matter at all. I don't live in the area affected by the tax. I'm just annoyed that they're dismissing the policy not based on the merits or drawbacks... but because they think the imagery might be spinned in a way to make "the other side" look bad.
It's bad analysis, and bad reporting.
The media sucks because half of our population relates to, and supports brain-dead rhetoric... This is why Palin almost became VP, her and her cabal deal in terms of mentally diminished platitude, and people love it. "Soy Latte" tax is exactly the kind of rhetoric that appears to the conservative, dog whistle base.
Save the Billionaires, God bless