Dubya and the Truth

[ib4au 0]

http://www.misleader.org/pdf/nyt_ad.pdf

[DKW 86 7,899]

That site is pretty laughable.

Economy: Clinton passed on his Economic Failures to Bush. We were in recession before Bush even took office.

SS: We will have to move toward a free market based finance of SS. There is no real chance of anything else working. We make a whopping 2% return now. With COLA running around 4%+ we are actually losing ground.

Jobs: Clinton-Gore Recession is only just ending. Thse jobs havent made a huge comeback yet. Want to bet what they look like in a few months?

Environment: We justy had the cleanest bill of health on 30+ years on Air in America. Sounds great to me. Better than under all the previous Presidents.

Education Reform: The Legislation was pushed by Bush and Ted Kennedy. It is not perfect but it's far better than the 30 years of mediocrity we have been having.

MOveOn.Org.....are they still around making their Kiss of Death Endorsements?

[War Eagle 96 10]

It'd have to be some pretty stupid folks to believe anything on that goofy site.

[Tiger Al 0]

That site is pretty laughable.

Economy: Clinton passed on his Economic Failures to Bush. We were in recession before Bush even took office.

SS: We will have to move toward a free market based finance of SS. There is no real chance of anything else working. We make a whopping 2% return now. With COLA running around 4%+ we are actually losing ground.

Jobs: Clinton-Gore Recession is only just ending. Thse jobs havent made a huge comeback yet. Want to bet what they look like in a few months?

Environment: We justy had the cleanest bill of health on 30+ years on Air in America. Sounds great to me. Better than under all the previous Presidents.

Education Reform: The Legislation was pushed by Bush and Ted Kennedy. It is not perfect but it's far better than the 30 years of mediocrity we have been having.

MOveOn.Org.....are they still around making their Kiss of Death Endorsements?

What's laughable is how you guys hold Dubya up as the moral paradigm to which all others should aspire.

Clinton passed on his economic failures? That's funny. When you're defending the GREAT economy of the 90's Clinton was there simply to sign the wonderful economic package that the REPUBLICAN congress generated. When you want to blame some negative part of the economy on someone, somehow it becomes Clinton's fault? Get your story straight and stick to it, please.

[DKW 86 7,899]

Ah hhhmmmm, My story is this..

We have entered into a normal cycle of decline in 3-2000. It was formally a recession 12-2000. It is normal and overdue. Economists call it a correction. I just have to defend my point that it started before Bush was even in office. We were in Economic Bloom, no doubt. But it had to end sometime. I am just sick of people who do not look at the facts, saying it was Bush's fault.

[ib4au 0]

It'd have to be some pretty stupid folks to believe anything on that goofy site.

Then why don't you refute one by one the quotes from Dubya. Give us a link where he denies having said them.

You don't really think you can win an argument by ignoring the message and shooting the messenger, do you?

Refute the message!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

OK then - one topic chosen at random.

Bush has NOT cut education. In fact, he increased education spending in his first year 38% over the last Clinton budget.

Under George W. Bush, education spending increased from $35.2 billion to $57.9 billion from 2001 to 2003. The Heritage report specifies that "nearly $11 billion of this increase occurred in elementary and secondary education, a result of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act as well as added special education funding. College student financial assistance accounted for much of the remaining increase."

One thing you will learn about this site - we conservatives are more than happy to engage in debate when the opposing position provides RATIONAL, FACT BASED information. But when the information shared is nothing but extremist spin of doubtful qualty, propogated by hatemongers, neither the topic nor the poster will have a lot of credibility, and is really not worth our time spent in response.

[CCTAU 3,536]

That site is pretty laughable.

Economy: Clinton passed on his Economic Failures to Bush. We were in recession before Bush even took office.

SS: We will have to move toward a free market based finance of SS. There is no real chance of anything else working. We make a whopping 2% return now. With COLA running around 4%+ we are actually losing ground.

Jobs: Clinton-Gore Recession is only just ending. Thse jobs havent made a huge comeback yet. Want to bet what they look like in a few months?

Environment: We justy had the cleanest bill of health on 30+ years on Air in America. Sounds great to me. Better than under all the previous Presidents.

Education Reform: The Legislation was pushed by Bush and Ted Kennedy. It is not perfect but it's far better than the 30 years of mediocrity we have been having.

MOveOn.Org.....are they still around making their Kiss of Death Endorsements?

What's laughable is how you guys hold Dubya up as the moral paradigm to which all others should aspire.

Clinton passed on his economic failures? That's funny. When you're defending the GREAT economy of the 90's Clinton was there simply to sign the wonderful economic package that the REPUBLICAN congress generated. When you want to blame some negative part of the economy on someone, somehow it becomes Clinton's fault? Get your story straight and stick to it, please.

WARNING!!!!!

DOG CHASING TAIL ABOVE!!!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

OK then - one topic chosen at random.

Bush has NOT cut education. In fact, he increased education spending in his first year 38% over the last Clinton budget.

Under George W. Bush, education spending increased from $35.2 billion to $57.9 billion from 2001 to 2003. The Heritage report specifies that "nearly $11 billion of this increase occurred in elementary and secondary education, a result of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act as well as added special education funding. College student financial assistance accounted for much of the remaining increase."

One thing you will learn about this site - we conservatives are more than happy to engage in debate when the opposing position provides RATIONAL, FACT BASED information. But when the information shared is nothing but extremist spin of doubtful qualty, propogated by hatemongers, neither the topic nor the poster will have a lot of credibility, and is really not worth our time spent in response.

Jenny, I think you misread the statement. It didn't say that Bush CUT education funding, it said he cut $8 billion of PROMISED funding. This then makes No Child Left Behind an unfunded federal mandate. That means the funding has to come from somewhere. The burden of funding parts of the federal NCLB has been shifted to the states. Education Week reported Thirty-seven states were forced to cut some $12.8 billion from their enacted budgets in fiscal 2002, according to "The Fiscal Survey of States," which was released last week by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, both based in Washington. LINK

One of the ways that Alabama had to fund this was to cut some day care and after school programs. So what, right? Let's say you've got a single mother who's trying to get off welfare and move into the work force, like we want her to. She can't afford daycare, so her kids go to one of the state funded ones, enabling her to work to eventually be able to afford regular daycare. Now, these programs have been drastically cut back and that mom, unfortunately, has to quit work and go back on welfare because she doesn't have anywhere to put her kids now while she works at a better life.

Bob Riley, shortly after Amendment 1 was voted down said that 14,000 such slots would have to be eliminated due to lack of funds. This is just one example of how NCLB, while good in some areas, is wreaking havoc on states budgets. Title I money gets thrown for a loop, too. Welcome to the world of Bush's unfunded mandates. But, he did increase the education budget.

[DKW 86 7,899]

OK then - one topic chosen at random.

Bush has NOT cut education.  In fact, he increased education spending in his first year 38% over the last Clinton budget. 

Under George W. Bush, education spending increased from $35.2 billion to $57.9 billion from 2001 to 2003. The Heritage report specifies that "nearly $11 billion of this increase occurred in elementary and secondary education, a result of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act as well as added special education funding. College student financial assistance accounted for much of the remaining increase."

One thing you will learn about this site - we conservatives are more than happy to engage in debate when the opposing position provides RATIONAL, FACT BASED information.  But when the information shared is nothing but extremist spin of doubtful qualty, propogated by hatemongers, neither the topic nor the poster will have a lot of credibility, and is really not worth our time spent in response.

Jenny, I think you misread the statement. It didn't say that Bush CUT education funding, it said he cut $8 billion of PROMISED funding. This then makes No Child Left Behind an unfunded federal mandate. That means the funding has to come from somewhere. The burden of funding parts of the federal NCLB has been shifted to the states. Education Week reported Thirty-seven states were forced to cut some $12.8 billion from their enacted budgets in fiscal 2002, according to "The Fiscal Survey of States," which was released last week by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, both based in Washington. LINK

One of the ways that Alabama had to fund this was to cut some day care and after school programs. So what, right? Let's say you've got a single mother who's trying to get off welfare and move into the work force, like we want her to. She can't afford daycare, so her kids go to one of the state funded ones, enabling her to work to eventually be able to afford regular daycare. Now, these programs have been drastically cut back and that mom, unfortunately, has to quit work and go back on welfare because she doesn't have anywhere to put her kids now while she works at a better life.

Bob Riley, shortly after Amendment 1 was voted down said that 14,000 such slots would have to be eliminated due to lack of funds. This is just one example of how NCLB, while good in some areas, is wreaking havoc on states budgets. Title I money gets thrown for a loop, too. Welcome to the world of Bush's unfunded mandates. But, he did increase the education budget.

We have lived in the world of unfunded mandates before. The last Demo Congress was notorious about it. Gingrich and the boys basically outlawed it.

The funny stuff here was that Ed money did go up and substantially. I guess it just wasnt enough..... :roll: So let me get this right, in the Dems World, An increase that is smaller than the hallucinated amount, even if the increase is in itself huge, is actually A CUT????????

[Tiger Al 0]

We have lived in the world of unfunded mandates before. The last Demo Congress was notorious about it. Gingrich and the boys basically outlawed it.

If unfunded mandates were outlawed by Gingrich and the boys then why did the boys break the law?

So let me get this right, in the Dems World, An increase that is smaller than the hallucinated amount, even if the increase is in itself huge, is actually A CUT????????

Well, what would you call it when the federal government mandates that you MUST do A, B and C, but only provides funds for A and part of B, leaving the state to fund the rest of B and all of C? I realize how this works in the world of Dubya, though. People are supposed to swoon at No Child Left Behind and the state has to do the dirty work of raising the money somehow, either by cutting other programs as I showed before and/or by raising property taxes and other taxes.

[ib4au 0]

OK then - one topic chosen at random.

Bush has NOT cut education. In fact, he increased education spending in his first year 38% over the last Clinton budget.

Under George W. Bush, education spending increased from $35.2 billion to $57.9 billion from 2001 to 2003. The Heritage report specifies that "nearly $11 billion of this increase occurred in elementary and secondary education, a result of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act as well as added special education funding. College student financial assistance accounted for much of the remaining increase."

One thing you will learn about this site - we conservatives are more than happy to engage in debate when the opposing position provides RATIONAL, FACT BASED information. But when the information shared is nothing but extremist spin of doubtful qualty, propogated by hatemongers, neither the topic nor the poster will have a lot of credibility, and is really not worth our time spent in response.

Thanks. I hope this is rational and fact based enough for you!

Va. Seeks To Leave Bush Law Behind

Republicans Fight School Mandates

By Jo Becker and Rosalind S. Helderman

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, January 24, 2004; Page A01

RICHMOND, Jan. 23 -- The Republican-controlled Virginia House of Delegates sharply criticized President Bush's signature education program Friday, calling the No Child Left Behind Act an unfunded mandate that threatens to undermine the state's own efforts to improve students' performance.

By a vote of 98 to 1, the House passed a resolution calling on Congress to exempt states like Virginia from the program's requirements. The law "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States," the resolution says, and will cost "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have."

The federal law aims to improve the performance of students, teachers and schools with yearly tests and serious penalties for failure. In his State of the Union speech Tuesday, Bush said that "the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children."

Officials in other states also have complained about the effects of the act, signed into law in 2002. But Friday's action in the Virginia House represents one of the strongest formal criticisms to date from a legislative chamber controlled by the president's own party.

The House action came after months of complaints from local and state educators that the federal law conflicts with Virginia's Standards of Learning testing program, in place since 1998 and considered one of the toughest in the nation.

No Republicans voted against the resolution, a fact that House Education Committee Chairman James H. Dillard II (R-Fairfax) said is proof that "the damn law is ludicrous."

"I'm all in favor of accountability and higher standards, but Virginia already has a system in place," said Republican House Caucus Chairman R. Steven Landes (R-Augusta). "This could cost us more money than the money coming in from the federal government."

Eugene W. Hickok, the acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, said his agency is working to provide states with more flexibility, but he added that money is not the issue. According to his agency, Virginia has $170 million in unspent federal education funds available, dating to 2000.

"The resolution essentially says that if states feel like they have been doing a good job, we should give them the money and leave them alone. What state wouldn't say that?" he said. "This law is perhaps a challenge for us to implement, but it is the first comprehensive attempt to make sure that every child everywhere counts. To say no to that is a typical thing for the states to do."

But the resolution reflects a growing concern among Republicans about the program.

As a result of a Republican legislative initiative in Ohio, the state commissioned a study released this month that found the federal government had significantly underfunded No Child Left Behind.

In North Dakota, a resolution sponsored by Democrats that stated the "cost to states of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is as yet unclear" was passed by both the Republican-controlled House and Senate. And the Republican legislature in Utah is considering legislation to forgo the federal money and opt out of the program entirely.

"The Virginia resolution is the strongest-worded Republican-sponsored initiative to pass," said Scott Young, an education policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

He also said that "there is definitely a bipartisan backlash in the states."

Democrats, who plan to make the No Child Left Behind Act a major issue in this year's presidential and congressional elections, seized upon the Virginia House's action. "These Republicans realize what others have for quite a while, which is that No Child Left Behind is just a campaign slogan and it doesn't offer real hope for kids," said Tony Welch, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.

The only delegate to vote against the resolution was a Democrat, Lionell Spruill Sr. (Chesapeake).

Under Virginia's system, students take the SOL exams in English, history, math and science in third, fifth and eighth grades and in high school. For a school to remain fully accredited by the state, 70 percent of its students must pass the exams. Starting this year, students also must pass six high school SOL exams to graduate.

No Child Left Behind requires that every student be proficient in reading and math by the 2013-14 school year. If schools don't make "adequate yearly progress" toward that goal, they risk expensive consequences. Some might be forced to pay for their students to attend higher-performing schools elsewhere, while others would be forced to draw up detailed plans to improve.

The problem, some educators say, is that the No Child Left Behind Act has introduced a different way of judging whether schools are succeeding. It is not enough for 70 percent of students to pass the test. The federal law requires that everyone -- including minorities, students from low-income homes and those with special needs -- meet the same annual goals.

Many schools that have long gotten top marks from the state have now been told they are not making "adequate yearly progress," a confusing situation for parents, according to Virginia Board of Education President Thomas M. Jackson Jr.

Educators nationwide have criticized the law for its testing requirements for students who are enrolled in special education classes and those who don't speak English. Virginia educators say they have found a better way, requiring special education students to take SOL tests only if their personalized education plan calls for them to do so and exempting immigrant children until they have learned English.

"To expect a youngster newly arrived in this country to take and pass an exam in English, it's ridiculous," said Fairfax County School Superintendent Daniel A. Domenech.

Hickok said a "surprising number of students" with special educational challenges in Virginia are not being tested, a situation that could skew the state results. He said he is working with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) and officials in other states to shape better rules for students with limited English skills.

[CCTAU 3,536]

I don't live in Virginia!!!!!

[channonc 466]

Well, I do, and its a perfect example of Bush not following through. He knows there are several states taht are having trouble financially already and then he throws a measure on them that is not properly funded. Typical.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Well, I do, and its a perfect example of Bush not following through. He knows there are several states taht are having trouble financially already and then he throws a measure on them that is not properly funded. Typical.

Virginia is not the only state that's education system is hurt by any more mandates for the federal govt. Hopefully Virginia is different from Alabama in that the unfunded mandate shortfall is the only problem. If that were the only problem that the states had it would be great.

I also don't think that is an exclusive failing of President Bush. Unfunded mandates have been a sore point for most states for many years. I can remember those same words spoken for the past 5 or 6 presidents.

[ib4au 0]

Well, I do, and its a perfect example of Bush not following through.  He knows there are several states taht are having trouble financially already and then he throws a measure on them that is not properly funded.  Typical.

Virginia is not the only state that's education system is hurt by any more mandates for the federal govt. Hopefully Virginia is different from Alabama in that the unfunded mandate shortfall is the only problem. If that were the only problem that the states had it would be great.

I also don't think that is an exclusive failing of President Bush. Unfunded mandates have been a sore point for most states for many years. I can remember those same words spoken for the past 5 or 6 presidents.

TigerMike:

I agree that unfunded mandates have been a problem with other administrations.

However, that is not the point. The point was Bush misspoke....and he knows it, just as you admit by your answer that you know it also.

With past administration we had not created a financial disastor by borrowing hugh sums of money in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

[Tigermike 3,711]

With past administration we had not created a financial disastor by borrowing hugh sums of money in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

I'm not wealthy and I got a tax cut.

I agree that unfunded mandates have been a problem with other administrations.

However, that is not the point.

You are correct the point is this is an election year and the dems will overlook all other unfunded mandates by both parties over the years. But will attempt to make it an issue this year.

[TitanTiger 21,237]

I'm not wealthy either, and my tax cut came in quite handy last year and the year before, especially with a new baby on the way last year. And the increased child tax credit will come in handy this year, not to mention the continued tax cut.

[DKW 86 7,899]

We are sure not wealthy, unless you count blessings, and we got a good chunk in the tax cut.

I guess they must be using the old Clinton ruse where they count the potential income from renting your house out but they do not include the cost of living somewhere else. I kid you not, that was they way Clinton justified his tax hike in 1993.

[Tigermike 3,711]

With past administration we had not created a financial disastor by borrowing hugh sums of money in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

I have in the past suggested that our resident liberal democrats return their tax rebates, but they didn't want to do that. How about you? Will you send your tax return back or will you be as disingenuous as most democrats?

[Tiger Al 0]

I have in the past suggested that our resident liberal democrats return their tax rebates, but they didn't want to do that. How about you? Will you send your tax return back or will you be as disingenuous as most democrats?

Nice strawman.

[ib4au 0]

With past administration we had not created a financial disastor by borrowing hugh sums of money in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

I have in the past suggested that our resident liberal democrats return their tax rebates, but they didn't want to do that. How about you? Will you send your tax return back or will you be as disingenuous as most democrats?

TigerMike:

No, of course you are correct. I did not send my "tax cut" back; I used it to pay my increased property tax which was necessitated by lack of adequate federal funding for education, for "homeland security" for my city and for the higher gas prices.

How about you? Did you send yours back? Or, just used it to pay your increased taxes in other areas?

[Tigermike 3,711]

TigerMike:

No, of course you are correct. I did not send my "tax cut" back; I used it to pay my increased property tax which was necessitated by lack of adequate federal funding for education, for "homeland security" for my city and for the higher gas prices.

How about you? Did you send yours back? Or, just used it to pay your increased taxes in other areas?

Of course I'm not sending mine back. But you must admit that it is the democrats mantra "Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy!" I think if you truly believe that and are against tax cut then you should send it back.

The tax cuts that the democrats hate actually put a little money back in the pockets of the people who earned it, I don't see that as bad. I also don't think it is the Federal Governments place to have to fund education. The states and local governments should do that. But then there are many federal money holes that should be completely covered over and the state an local governments should do a better job of using the money thay take in.

Is it your contention that this modest tax cut is completely responsible for the financial hole that education systems all over the nation find themselves?

[Tiger Al 0]

I think if you truly believe that and are against tax cut then you should send it back.

I've told you before, I checked and you can't send it back.

The tax cuts that the democrats hate actually put a little money back in the pockets of the people who earned it, I don't see that as bad.

Your memory is either short or selectively biased. The tax cuts the Democrats proposed were smaller overall, meaning the total amount was less, and were more targeted to the middle and lower tax payers. Remember, Bush touted the need for tax cuts because they would stimulate the economy and create jobs because people would spend the money, but, the vast majority of the overall money went to the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers who are unlikely to spend the additional money because they don't need to. The tax cuts the Democrats proposed included a higher child credit, an EITC that would extend to lower wage earners with children, increased the standard deduction for couples beyond Bush's, and wouldn't have created the huge budget deficits that we have now.

I also don't think it is the Federal Governments place to have to fund education. The states and local governments should do that.

State and local government DOES do that. Federal education funding for Alabama accounts for less than 10% of the total education expenditure. About 60% is from the state and about 30% is local.

Is it your contention that this modest tax cut is completely responsible for the financial hole that education systems all over the nation find themselves?

Bush's tax cut was anything but modest, weighing in at a cost of $674 billion over ten years vs. the Democrats plan which cost a total of $114 billion over that same time period. And, again, the bulk of Bush's plan went to folks who aren't going to spend it. The top 2% of taxpayers have an average income of just over $1 million and received a tax cut of about $53,000. Contrast that with the lowest 60% of taxpayers who have an average income of $23,000 and they got a cut of about $350 and then, only about 50% of them even got that!

And, here's an interesting little tidbit for you: Eight of the top twelve states, five of the top five, with the highest percentage of taxpayers that got NO tax cut at all in 2003 are in the south, (Alabama was 5th @ 39%) but, Bush will probably win in all eight of those states in November and he'll be singing the praises of his tax cuts to them while he waves his little flag! This was the one where Bush was quoted as saying, "Didn't we already give money to the rich people?"

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Al,

Are you getting your economic stats (& arguments) from the DNC site again?

National Taxpayers Union

This very interesting site lists some income stats from the '01, '00 & '99 tax years (latest ones I could find.) It indicates the top 1% of taxpayers are those that make at or above $292,913. It also shows that if your adjusted gross income is $92,754 or more then you are in the top 10% of household income earners. Even more interesting is that column on the far right (apropo, no?) labeled, "Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid." If you look down to the threshold income level that defines the median, you'll discover that over 96% of the revenue generated from the federal income tax comes from household incomes at the 50th percentile & above (i.e. household incomes of $28,528 or greater.) In other words, if you were President and wanted to "stimulate the economy" through a tax cut, how would you do it? Wouldn't you want it to affect the bulk of tax payers? Say ... oh, I don't know ... maybe the people who pay over 96% of the income taxes?

Again, if your goal is to stimulate the economy then it makes absolutely no economic sense to "target" a tax cut excluding top wage earners because they pay an extraordinary percentage already. If you exclude the top 1% of wage earners, the economy is deprived of the stimulus effect of 37% of income revenue. When the income tax brings in over a $1T, 37% of that is nothing to sneeze at. Excluding the upper 5 & 10% of household incomes from the tax cut makes it even worse -- you're eliminating the stimulus effect of 56 & 67% of over $1T.

It's no surprise to me why the Dems hate the tax cut -- they are content with the status quo of a recessed economy. Any tax cut that leaves out the top 10, 5 or 1% or wage earners will likely have no measurable effect on stimulating the economy. All it does is pander to class envy.