Originally posted by Arthwys:Okay, but if the "less taxes" results in cuts to funding services, then the consumer spending is going to higher costs for local taxes, property taxes, healthcare, education (including college), housing – not Walmart or Chrysler.
I'm mostly republican due to my opinion that "conservative, responsible spending" is the best way to go. That and less tax, hence more consumer spending power. Basic stuff, yet is any of it really working?
Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
and don't forget that Bush has the largest cock of any US president.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=5789
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
But it will be everyone who retires within the same period if the market crashes. Which happens. Not just fuck ups who want to get rich using their retirement mechanisms.
It's true, there is no trupe personal responsibility because when the ship sinks, U.S. citizens – liberals and conservatives alike –look to the government to bail them out.
It's true, there is no trupe personal responsibility because when the ship sinks, U.S. citizens – liberals and conservatives alike –look to the government to bail them out.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
A. Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.
B. The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves. But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).
Originally posted by Bags:
But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault – which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing – or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.
Originally posted by Bags:didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Thanks for pointing this out. NCLB and that draft reinstatement legislation were the two biggest crocs referred to by the Dems (and MoveOn) this election cycle.
Originally posted by Bags:didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.
Originally posted by Bags:How many times has it happened?
But it will be everyone who retires within the same period if the market crashes. Which happens.
Once?
The stock market of 1929 bears no resemblence to the capital markets of today.
And again, the possibility of individual fuck-ups and/or the remote chance of a catastrophic event are not valid reasons for why the government should take full responsibility for the savings of its citizens. Just as with healthcare, the result will be a system of far, far lower quality run at far, far higher costs and an eventual collapse under its own bloated bureaucratic dead weight.
Correct – I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:There have been two market crashes in my lifetime…how you get only '29 is beyond me.
remote chance of a catastrophic event are not valid reasons for why the government should take full responsibility for the savings of its citizens. Just as with healthcare, the result will be a system of far, far lower quality run at far, far higher costs and an eventual collapse under its own bloated bureaucratic dead weight.
And I never said full responsibility for retirement should go to govt – is Social Security full retirement today? Sure, if you want to live in a box and eat dog food. But there is a critical base-level that is ensured.
Originally posted by Bags:
[QB] Correct – I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
You seem to be the education expert….So how much do we need to carry out the actual programs within NCLB then? If you have ever actually read the NCLB legislation, you would know that the only "program" in the legislation that is appropriated (meaning actual funding amounts for the program) in the legislation beyond 2001 is Title I. Therefore, it is left up to the yearly appropriations process to determine funding for every other program under NCLB.
So how much do we "need" to fully fund other programs within NCLB? How much do we need for Teacher Quality Grants, State Assesments, Rural Education, Reading First…the list goes on and on. Since you are the education expert, please share with me the amounts that would satisfy "fully funding" these programs…
I would really like to see your numbers since groups like the NEA can't even put out specific numbers on the need for funding for programs outside of Title I!
Originally posted by Bags:well, the 2005 bush budget calls for NCLB to be funded at $24.8 billion. but, as we all know, congress will do what it wants to do. i wonder if his 2004 budget called for a full appropriaton of nclb? i'm sure someone can look it up.
Correct – I meant didn't fund enough to carry out the actual program as intended. So they need to stop taking credit for the fucking whole program as an exemplar of the Bush drive for education when you don't fund it (enough).
i think the administration can take all the credit they want. . .NCLB was the re-authorization of ESEA, which, in its final year in 2000, was only authorized to be funded at $17.4 billion. whether or not it's fully funded, it's still more money going to education than ever.
Can I get some dates?
Surely you can't be talking about October 1987?
The market regained everything it lost within a year and a half. And had you invested the day before the "crash" (i.e., at the worst possible time), you still would have tripled your investment within ten years, which would have been an annualized gain of twelve percent. Hardly the stuff that produces bread lines.
Surely you can't be talking about October 1987?
The market regained everything it lost within a year and a half. And had you invested the day before the "crash" (i.e., at the worst possible time), you still would have tripled your investment within ten years, which would have been an annualized gain of twelve percent. Hardly the stuff that produces bread lines.
Originally posted by Bags:
There have been two market crashes in my lifetime…how you get only '29 is beyond me.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt. When normal people do that, bankruptcy occurs. Then what is the govt. guilty of? If Clinton spent this kind of money, doubling the deficit, the Republicans would have cried foul. What now? Deficits matter to me, because it will end up falling on our generation, and ones to follow. Of course Bush doesn't care about that or Social Security, because he'll be worm food by then.
The idea that comparing Clinton's two terms and Bush's one term is apples to apples is a fallacy.
First, Clinton had a massive peace dividend to expend. Second, Clinton had the good fortune of serving during the largest economic expansion in the history of the U.S. Third, it was Keynes, the champion economist of the liberals, who recommended deficit spending during an economic slowdown, which kind of puts the kabosh on the left's faux outrage at deficit spending. Fourth, deficits didn't matter before, they don't matter now. Fifth, every president spends oodles during their first term in order to garner support so that they can win a second term. Sixth, the fact that Bush has failed to exemplify traditional conservative small government values is not a viable reason to vote for Kerry who espouse big government values.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met.
Originally posted by Bags:didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.
So you only pay cash for everything and you don't have (or plan on getting) a mortgage or a car loan?
Originally posted by hitman:
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt.
To pay the minority kids to stay home the day they give the standardized tests? ;)
Originally posted by hitman:As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/QB]
Originally posted by hitman:I'm sorry, has there ever been a plan to save Social Security for our generation? Social security was screwed a long time before the Bush Administration! The bottom line is that right now there are 7 workers for every s.s. recipient and in less than a decade, when the baby boomers retire, there will only be 2 workers per every s.s. recipient. Someone needs to come up with a real plan to fix this and thus far no one- not a single Republican OR Democrat has come up with a viable solution!
Deficits matter all of the time. You shouldn't be able to keep spending when in debt. When normal people do that, bankruptcy occurs. Then what is the govt. guilty of? If Clinton spent this kind of money, doubling the deficit, the Republicans would have cried foul. What now? Deficits matter to me, because it will end up falling on our generation, and ones to follow. Of course Bush doesn't care about that or Social Security, because he'll be worm food by then. [/QB]
Originally posted by cubby bear:Agreed. I'm not telling anyone that Dr. Bush has the prescription, but at least he's willing to touch the "third rail of American politics" rather than continuing to dig the hole deeper by throwing more money at this broken system, as all his predecessors have done, and as his current opponent pledges to do if elected.
I'm sorry, has there ever been a plan to save Social Security for our generation? Social security was screwed a long time before the Bush Administration! The bottom line is that right now there are 7 workers for every s.s. recipient and in less than a decade, when the baby boomers retire, there will only be 2 workers per every s.s. recipient. Someone needs to come up with a real plan to fix this and thus far no one- not a single Republican OR Democrat has come up with a viable solution!
Originally posted by hitman:what? <gasp> <cough> you mean, someone, somewhere is actually taking into account the end result of all this money? surely you must be joking. all this time, money went to schools, and no one knew if it was worth it? no way!
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met.
Originally posted by Bags:didn't fund? $13.4 billion is going to title 1 of NCLB, but is authorized for $20.5 billion just this year. while it is underfunded, it's never been not funded.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)
plus, funding for major elementary and secondary education programs has INCREASED by 43% in the last 3 years.
Originally posted by hitman:Do you not agree with the standards then? Should we not expect a child in the 5th grade to be taught to read and be able to read at a 5th grade level? And the same for every grade before and after that?
As I am teacher, this funding has had to increase because of the all of the new standards that need to be met. [/QB]